[scott_w]

You’re overstating how good guided munitions are. They’re not magic. The further out from the target, the harder it is to hit that target. There’s a reason the USA flew a B2 stealth bomber into Iran instead of lobbing munitions over. And they could only do that because Israel had wiped out their AA capabilities.

Guided munitions are a piece of the puzzle but I don’t think we’ve seen evidence that they can fully replace the ability to point to something on a map, fly planes over and make that thing not be on the map any more.

[qwytw]

> There’s a reason the USA flew a B2 stealth bomber into Iran instead of lobbing munitions over

Wasn't it because the only optional they had if they wanted to do any damage was the GBU-57 (which probably wasn't close to being enough but still..)?

Cruise missiles are offer pretty decent precision for ground targets (supposedly around 5 meters).

[scott_w]

But even with that you need to find targets, for which only piloted stealth jets work. Then at that point, you may as well drop some ordnance on it while you’re there.

The thing is, we can sit here on HN thinking we’re so clever but ACTUAL MILITARY LEADERS want to use F-35s so they clearly have insight and knowledge that we don’t.

[qwytw]

> but ACTUAL MILITARY LEADERS

Historically they are rarely very good at being able to tell how the next war is going to be fought.

Sure I suppose most generals these days are much smarter than the ones leading the French army back in 1940 (or pretty much anyone at the outbreak of WW1) but that's a very low standard..

[scott_w]

> Historically they are rarely very good at being able to tell how the next war is going to be fought.

Is the fact they aren't good at knowing how the next war will be fought because they're bad at it or because that's a hard problem?

Put more specifically: if you were to fight that next war, do you think you'd do a better job than Admiral Sir Tony Radakin or General Randy George?

[qwytw]

> they're bad at it or because that's a hard problem?

Sometimes either, sometimes both. Historically it wasn't uncommon for mean who were exceptionally incompetent and ill suited to the position to end up leading the militaries of major powers (e.g. Gamelin, Cadorna, Fredendall and plenty of others)

Whether I would do a better job [obviously I wouldn't] seems entirely tangential and a pointless argument in general (especially considering I didn't even make any particularly strong claims. I certainly never claimed that the F35 is not the best fighter jet that's available currently).

Regardless decisions related to things like this are not made by individuals and are usually highly political, based on compromises and several decades in advance.

[scott_w]

> The thing is, we can sit here on HN thinking we’re so clever

This was the precursor to the statement you objected to. It seems pretty central to my point: we only have access to public data and have no experience leading any military campaign. I’m willing to have a discussion to learn more but I’m ultimately going to trust that military people are looking at drone warfare in Ukraine and still trust the F-35 to be good value for money.

> based on compromises and several decades in advance.

Using drones in war has been a theoretical possibility since at least 2010, so I believe it’s definitely factored into their thinking.