Locklin on science

“AI” and the human informational centipede

Posted in fraud, stats jackass of the month by Scott Locklin on September 2, 2017

Useful journalism about technology is virtually nonexistent in the present day. It is a fact little commented on, but easily understood. In some not too distant past, there were actually competent science and technology journalists who were paid to be good at their jobs. There are still science and technology journalists, but for the most part, there are no competent ones actually investigating things. The wretches we have now mostly assist with press releases. Everyone capable of doing such work well is either too busy, too well paid doing something else, or too cowardly to speak up and notice the emperor has no clothes.

Consider: there are now 5 PR people for every reporter in America.  Reporters are an endangered species. Even the most ethical and well intentioned PR people are supposed to put the happy face on the soap powder, but when they don’t understand a technology, outright deception is inevitable. Modern “reporters” mostly regurgitate what the PR person tells them without any quality control.

The lack of useful reporting is a difficulty presently confronting Western Civilization as a whole; the examples are obvious and not worth enumerating. Competent full time reporters who are capable of actually debunking fraudulent tech PR bullshit and a mandate to do so: I estimate that there are approximately zero of these existing in these United States at the moment.

What happens when marketing people at a company talk to some engineers? Even the most honest marketing people hear what they want to hear, and try to spin it in the best possible way to win the PR war, and make their execs happy.  Execs read the “news” which is basically marketing releases from their competitors. They think this is actual information, rather than someone else’s press release.  Hell, I’ve even seen executives ask engineers for capabilities they heard about from reading their own marketing press releases, and being confused as to why these capabilities were actually science fiction. So, when your read some cool article in tech crunch on the latest woo, you aren’t actually reading anything real or accurate. You’re reading the result of a human informational centipede where a CEO orders a marketing guy to publish bullshit which is then consumed by decision makers who pay for investments in technology which doesn’t do what they think it does.

centipede pyramid

How tech news gets made

Machine learning and its relatives are the statistics of the future: the way we learn about the way the world works. Of course, machines aren’t actually “learning” anything. They’re just doing statistics. Very beautiful, complex, and sometimes mysterious statistics, but it’s still statistics. Nobody really knows how people learn things and infer new things from abstract or practical knowledge. When someone starts talking about “AI,” based on some machine learning technique, the Berzerker rage comes upon me. There is no such thing as “AI” as a science or a technology. Anyone who uses that phrase is a dreamer, a liar or a fool.

You can tell when a nebulous buzzword like “AI” has reached peak “human information centipede;” when oligarchs start being afraid of it. You have the famous example of Bill Joy being deathly afraid of “nanotech,” a previously hyped “technology” which persists in not existing in the corporeal world. Charlatan thinktanks like the “center for responsible nanotechnology” popped up to relieve oligarchs of their easy money, and these responsible nanotech assclowns went on to … post nifty articles on things that don’t exist.

These days, we have Elon Musk petrified that a near relative of logistic regression is going to achieve sentience and render him unable to enjoy the usufructs of his toils. Charlatan “thinktanks” dedicated to “friendly AI” (and Harry Potter slashfic) have sprung up. Goofball non-profits designed to make “AI” more “safe” by making it available as open source (think about that for a minute) actually exist. Funded, of course, by the paranoid oligarchs who would be better off reading a book, adjusting their exercise program or having their doctor adjust their meds.

Chemists used nanotech hype to drum up funding for research they were interested in. I don’t know of anything useful or interesting which came out of it, but in our declining civilization, I have no real problem with chemists using such swindles to improve their funding. Since there are few to no actual “AI” researchers existing in the world, I suppose the “OpenAI” institute will use their ill gotten gainz to fund machine learning researchers of some kind; maybe even something potentially useful. But, like the chemists, they’re just using it to fund things which are presently popular. How did the popular things get popular? The human information centipede, which is now touting deep reinforcement networks as the latest hotness.

My copy of Sutton and Barto was published in 1998. It’s a tremendous and interesting bunch of techniques, and the TD-gammon solution to Backgammon is a beautiful result for the ages. It is also nothing like “artificial intelligence.” No reinforcement learning gizmo is going to achieve sentience any more than an Unscented Kalman filter is going to achieve sentience. Neural approaches to reinforcement learning are among the least interesting applications of RL, mostly because it’s been done for so long. Why not use RL on other kinds of models? Example, this guy used Nash Equilibrium equations to build a pokerbot using RL. There are also interesting problems where RL with neural nets could be used successfully, and where an open source version would be valuable: natural language, anomaly detection. RL frameworks would also help matters. There are numerous other online approaches which are not reinforcement learning, but potentially even more interesting. No, no, we need to use RL to teach a neural net to play freaking vidya games and call it “AI.” I vaguely recall in the 1980s, when you needed to put a quarter into a machine to play vidya on an 8-bit CPU, the machines had pretty good “AI” which was able to eventually beat even the best players. Great work guys. You’ve worked really hard to do something which was doable in the 1980s.

“The bot learned the game from scratch by self-play, and does not use imitation learning or tree search. This is a step towards building AI systems which accomplish well-defined goals in messy, complicated situations involving real humans.”

No, you’ve basically just reproduced TD-gammon on a stupid video game.  “AI systems which accomplish well-defined goals in messy … situations” need to have human-like judgment and use experience from unrelated tasks to do well at new tasks. This thing does nothing of the sort.  This is a pedestrian exercise in what reinforcement learning is designed to do. The fact that it comes with accompanying marketing video (one which probably cost as much as a half year grad student salary, where it would have been better spent) ought to indicate what manner of “achievement” this is.

Unironic use of the word “AI” is a sure tell of dopey credulity, but the stupid is everywhere, unchecked and rampaging like the ending of Tetsuo the Iron Man.

Imagine someone from smurftown took a data set relating spurious correlations in the periodic table of the elements to stock prices, ran k-means on it, and declared himself a hedge fund manager for beating the S&P by 10%. Would you be impressed? Would you you tout this in a public place? Well, somebody did, and it is the thing which finally caused me to chimp out. This is classic Price of Butter in Bangladesh stupid data mining tricks. Actually, price of butter in Bangladesh makes considerably more sense than this. At least butter prices are meaningful, unlike spurious periodic element correlations to stock returns.

This is so transparently absurd, I had thought it was a clever troll. So I looked around the rest of the website, and found a heart felt declaration that VC investments are not bets. Because VCs really caaaare, man. As if high rollers at the horse races never took an interest in the digestion of their favorite horses and superfluous flesh on their jockeys. Russians know what the phrase “VC” means (туалет). I suppose with this piece of information it still could be a clever Onionesque parody, but I have it on two degrees of Erdős and Kevin Bacon that the author of this piece is a real Venture Capitalist, and he’s not kidding. More recently how “Superintelligent AI will kick ass” and “please buy my stacked LSTMs because I said AI.” Further scrolling on the website reveals one of the organizers of OpenAI is also involved. So, I assume we’re supposed to take it seriously. I don’t; this website is unadulterated bullshit.

gartner

Gartner: they’re pretty good at spotting things which are +10 years away (aka probably never happen)

A winter is coming; another AI winter. Mostly because sharpers, incompetents and frauds are touting things which are not even vaguely true. This is tragic, as there has been some progress in machine learning and potentially lucrative and innovative companies based on it will never happen. As in the first AI winter, it’s because research is being driven by marketing departments and irresponsible people.

But hey, I’m just some bozo writing in his underpants, don’t listen to me, listen to some experts:

http://www.rogerschank.com/fraudulent-claims-made-by-IBM-about-Watson-and-AI

http://thinkingmachines.mit.edu/blog/unreasonable-reputation-neural-networks

https://medium.com/project-juno/how-to-avoid-another-ai-winter-d0915f1e4798#.uwo31nggc

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3454567_Avoiding_Another_AI_Winter

Edit Add (Sept 5, 2017):

Congress is presently in hearings on “AI”. It’s worth remembering congress had hearings on “nanotech” in 2006.

http://www.nanotechproject.org/news/archive/congressional_hearing_on_nanotechnology/

“By 2014, it is estimated that there could be $2.6 trillion worth of products in the global marketplace which have incorporated nanotechnology. There is significant concern in industry, however, that the projected economic growth of nanotechnology could be undermined by either real environmental and safety risks of nanotechnology or the public’s perception that such risks exist.”

Edit Add (Sept 10, 2017) (Taken from Mark Ames):

Advertisements

Technologies which did not live up to the hype

Posted in Progress by Scott Locklin on May 14, 2017

There are many, many false technological alleys which continue to be pimped as things worth investing time and money into.

  • Automotive Gas Turbines:
    In the 1960s, several car manufacturers made gas turbines. The batmobile, for example. Turbines were supposed to be “jet age” machines of the future. You could get more fuel efficiency and energy per cubic meter out of the things, plus they were simpler in design (in theory, only one moving part), and easier to cool (they basically cool themselves). Unfortunately, gas turbines are lousy at acceleration in stop and go traffic. You might some day have one in your laptop though.
  • Disco Space Colonies:
    Back in the 1970s, when America had just been exposed to its first real energy crisis, a fellow by the name of Gerald Kitchen O’Neill came up with the marvelous scheme of blasting enormous chunks of glass and metal into space (presumably not using fossil fuels), which would produce clean solar energy and beam it back to earth in the form of microwave radiation. O’Neill wasn’t just some looney with a Pete Rose bowl cut; he invented the particle storage ring. His disco space colony idea was related to this in that he suspected the “mass driver” -a sort of particle accelerator for large pieces of matter he also invented, might one day be an important component for construction of such colonies. He also proposed this immediately after the Apollo Space program, which was a huge success, and made space travel look routine rather than extreme. He forgot to take into account that, at it’s peak, the Apollo program was consuming about 1% of the economic output of America. Just to send a couple of freemasons to the Moon, let alone skyscrapers filled with space colonists, giagantor microwave guns and mongo solar panels made of unobtanium the equivalent distance. Amusingly, a guy named Eric Drexler was one of O’Neill’s proteges via an MIT conference on space colonization in the 1970s. I like to think Drexler realized one could make a career out of making scientific sounding honking noises about impossible technology from hanging out with O’Neill.
  • Nanotech:
    I’d first heard of nanotech as a science fiction plot device. I never gave it much thought until I was writing my Ph.D. thesis. Sitting in the library alone with my laptop in my own personal hell, I did a ton of procrastination reading. One of the things I read was Drexler’s alleged science book on nanotech; “Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation.” I figured it would be interesting and inspiring, as it was a very famous Ph.D. thesis, and of course, nano-stuff is gonna change the world, right? Hell, there was a ton of funding coming into my lab to set up the center for nanotechnology (name changed to equally bullshittium “molecular foundry”); maybe I could stick out my hat and capture some low hanging fruit! By the time I was done this book, I finally made up my mind to go into finance and applied mathematics. It is the sheerest science fiction. Almost every assertion he made about what is possible is wrong. Much of the “science” asserted as fact is obvious baloney. Many of the things he waves around as trivial violate the laws of thermodynamics. Matter simply doesn’t work the way he wants it to. I remember running into a very bright surface scientist who had gotten on board the mighty gravy train of nano-nonsense at tea time shortly after reading this book. I was all, “dude; Drexler is smoking crack!” My pal gave a world weary moue, and agreed that one could make a living correcting Drexler. But, the money was good, and there was interesting material science to be done under the rubric of “nano.”
  • Fuel Cells:
    Fuel cells are one of those ideas that’s been around for almost as long as regular chemical batteries; since the early 1800s. The problem with fuel cells has been obvious since then. They’re hugely expensive, big, fragile and they either require extremely clean fuels like liquid hydrogen, or they wear out fairly quickly. There isn’t much that technology can do about this, though mass production may lower the cost some. And nobody likes the idea of driving around with a bunch of hydrogen in the tank of their car.
  • Biotech:
    Biotech provides employment for a lot of my smart friends. None of them have been able to tell me what their work actually does for humanity. In the realm of human health, it has enabled enormously fat people to live longer and eat more sugar, by making humulin cheaper than what they used to extract from dead racehorses. It also allows idiot bodybuilders to inject themselves with human growth hormone grown in toilet water, instead of HGH extracted from pineal glands of cadavers. There are also enormously expensive and mostly ineffective drugs used in certain kinds of cancer. In agriculture, it has provided some modest benefits, and created an entire industry of paranoids who think they’ll grow 8 heads if they eat genetically modified corn (which gets fed to cows anyway). While this could change in the future, I’ve been hearing about how biotech is going to change everything since Genentech was founded in 1976.
  • Stem Cell Research:
    Remember stem cell research? How we were going to cure Parkinsons and chewing with your mouth open using stem cells? How the eeebil Jeebers creeps from the middle of the country were denying the progress of science by keeping the white jackets in test tubes from sticking embryos in a blender? Well, as I recall, nothing ever came of it. It’s not because it was banhammered (it isn’t, mostly); it’s just not useful. I mean, it was politically useful for beating up on people who are classically religious rather than politically religious people who “fucking love science.” But to first order, the political battle seems to have been the main contribution of stem cell research to human culture.
  • Quantum Computing:
    I opined that it was probably a big nothingburger 7 years ago, despite having myself expended some not-inconsiderable time thinking out the semiclassical dynamics of such a device. Nothing has happened since then to revise my opinion on the subject. It’s now been 32 years since David Deutsch had his big idea. He’ll most certainly die before a useful quantum computer exists. I probably will too, as will everyone reading this prediction, making me, alas, unable to collect on the bet. All you need do is look at history: people had working computers before Von Neumann and other theorists ever noticed them. We literally have thousands of “engineers” and “scientists” writing software and doing “research” on a machine that nobody knows how to build. People dedicate their careers to a subject which doesn’t exist in the corporeal world. There isn’t a word for this type of intellectual flatulence other than the overloaded term “fraud,” but there should be.

I don’t think people should abandon all thought of any of the above subjects. Nor any of the abundant subjects which are presently grossly overrated by futurologists. I do think these historical examples should give any young researcher pause when it comes to devoting their lives to future boondoggles. Do you really want to work in the technological equivalent of macro-economics?

The more hype there is around a subject, the more  marketing personnel and quasi academic mountebanks there are involved in promoting it, the less likely it is to be important or useful. The really important breakthroughs of the last 20-40 years; networking protocols, photolithography improvements, cryptography, various improvements in statistics, signal processing and linear algebra and such; these have been relatively quiet occurrences.

If you want to make a difference in the world, learn some practical math, physics and chemistry. Ignore the wares of humbugs and quacks, keep your nose to the grindstone and read Phil Anderson (greatest physicist of our era);

Feynman’s cryptic remark, “no one is that much smarter …,” to me, implies something Feynman kept emphasizing: that the key to his achievements was not anything “magical” but the right attitude, the focus on nature’s reality, the focus on asking the right questions, the willingness to try (and to discard) unconventional answers, the sensitive ear for phoniness, self-deception, bombast, and conventional but unproven assumptions.

Please stop writing new serialization protocols

Posted in Design, fun by Scott Locklin on April 2, 2017

It seems that every day, some computer monkey comes up with a new and more groovy serialization protocol.

In the beginning, there was ASN.1 and XDR, and it was good. I think ASN.1 came first, and like many old things, it was very efficient. XDR was easier to use. At some point, probably before ASN.1, people noticed you could serialize things using stuff like s-expressions for a human readable JSON like format.

Today, we have an insane profusion of serializers. CORBA (which always sucked), Thrift,  protocol buffers,  Messagepack, Avro,  BSON,  BERT, Property Lists, Bencode (Bram … how could you?), Hessian, ICEEtch, CapnProto (because he didn’t get it right the first time), SNAC, Dbus, MUSCLE, YAML, SXDF, XML-RPC, MIME, FIX, FAST,  JSON, serialization in Python, R, PHP, ROOT and Perl… Somehow this is seen as progress.

Like many modern evils, I trace this one to Java and Google. You see, Google needed a serialization protocol across thousands of machines which had versioning. They probably did the obvious thing of tinkering with XDR by sticking a required header on it which allowed for versioning, then noticed that Intel chips are not Big Endian the way Sun chips were, and decided to write their own  semi shitty versioning version of XDR … along with their own (unarguably shitty) version of RPC. Everything has been downhill since then. Facebook couldn’t possibly use something written at Google, so they built “Thrift,” which hardly lives up to its name, but at least has a less shitty version of RPC in it. Java monkeys eventually noticed how slow XML was between garbage collects and wrote the slightly less shitty but still completely missing the point Avro. From there, every ambitious and fastidious programmer out there seems to have come up with something which suits their particular use case, but doesn’t really differ much in performance or capabilities from the classics.

The result of all this is that, instead of having a computer ecosystem where anything can talk to anything else, we have a veritable tower of babel where nothing talks to anything else. Imagine if there were 40 competing and completely mutually unintelligible versions of html or text encodings: that’s how I see the state of serialization today. Having all these choices isn’t good for anything: it’s just anarchy. There really should be a one size fits all minimal serialization protocol, just the same way there is a one size fits all network protocol which moves data around the entire internet, and, like UTF-8. You can have two flavors of the same thing: one S-exp like which a human can read, and one which is more efficient. I guess it should be little-endian, since we all live in Intel’s world now, but otherwise, it doesn’t need to do anything but run everywhere.

IMO, this is a social problem, not a computer science problem. The actual problem was solved in the 80s with crap like XDR and S-expressions which provide fast binary and human readable/self describable representations of data. Everything else is just commentary on this, and it only gets written because it’s kind of easy for a guy with a bachelors degree in CS to write one, and more fun to dorks than solving real problems like fixing bugs. Ultimately this profusion creates more problems than creating a new one solves: you have to make the generator/parser work on multiple languages and platforms, and each implementation on each language/platform will be of varying quality.

I’m a huge proponent of XDR, because it’s the first one I used (along with RPC and rpcgen), because it is Unixy, and because most of the important pieces of the internet and unix ecosystem were based on it. A little endian superset of this with a JSON style human semi-readable form, and an optional self-description field, and you’ve solved all possible serialization problems which sane people are confronted with. People can then concentrate on writing correct super-XDR extensions to get all their weird corner cases covered, and I will not be grouchy any more.

It also bugs the hell out of me that people idiotically serialize data when they don’t have to (I’m looking at you, Spark jackanapes), but that’s another rant.

Oh yeah, I do like Messagepack; it’s pretty cool.

How to shoot down a stealth fighter

Posted in Design by Scott Locklin on January 20, 2017

Editorial note: I actually wrote most of this five years ago, but was reluctant to publish it for misguided patriotic reasons. Since people are starting to talk about it, I figure I might as well bring some more sense to the discussion.

I’ve already gone on record as being against the F-35. Now it’s time to wax nerdy as to why this is a dumb idea. I’m not against military spending. I’m against spending money on things which are dumb. Stealth fighters are dumb. Stealth bombers: still pretty dumb, but significantly less dumb.

f-35-turkey

I have already mentioned the fact that the thing is designed for too many roles. Aircraft should be designed for one main role, and, well, it’s fine to use them for something else if they work well for that. The recipe for success is the one which has historically produced good airplanes: the P38 Lightning, the Focke-Wulf Fw-190, the F-4, the F-16, the Su-27, and the A-10. All of these were designed with one mission in mind. They ended up being very good at lots of different things. Multi-objective design optimization though, is moronic, and gets us aircraft like the bureaucratic atrocity known as the F-111 Aardvark, whose very name doesn’t exactly evoke air combat awesomeness.

What is stealth? Stealth is a convergence of technologies which makes an aircraft electronically unobservable, primarily via Radar. The anti-radar technology is two-fold: the skin of the aircraft can be radar absorbent, but the main trick is to build the aircraft in a shape which scatters the radio energy away from the radar set which sent the signal.  What is a fighter? A fighter is an aircraft that shoots down other aircraft. Fighters use guns, infrared guided missiles and radar guided missiles. Most modern radar guided missiles work by pointing the missile more or less in the target direction, illuminating the target with radar (from the jet, or from the missile itself; generally from the missile itself these days), and launching. The wavelength of the missile and jet radar is dictated by the physical size of the missile or jet. The main purpose of radar-resistant technology for a stealth fighter is avoiding being detected in the first place by enemy radar, but also defeating radar guided air to air missiles.

Of course, what nobody will tell you: the air to air radar guided missiles haven’t historically been very effective. The US has some of the best ones; the AMRAAM. They’ve only shot down 9 aircraft in combat thus far using this weapon; it has a kill probability of around 50% depending on who you ask. Previous generations of such missiles (the AIM-4AIM-7 and Phoenix) were fairly abysmal. The AIM-4 was a complete failure. The AIM-7, also a turkey in its early versions with a 10% kill probability in the Vietnam War (later versions were better). The Phoenix never managed a combat success, despite several attempts, though it was somehow considered a program success anyway, mostly by paper pushing war nerds. By and large, the venerable IR guided sidewinder works best. Amusingly, the Air Force thought the beyond visual range radar guided air to air missile would make stuff like guns and dogfighting obsolete … back in the 1950s. They were so confident in this, most of the Vietnam era fighters didn’t come equipped with guns. They were completely wrong then. They’re almost certainly wrong now as well. Yet, that is the justification for fielding the gold plated turd known as the F-35; a fighter so bad, it can’t even out fight a 45 year old design.

Oh. Well, stealthy planes can defeat the IR missiles that end up being used most of the time, right? No, actually. The stealthy technology can’t really defeat such missiles, which can now home in on a target which is merely warmer than the ambient air. I could build such a sensor using about $40 worth of parts from Digikey. All aircraft are warmer than the ambient air, even “stealthy” ones. Friction is one of the fundamental laws of physics. So, if a stealth fighter is located at all, by eyesight, ground observers or low frequency radars or whatever: an IR missile is a big danger. Worse, the planes which the US is most worried about are Russian made, and virtually all of them come with excellent IR detectors built into the airframe itself.  Airplane nerds call this technology IRST, and the Russians are extremely good at it; they’ve had world beating versions of this technology since the 1980s. Even ancient and shitty Russian jets come with it built into the airframe. The US seems to have mostly stopped thinking about it since the F-14. A few of the most recent F-18s have it strapped as an expensive afterthought to fuel tanks (possibly going live by 2018), and the F-35 (snigger) claims to have something which shoots sharks with laser beam eyes at enemy missiles, but most of the combat ready inventory lacks such sensors.

There is no immunity to gunfire, of course, so if you see a Stealth fighter with your eyeballs, and are close enough to draw a 6, you can shoot it down.

Now, it’s worth thinking a bit about the fighter role. What good is an invisible fighter? There are a couple of issues with the concept, which has never actually been usefully deployed in combat anywhere in all of history. It is also rarely spoken of. If you want to shoot down other jets with your stealth fighter, you have to find them first. To find them, the best way to do it is using radar. Maybe you can do this with AWACS.  AWACS somewhat assume air superiority has already been established. They’re big lumbering things everyone can see, both because they have giant signatures to radar, and because they are emitting radar signals. Maybe you can turn on your stealth fighter’s radar briefly, and hope the enemy’s electronic warfare facilities can’t see it, or hope the passive radar sensors work. Either way, you had better hope it is a fairly big country, and it is dark outside, or someone could find your stealth fighter. People did a reasonable job of spotting planes with binoculars and telephones back in the day. Modern jets are a little more than twice as fast as WW-2 planes, but that’s still plenty of time to alert air defences. Invisibility to radar guided missiles is only of partial utility; if you’re spotted, and your aircraft isn’t otherwise superior in air combat (the F-22 is), you stand a decent chance of being shot down. So, for practical use as a fighter, stealthiness is only somewhat theoretically advantageous. It’s really the attack/bomber role where Stealthiness shines as a concept; mostly for taking out air defences on the ground.

The F-117 (which was a misnamed stealth attack aircraft, an actual use for the technology) was shot down in the Serbian war by a Hungarian baker  by the name of Zoltan Dani.  The way he  did it was as follows: first, he had working radars. He did this by only turning them on briefly, and moving them around a lot, to avoid wild-weasel bombing raids. He also used couriers and land line telephones instead of radio to communicate with the rest of his command structure; he basically had no radio signal which could have been observed by US attack aircraft. He also had “primitive” hand tuned low-frequency radars. Low frequency means long wavelength. Long wavelength means little energy is absorbed by the radar absorbent materials, and, more importantly, almost none of it is scattered away from the radar receiver. Since the wavelength of a low-frequency radar is comparable to the size of the aircraft itself, the fine detail which scatters away modern centimeter-wavelength radars doesn’t have much effect on meter-wavelength radar. Mr Dani shot his SA-3 missiles up, guided it in using a joystick, and that was the end of the F-117, a trophy part of which now hangs in the garage of a Hungarian baker in Serbia.

zoltan-dani-the-serbian-commander-who-shot-down-f-117a-620x330

best hunting trophy ever

Similarly, if you want to shoot down stealth fighters, you need an integrated air defense system which uses long wavelength radars to track targets, and you dispatch interceptors to shoot them down with IR missiles, guided in by the air defense radar. Which is exactly how the Soviet Mig-21 system worked. It worked pretty well in Vietnam. It would probably work well against F-35’s, which are not as maneuverable as Mig-21’s in a dogfight. The old Mig-21 certainly costs less; I could probably put a Mig-21 point defense system on my credit cards. Well, not really, but it’s something achievable by a resourceful individual with a bit of hard work. A small country (I dunno; Syria for example) can afford thousands of these things. The US probably can’t even afford hundreds of F-35s.

Maybe the F-35 is going to be an OK replacement for the F-117? Well, sorta. First off, it is nowhere near as stealthy. Its supersonic abilities are inherently unstealthy: sonic boom isn’t stealthy, afterburners are not stealthy, and supersonic flight itself is pretty unstealthy. It does have an internal “bomb bay.” You can stuff one 2000lb JDAM in it (or a 1000lb one in the absurd VTOL F-35B). The F-117 had twice the capacity, because it was designed to be a stealth attack plane from the get go, and didn’t have to make any compromises to try to get it to do 10 other things. You could probably hang more bombs on an F-35’s ridiculously stubby little wings. But bombs hanging on a wing pylon make a plane non-stealthy. So do wing pylons. In clean, “stealthy” mode, the thing can only fly 584 miles to a target, making it, well, I guess something with short range and limited bomb carrying capability might be useful. The F-117 had twice the range. So, an F-35 is about a quarter as effective in the attack role as the F-117 was, without even factoring in the fact that it is only about a twice the radar cross section of an F-117. It kind of sucks how the F-35 costs a lot more than the F-117, which was designed for and demonstrably more useful for this mission. It’s also rather confusing to me as to why we need 2000 such things if they ain’t fighters with a significant edge against, say, a late model F-16 or Superhornet. But then, I’m not a retired Air Force General working at Lockheed. I’m just some taxpayer in my underpants looking on this atrocity in complete disbelief.

There are three things which are actually needed by Air Force procurement.  We have a replacement for the F-15 in air superiority role: the F-22. It works, and it is excellent; far more effective than the F-35, cheaper and stealthier to boot. We can’t afford many of them, and they have problems with suffocating their pilots, but we do have them in hand. If it were up to me, I’d keep the stealthy ones we got, make them attack planes, and build 500 more without the fancy stealth paint for air superiority and ground attack. It will be cheaper than the F-35, and more capable. Everyone will want to “update the computers.” Don’t.

The most urgent need is for a replacement for the F-16; a small, cheap fighter plane that can be used in the interceptor/air superiority role. The US needs it. So do the allies. It doesn’t need to be stealthy; stealth is more useful in the attack role. Building a better F-16 is doable: the Russian MIG-35, and Dassault Rafale all manage it (maybe the Eurofighter Typhoon also, though it isn’t cheap). I’m sure the US could do even better if they’d concentrate on building a fighter, rather than a do-everything monstrosity like the F-35. I’m sure you can strap bombs to a super F-16 and use it in the attack role as well, once your stealth attack planes have taken out the local SAMS and your air superiority planes have taken out the fighters. Making a fighter plane with a bomb-bay for stealth, though, is a loser idea. If I were king of the world: build a delta winged F-16. The prototype already exists, and there was nothing wrong with the idea. It’s pathetic and disgusting that the national manufacturers simply can’t design even a small and cheap replacement for the ancient T-38 supersonic trainers. All of the postulated ones under consideration are foreign designs. The best one is actually a Russian design; the Yak-130.

The second need is a replacement for the F-117 for stealthy attack on radar and infrastructure. F-35 doesn’t even match the F-117 in this role. The F-22 almost does, but it is expensive and largely wasted on this role. I thought the Bird of Prey was a pretty good idea; something like that would serve nicely. Maybe one of the stealthy drones will serve this purpose. Whatever it is, you could build lots of them for the price of a few dozen F-35s.

Finally, we urgently need a decent attack plane for close air support. The F-35, and F-35B will be a titanic failure in this role. They have neither the armor nor endurance required for this. You could shoot it down with a large caliber rifle shooting rounds that cost $0.50. This one is dirt simple: even the A-10 is too complicated. Just build a propeller driven thing. Build a turboprop A-1 Skyraider. The Tucano is too small to cover all the bases. Presumably someone can still build a F4U Corsair or F6F Hellcat and stick a turboprop in it, some titanium plates around the cockpit, and shove a 30mm cannon in the schnozz. People build such things in their backyards. It shouldn’t be beyond the magnificent engineering chops of the present day “Skunk Works” at Lockheed or one of the other major manufacturers. Using inflation on the A-1 or calculating such a device as approximately 1/4 of a C-130, you should be able to build one in the $5m range and have 30-50 of them for each F-35 they replace.

The entire concept of “Stealth Fighter” is mostly a fraud. Stealth bombers and tactical attack planes have a reasonable use case. Stealth fighters are ridiculous. The F-35 is a gold plated turd which should be flushed down the toilet.

The Parable of Zoltán Dani: Dragon Slayer

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-china-the-us-navys-possible-stealth-killer-coming-18966

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/01/pentagons-300-billion-dollar-bomb

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a8107/russian-made-tech-vs-americas-stealth-warplanes-13506974/

https://warisboring.com/the-pentagon-has-figured-out-how-to-hunt-enemy-stealth-fighters-3acf9d25cd44#.lm0ryanaa