FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
52% Positive
Analyzed from 2677 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#more#saab#don#military#draft#https#should#aircraft#need#dod
Discussion (115 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Nothing happened. I went home and read the manual. S stand for sport. It keeps the engine in a higher gear than normal for quicker response
https://youtu.be/7WZ-D_HT3y8
Hats off to Anduril for shaking up the space. Wonder if the Swedes will be able to match them.
Do we really need a VTOL version? I don’t know, maybe. Or maybe it looks cool and we can do without / spend that money elsewhere.
The problem is, will there be enough of a demand? Part of why military procurement programs are stretched so long now is because the hot war that these things might be used in (aka, an all out direct war with Russia or China) is... increasingly unrealistic, but at the same time the US (or EU) still have to maintain the know-how, and we don't need hundreds or thousands of unit which makes the unit price including R&D extremely high.
As it stands US tech companies don't want to do high volume low cost drones, so ukraine will likely end up doing it and become the supplier for other countries.
In what sense do you mean that?
Make the Pentagon finally pass an audit. Cut its funding. It is clear the profligacy is incentivizing bad decisions - the new normal in the Strait of Hormuz being only the latest.
It's clearly too much of a toy and too much capability for the past few decades of both civilian and military administration. An entire generation only knows the United States military as an institution of blunder, excess and failure.
After cleaning house, the United States should also bring back the draft. More social spending should be paired with more public service. It will be harder to start wars of choice and treat veterans like beggars when everyone's kids will have to sacrifice. This will not degrade capability, as many of the most capable militaries in the world have a draft - notably Israel. Making people from Iowa and New York serve together would be good for a dangerously fracturing country. The "volunteer professional" military was created to get around opposition to Vietnam. It's a disgrace.
https://www.dodig.mil/DoW-Financial-Statement-Audit-Explaine...
In the meantime, cutting funding accomplishes nothing and only punishes troops who can't do anything to fix the core problems. Despite the enormous budget the DoD is actually underfunded for their assigned missions. This is causing escalating failures and reducing readiness. The only solution is to scale back the missions, and that can only be done by Congress and the President. This is fundamentally a political issue so vote accordingly.
The notion of bringing back the draft is stupid. Most US senior military leaders don't even want conscripts: they're generally unmotivated, cause morale problems, and don't stick around. For an offensive expeditionary force they're worse than useless. Comparisons to Israel are irrelevant because they operate a territorial defense force which isn't expected to conduct sustained power projection far beyond their own borders. And it the new era of autonomous systems there's little need for mass armies anyway.
Veterans are hardly treated like beggars. Those who complete a full 20+ years of service (or are medically retired) receive a solid pension and medical benefits. While there are some flaws in the military retirement and disability system, and occasionally veterans don't get the services they deserve, it generally works pretty well for such a huge system.
This is an interesting angle I hadn't considered. Why do you think territorial defense vs force projection matters for motivation/morale? Is the idea that territorial defense is more moral? (I'm not the parent, nor am I an advocate for the draft--I'm just curious as I haven't thought much about it)
Israel gave presentations to DoD that said they could affect regime change in Iran. The DoD said “lol yeah, okay buddy, ain’t now way in hell.” Israel had a single audience, Trump, and just had to play into his ego + pretending that this would be Venezuela 2.0.
If most Americans don't want to fight sustained wars overseas, America should not fight. That is the point. It is easy to make declaring war a distant political issue when a tiny subset of the population fights, yet creates problems for generations across the world. The effects of interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran will likely continue to be felt for generations, and likely make future attacks on the homeland more probable given the asymmetric consequences of the United States continuing to create failed quagmires abroad.
The Iraq War would have probably not happened the way it did if there was a draft. If most Americans don't want to fight, then America should not go to war. What could be a simpler democratic principle?
Instead you seem to support and make excuses for a volunteer military, one with an (at minimum) two decade history of failure, whose hubris and excesses have multiplied in a time of increasing political polarization, lack of faith in institutions (gee, I wonder why?), and as you say, technological change.
Why would this not be a time for radical reform? Why should we ever allow any president or congress to inherit such an institution?
Generals shouldn't always get what they want. Civilian oversight cannot be effective if the gap between civilians and professional service members is so wide. Kennedy famously had to talk down professional generals that bordered on homicidal. Luckily, he was was a veteran himself and was willing to resist their more outrageous impulses. We may not be so lucky next time. More people in the room, and in the military can only lead to better outcomes. If this makes a few trigger happy generals less happy, so be it. It should not be so easy to send men into battle. That is the problem you are failing to appreciate. The problem with the military is that it is too easy. As such, your claim about it being underfunded strikes me as some type of semantic game. If you listen to the alcoholic running the Pentagon, we are wildly succeeding. He doesn't seem to take his job seriously enough. Perhaps it is because it is rather easy for him to obliterate targets and cause chaos from the sky, with minimal repercussions? The cost of this escapade approaching what, $100 billion? And you want to give them more? For what mission are they underfunded? A land invasion? More bombs? More air defense? What more should we take from the American taxpayer to make this make sense? Maybe we should repeat 2003 and invade an adjacent country that has nothing to do with this again?
If everyone had to serve, then perhaps the next time they will have to actually convince the country and the men in their care of the virtue of their purpose. Nothing could be more desirable in a democratic society.
However, in today's society, I think it would be most important to have a draft for everyone, not just young man. Otherwise it would be social dynamite. See South Korea.
Personally, I would prefer a mandatory choice for everyone (no bone spurs) between social services (e.g. working in a hospital), ecological services (e.g. reforestation), technical services (e.g. firefighters) and military service. Everyone having to do one year for society. It would be a unifying shared experience if done right. People of different background would be exposed to each other, a reliable way to fight bias and prejudice.
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBE41A9VT3Q
From stationary to airborne in 8 seconds.
But nooo, SAAB sold their auto division to GM in 2005.
It was quite the Saab story.
Or just bring the 9-3 Turbo back!
I never saw a 900 do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_35_Draken
Especially the top view:
https://www.flyajetfighter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Sa...
Though I prefer this picture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20171007130915!Saab_Drake...
Reminds me of Apogees Raptor and similar fighter plane DOS games.
That being said, perhaps we find something more productive to do with our time as humans?
#1. For russia / ukraine neither side has air superiority. If one side had it, they could be obliterating the other side with a constant stream of 500 lb gravity bombs. Each of which has more explosives than 100 drones.
#2. For us / iran, the US is unwilling to risk any pilots. And iran has some air defenses in place. The US could drop bombs from up close, gravity mk-82's and jdams every hour for months. Currently they are using standoff weapons which are either minimally effective (drones) or crazy expensive (Tomohawk, Standard Missile, etc.)
One B1 gets shot down, and 4 crew get paraded around in downtown Tehran, and what little support trump has will vanish.
What am I trying to say? Drones have a place. They don't obsolete anything. The key is to have the weapons available to meet the time in which they are needed.
It would be nice if humans could find ways to not kill each other, but the reality is humans have a very poor track record and you would be a fool to not put at least some effort into defending yourself.
Rich free market democracies don't fight wars against each other.
The greatest failure of the past 20 years was the belief that if we open up trade and grow rich together, rational self-interest will lead to liberalization and peace. Instead, it just gave our enemies more resources to spend on self-destructive imperialist ambitions.
- NATO v Yugoslavia 1999 - India v Pakistan 1999 - Russia v Georgia 2008 - Russia v Ukraine 2014, 2022
Economic warfare also does in fact kill people. Denying a population, e. g., Cuba, the ability to access medicine/food kills humans just as well as a bullet in the long term.
There are various other ways this causes suffering. Different forms of warfare are still warfare, even if you don't to hold a gun for all of them.
Being "rich" also requires someone else to be "poor".
When all you make are hammers, all your enemies look like nails.
“Saab has unveiled its A3 collaborative combat aircraft concept—an autonomous, tailless, supersonic, double-delta-wing air vehicle”