Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This article is pretty darned informative, and has answered a few questions recently posed (yes, Virginia, LM did support the recent "deployment" to Hill):

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-35-stealth-fighter-the-ultimate-weapon-or-the-ultimate-17016?page=2

Thank god they referenced the hot fuel trucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank god they referenced the hot fuel trucks.

And the control law test with the F-16D.

"The Air Force, Lockheed and foreign buyers have all pushed back against these claims"

Then why even bring it up at all?

This article is pretty darned informative, and has answered a few questions recently posed (yes, Virginia, LM did support the recent "deployment" to Hill):

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-35-stealth-fighter-the-ultimate-weapon-or-the-ultimate-17016?page=2

Informative my @$$.

"As of 2016, the Air Force’s F-35A can carry a maximum of two of the 500-pound weapons in its internal bomb bays. The jets can carry more weapons on external racks, but must sacrifice their stealthy characteristics in the process.

By comparison, photographs from recent strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq show Warthogs carrying three GBU-12s on one pylon. F-16s routinely lug pairs of precision weapons under each wing."

The implication being that the F-35 can't carry as much as the A-10 or F-16. He makes no mention of the lack of any LO requirement over Iraq or Syria, in which case an F-35 can out-carry the Viper and at least match the Hog's bomb-carrying payload.

"The most recent concern is a discovery that the F-35’s ejection seats may not be safe. Tests have shown that pilots weighing between 103 and 136 pounds have at least a one in five chance of dying if they bail out"

No one seems to mind that F/A-18s have had this same issue for decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The implication being that the F-35 can't carry as much as the A-10 or F-16. He makes no mention of the lack of any LO requirement over Iraq or Syria, in which case an F-35 can out-carry the Viper and at least match the Hog's bomb-carrying payload.

You don't need stealth to bomb ISIS!! If we give it external ordnance it compromises it's stealth!!

No one seems to mind that F/A-18s have had this same issue for decades.

Shhh...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you two lovebirds get your panties any more knotted, there are some real issues here. Sure, the article references War is Boring, BUT (and it is a BIG BUT):

Internal carriage of the 2000 JDAM is a big damn deal for the AF variant. Because if they can't carry them internally, they can't carry them externally either. It is an IOC requirement they'll let slip if they do it without the 2000 bomb. And there are plenty of time where a 500lb wont do.

The fuel chiller trucks is another issue that impacts some operations. It is also a fact of life with 5th Gen aircraft that aren't swiss cheesed with cooling vents. Meh.

The big one to me is the LM support when deployed. We actually do that in the war zone, so that's one thing, but don't blow smoke up my @$$, thank you very much, pretending the "deployment" to Hill proved the F-35 was King freakin' Kong. King Kong with it's hand held by mommy, maybe.

And the ISIS comparison? Please, stop. Give me a C-130 with a decent load master and a crate full of GBUs. That's all the air power you need. It's working just fine for the Russians.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you two lovebirds get your panties any more knotted, there are some real issues here. Sure, the article references War is Boring, BUT (and it is a BIG BUT):

Internal carriage of the 2000 JDAM is a big damn deal for the AF variant. Because if they can't carry them internally, they can't carry them externally either. It is an IOC requirement they'll let slip if they do it without the 2000 bomb. And there are plenty of time where a 500lb wont do.

The fuel chiller trucks is another issue that impacts some operations. It is also a fact of life with 5th Gen aircraft that aren't swiss cheesed with cooling vents. Meh.

The big one to me is the LM support when deployed. We actually do that in the war zone, so that's one thing, but don't blow smoke up my @$$, thank you very much, pretending the "deployment" to Hill proved the F-35 was King freakin' Kong. King Kong with it's hand held by mommy, maybe.

And the ISIS comparison? Please, stop. Give me a C-130 with a decent load master and a crate full of GBUs. That's all the air power you need. It's working just fine for the Russians.

You seem to be reading a lot into my rather small comments.

Even with swiss cheese vents legacy aircraft overheat too. For some reason this is treated like it's insanely unique to one aircraft, and all because a blogger on a car blog said so? The best part is the same blogger mentioned the issue has never actually happened and was simply precautionary. An incredible amount of hand wringing and reference for something that never happened in the first place.

My first blog post:

"F-35 cant fly into outer space"

Please link and reference it

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was a bit tongue in cheek too. But when you only attack the negative points, and don't own that the jet still has some growing to do, AND is insanely behind schedule as they whittle away capability to make it fit into what time remains, it strikes me as a bit delusional.

Comparing it to old crap that wasn't supposed to fix all the sins of old crap makes NO sense. Sure, the F-151617181920 whatever will tear you entrails out if you slip on the boarding ladder. Got that. But the F-35 was supposed to have the first ever nondisembowleing entry ladder, and it still spills guts on the tarmac. That's the whole point. Not to be as good as, or have the same problems as, but be better. And not by a little.

And by and large, it is leaps better. But you can't pick and choose SUPER AWESOME RADAAAAAARRRRR while ignoring they should have fixed inerting 7 years ago when it was really raised as a survivability issue.

Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was a bit tongue in cheek too. But when you only attack the negative points, and don't own that the jet still has some growing to do, AND is insanely behind schedule as they whittle away capability to make it fit into what time remains, it strikes me as a bit delusional.

Comparing it to old crap that wasn't supposed to fix all the sins of old crap makes NO sense. Sure, the F-151617181920 whatever will tear you entrails out if you slip on the boarding ladder. Got that. But the F-35 was supposed to have the first ever nondisembowleing entry ladder, and it still spills guts on the tarmac. That's the whole point. Not to be as good as, or have the same problems as, but be better. And not by a little.

And by and large, it is leaps better. But you can't pick and choose SUPER AWESOME RADAAAAAARRRRR while ignoring they should have fixed inerting 7 years ago when it was really raised as a survivability issue.

Just saying.

Yut.

Never said it was perfect, simply saying to deserves a better brand of critic. Preferably unbiased, and versed in the history and technical aspects of fighter development. When you are mixing genuine problems, with ridiculousness, mole hills turn into mountains and mountains get utterly missed. Worse still these reports get drilled into psyches and don't change. Which is why once again, we see the fuel trucks referenced

An excellent summation of the CANADA Paradox:

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-canadian-government-must-include-f-35-jets-in-the-search-for-a-new-fighter-plane

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yut.

Never said it was perfect, simply saying to deserves a better brand of critic. Preferably unbiased, and versed in the history and technical aspects of fighter development. When you are mixing genuine problems, with ridiculousness, mole hills turn into mountains and mountains get utterly missed. Worse still these reports get drilled into psyches and don't change. Which is why once again, we see the fuel trucks referenced

It's worse than that. The whole article was lazy. It was nothing but the same - and old - talking points, many of which have been either refuted or disproven. But they garner clicks and shares and gives a bunch of people with no experience an excuse to whine. And yes, that's what they are, whines, and as such, they have no reason to be respected.

AND is insanely behind schedule as they whittle away capability to make it fit into what time remains, it strikes me as a bit delusional

What are you, new? That's happened to every new aircraft procurement project in the past 50 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the article hit the nail square on the head in many areas...finally someone with common sense and logic. The comment section however illustrates just how ingrained the misunderstandings and flat out hatred the Canadian media and the current Administration has instilled in many Canadians regarding the F-35. Although I think more and more Canadians are slowly becoming aware just how bad a decision it would be to buy the SH over the F-35.

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the article hit the nail square on the head in many areas...finally someone with common sense and logic. The comment section however illustrates just how ingrained the misunderstandings and flat out hatred the Canadian media and the current Administration has instilled in many Canadians regarding the F-35. Although I think more and more Canadians are slowly becoming aware just how bad a decision it would be to buy the SH over the F-35.

:cheers:/>

I think it's funNY that no matter how many competitions the super hornet doesn't win, and no matter how many times 10 other air forces choose the F-35, people are convinced that if there is a competition in canada the results will somehow be different.

As the comments demonstrate haters gonna hate no matter how open and transparent the competition. They will simply dismiss the results. Canadians that dislike the F-35 and call for a competition will dislike it after it wins yet again, for whatever excuse.

"We want a fair and open competition! Super hornet vs F-35!"

"Ok look at denmark"

"It was rigged!!"

Oh boy

Link to post
Share on other sites

F-35 Very ‘Raptorish,’ Adversary Pilot Says

By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

ARLINGTON, Va. — An experienced fighter pilot who has flown in mock combat against the Marine Corps’ F-35B Lightning II strike fighter has described the F-35’s performance as similar to that of the Air Force’s F-22A Raptor air superiority fighter.

“I was just flying at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort [s.C.] about three weeks ago against the F-35s,” said Jeff Parker, a former Air Force fighter pilot and now chief executive officer of Airborne Tactical Advantage Co. (ATAC) — a unit of Textron Airborne Solutions — that provides commercially operated adversaries, jet fighters that pose as enemy aircraft to train Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force fighter pilots. “The F-35Bs “are very ‘Raptorish’ in their training and the aircraft is a very capable airplane in the air-to-air arena.”

Parker, speaking July 18 in a teleconference with reporters, also described the challenge of providing adversary services to fifth-generation fighter aircraft like the F-22 and F-35.

“Fifth-generation aircraft have a generous appetite for bad guys — for bandits.” Parker said. “They need a lot of adversaries in order to challenge them because their systems are so spatially aware and limited only by the number of missiles that they carry. We have flown against Raptors on many occasions; they are a very impressive aircraft.”

An F-22 can carry six AIM-120 air-to-air missiles and when a section of two F-22s trains, “ideally they want 12 bandits; the minimum is eight, I believe,” he said. “The F-35 will be a little more missile-limited, but you still are going to want to max out your missile supply [and bandits to counter], because you can.”

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160719-f35.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

71201.jpg

IDFAF tail design, by Ra'anan Weiss

Stealth Tail

The "Adir" will be the first stealth fighter in the IAF and upon its landing it will bring new abilities to the force. In order to design a tail for a stealth fighter, while considering its different characteristics and without damaging its unique abilities, careful work with suitable means is necessary.

Ra'anan Weiss, a graphic designer that has been working with the IAF for many years and that has designed many squadron symbols and aircraft tails in the past 25 years, explains the story behind the design of the "Adir" tails. "The squadron approached me to design a new symbol for them in preparation for the arrival of the jets and afterwards it was decided that I would design the jets' tail as well", Weiss shared. "Because it is a stealth fighter, it cannot be painted in regular colors that are usually used. The Americans defined one hue of grey, which doesn't damage the jet's stealth, with which we will paint all of the markings. They are currently developing more hues which will be usable on the jets".

The background of the "Golden Eagle" Squadron's symbol is colored in black and in the center of the symbol there is a yellow bird and behind it green lines that create a 3-D sensation, so it looks like the bird is coming closer. The frame of the symbol is grey and indicates the color of the "Adir" jets. "The artistic background for the tail design was the squadron symbol that I designed. The bird in the symbol is the same bird from the squadron's old symbol, which we modernized. I kept its general guidelines but sharpened the wings and feathers and created ‘shoulders', so it would look like the F-35I. The new bird has elements that imply to fighter jets and attack".

http://m.iaf.org.il/2392-46855-en/IAF.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you, new? That's happened to every new aircraft procurement project in the past 50 years.

I fully expect to get the full afterburner in the face for this but hey...f&£k it.

Here is my simple question. Why, after "50 years" of delays, various failures, cost overruns etc, etc, in aircraft procurement do governments/air forces still fall for the same old bulls€!t from aircraft manufacturers about we'll give you X for $Y? Haven't they learnt their lesson?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully expect to get the full afterburner in the face for this but hey...f&£k it.

Here is my simple question. Why, after "50 years" of delays, various failures, cost overruns etc, etc, in aircraft procurement do governments/air forces still fall for the same old bulls€!t from aircraft manufacturers about we'll give you X for $Y? Haven't they learnt their lesson?

Because the govt/military constantly changes its requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully expect to get the full afterburner in the face for this but hey...f&£k it.

Here is my simple question. Why, after "50 years" of delays, various failures, cost overruns etc, etc, in aircraft procurement do governments/air forces still fall for the same old bulls€!t from aircraft manufacturers about we'll give you X for $Y? Haven't they learnt their lesson?

You assume the cost overruns are entirely the fault of the contractors? What do you think happens when the government constantly changes requirements and adds more gizmos and stuff to the design and changes the order number and schedule constantly?

Government:"Can we add/change this?"

Contractor: sure --but it will cost more

Government: great! do it!

After a few more rounds of this the bill comes due and it's "hey! This is more costly than you said it would be!! Now we won't buy as many!!"

Contractor: fine, but that will drive up the cost per unit...

There are firms that refuse to work with the government for just these reasons. Think about that, that's steady work for years but it can be so intensely frustrating that people refuse to take the job.

For some reason the government aka the customer never takes a public hit. It has to be the fault of the contractors, and of course new rules and regulations on those evil liars, which further increases costs and slows things down even more, which in turn creates more rules and regulations! In the meantime the complexity and demands of the Weapon systems continues to increase.

You can see the results, and the frustration all around. The marines can't get a new Amtrak, the army can't field a scout helicopter, the navy can't get new ships. No worries surely more laws and regs will help. Here's a question. Is it getting better or worse compared to the "rock and roll" days of the past when those same "unregulated", evil, bribed contractors got some room to do the job?

Talked to a boeing guy who told me they have to shut the line down about every 3 days for whatever government inspector is checking things that day. LM has complained about having to hire people just to comply and regulate their required paper work. All of that is passed onto the taxpayer, who is getting double screwed-- first they pay inspectors to stop it, then they pay the company for the work stoppage.

How does this fit with JSF? A small example: Originally only 1/3 were supposed to have the EOTS. Now it's 100 percent. Is that the right move? Yes... But it will cost more. Both sides point the figure and both sides have reason to. Contractors are not perfect, but hardly the only ones to blame.

The last Marine Commandant complained of the procurement system being "constipated" which is a nice way of saying you jeep feeding it and feeding it and you aren't getting $h/t!

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully expect to get the full afterburner in the face for this but hey...f&£k it.

Here is my simple question. Why, after "50 years" of delays, various failures, cost overruns etc, etc, in aircraft procurement do governments/air forces still fall for the same old bulls€!t from aircraft manufacturers about we'll give you X for $Y? Haven't they learnt their lesson?

Your "simple" question assumes the following:

1. It assumes that all of the responsibility falls solely upon the manufacturers. That assumes that Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, General Dynamics, Grumman, McDonnell Douglas, Convair, Rockwell, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney, General Electric, Martin-Baker, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Rolls-Royce, FLIR Systems, BAE, Raytheon, etc. are all consistently incompetent.

2. It assumes that the customer (DoD, USAF, USN, USMC, partner nations, etc) are not at fault in any way, shape or form; that they never request changes, that they never change requirements, that partners on the client side are always, in 100% agreement on everything, 100% of the time. It assumes that bureaucracy, bloat, rules, regulations, etc. on the customer side never gets in the way, or causes any delays or problems what so ever.*

3. It assumes that developing new technologies (materials, manufacturing, avionics, etc.) is as smooth to develop as simply recycling old technologies. Every generation of aircraft has had new technologies that didn't exist previously, technologies that had to be developed to meet requirements that didn't exist in the previous generation, technology that has to counter threats that didn't exist previously, technology that has to be cutting edge for decades.

4. It assumes that nothing unexpected or unforeseen ever happens.

5. It assumes that civilian and political leaders never cut funding for R&D, thus delaying progress and inhibiting features that were a part of the initial requirements set forth for the project, and it assumes that even in the face of said budget cuts, the originally spec'd project should still be delivered. Funding a program must be timely so that the contractor doesn't have to keep running to the bank to support government projects. I have to pay my employees' wages, cover their health insurance, contribute to their 401k, employment taxes, pay operating costs such as electricity, water, maintaining facilities, etc. If you come to me and say "hey, can't pay you this month, Congress cut my budget." then I now have to either dip into savings or go take out a loan to pay my subcontractors, to pay my employees, I have to pay that loan back with interest. If I have to dip into my cash reserves, then I'm going to charge you extra, because you've shown that you're inconsistent in paying me; it's not enough that I have those savings replenished, I know have to have extra to cover me in case this happens again.

* Kelly Johnson, founder of Lockheed's Skunk Works division, very famously refused to do work for the US Navy for this very reason. Another one of his rules was that the number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10% to 25% compared to the so-called normal systems). The more people involved on the project, the longer it takes, the more costly it becomes. That is not unique to the defense industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully expect to get the full afterburner in the face for this but hey...f&£k it.

Here is my simple question. Why, after "50 years" of delays, various failures, cost overruns etc, etc, in aircraft procurement do governments/air forces still fall for the same old bulls€!t from aircraft manufacturers about we'll give you X for $Y? Haven't they learnt their lesson?

Man...because, acquisitions...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Link to post
Share on other sites

While all of the above is generally true, none of the above is specifically true for the F- 35. The JORD was set in stone fairly early in the program; so while blaming requirements creep is attractive, it is factually incorrect. And F-35 funding has remained fairly stable; it was a protected program. Capping runaway costs is not the same thing as cutting a productive program. Other than those two point being totally wrong, good conversation so far.

This is the point I was trying to make, that was so smarmily dismissed. Yes, JSF requirements are changing all the time but the process is not "Can you guys do this new thing?" It is much more along the lines of:

Warfighter: Hey Lockheed, remember how we said were to fly Mach 2.5 at 80,000 feet? How's that going?

LM: We can do 480 kn at 25,000 feet.

Warfighter: Gee, that's really bad. OK. Any other news?

LM: It costs three times as much to do 480 kn at 25,000 feet as we thought Mach 2.5 at 80,000 feet was going to cost, so were to leave out the satellite antenna we promised as well.

Warfighter: Looks like we'll have to go back and rewrite our requirements document to reflect what you actually can do. And chop out the parts we now can't afford.

While the above is slightly exaggerated in cost and impact, it is what indeed has been happening since about 2004 in this program. They have gone through double digits of "Estimate at Completion", or EAC exercises trying to figure out what capability they can still build into the jet given the budget that is left. In the space of just four years they went from EAC 6 to EAC 11, and they certainly did not stop at 11. While doing an annual EAC drill is good program management, it is not intended to be an exercise to figure out which capability annually gets voted off the island or shoved into a later block. The fact that they were doing these EAC drills more than once a year is not routine, not standard, and not acceptable program management.

And no Virginia, I mean Tony Stark, this is not a common occurrence. At least not to this extent. Yes when the B-1 B was built, capability was left on the table and built in later. Yes, when the F-22 was built some significant capability was left out and it took a decade longer to field than originally thought. What makes the F 35 significantly different in this regard is it has so much capability planned for that cutting half of its capability still leaves it more capable than anything else. As long as Lockheed Martin delivers on the key performance parameters (KPPs), pretty much every other technical requirements and desired capability is negotiable. Everyone seems to forget the government eventually runs out of time and budget to perfect the systems.

Where's the blame? Overly ambitious iron majors who set extremely challenging requirements for the system? LM for signing up for something they reasonably knew was impossible to do at the budget allowed? OSD for allowing the program to go forward with their own budget estimates indicated it was woefully underfunded? Congress? Pete Rose?

This program, and the program office are a textbook case in bad program management. If given enough time and enough money, LM will deliver exactly what they promised. Programs need to be built and managed around reality though, and this never was. Things have gotten significantly better since 2010, when Gen. Heinz was fired, Adm. Venlet was brought in, and the last Nunn-McCurdy/technical baseline review was conducted. But they are trying to make up for the prior decade of gross mismanagement where the government let Lockheed Martin run roughshod over the program office business.

So getting back to Crazy Snap Captain's question, first it hasn't been 50 years of every single program being a terminal failure. It's broad generalizations like this that are just as lazy as the counter arguments being made to the F 35 that you guys rail about.

The real answer is they absolutely have learned their lesson, and that's why we are where we are. Contractors have something we want (uber cool technlogy), and we have something they want (buckets of cash). It's not a deal with the devil; it's two devils making a deal with each other. The services get into these deals knowing that they may not work out, and many times know just how over budget they will really be but refuse to acknowledge it publicly. The contractors get into these deals because they need business, and they may actually deliver some of the capability or at least enough. If they produce only paper airplanes or paper tanks, they still get paid. Both sides are playing the "a little pregnant" card. It's better to have something than nothing, and something can be upgraded over time if it doesn't fit the bill going out the gate.

This is by no way limited to aircraft procurement.

Or you could just read 82Whitey51's post below mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And no Virginia, I mean Tony Stark, this is not a common occurrence. At least not to this extent. Yes when the B-1 B was built, capability was left on the table and built in later. Yes, when the F-22 was built some significant capability was left out and it took a decade longer to field than originally thought.

Yeah, it's pretty common.

F-22's sideways-looking radar was deleted. IRST was downgraded from multi-color to single color, before being omitted altogether. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the ACES II. The HMD was omitted, as was AIM-9X. All those were cut due to budget; better to get a new plane on the ramp and

F-16 had a LOT of capability left out when it hit IOC. So much so, that the AF didn't get the plane they wanted until the Block 30, well over a decade after IOC.

This was touched upon two months ago.

That kind of broad generalization of expectations results in a grossly inaccurate "apples to oranges" comparison. Neither the F-15 nor the F-16 had the software requirements that the F-35 has necessary to reach both IOC and FOC.

The software used in in the X-35 in 1996 was that for basic flight control, flight testing and communications. There was no radar, no weapons systems, no sensor fusion. F-35 AA-1 in 2006 had to have an entirely new "OS" written for it, so that development is running 10 years. And bear in mind, Microsoft, Apple and Google have been developing their operating systems over decades.

Secondly, that comparison ignores both the similarities and differences between the developments of the F-16 and the F-35 and their goals.

Congress and the DoD are concerned (either justifiably or overly concerned, depending on your perspective) with the cost of concurrency, even though it has always been the plan for the F-35 to repeat the proven F-16 approach. Unlike serial programs, where development — test — production nicely dovetail one after the other, concurrency is where they overlap. Based on their statements and testimony to the U.S. Congress, today’s DoD officials believe that F-35 concurrency adds unbounded and unaffordable retrofit costs to incorporate fixes for problems found in later tests into earlier production airplanes. They intend to keep F-35 production at very low (and costly) production rates until at or near full specification performance is demonstrated. For the F-35, final testing is not scheduled for completion until 2017.

The point, of course, is the contractor isn't slowing down the development and production of the F-35. The customer - DoD & Congress - is. And part of the reason for that is being driven by the belief that all the fixes necessary to apply to the current crop of F-35s are too expensive.

By contrast, from the start, the F-16 went to high-rate production; 352 airplanes were on firm order within four years and three years later, more than 500 had been delivered worldwide. This fast production was based on several important decision criteria. First, there was confidence that the early configuration of the F-16 would be superior to the F-4 Phantom it was replacing, even though the performance specification had not been fully demonstrated through testing. Contractor and government tests were in parallel, and results were shared to gain quick confidence in the basic airplane.

Second, low cost could only be achieved through high-rate production.

Third, service leaders knew that the airplanes would be continuously upgraded, so there was never a final configuration for production.

Lastly, there was never a plan to retrofit older airplanes as newer capabilities were added. Rather, each airplane configuration was fielded for a mission suited to its performance. And when retrofit was initiated, it was accomplished as part of a scheduled block change to keep the cost low. To date, there are 138 versions of the F-16, as well as 15 block changes, with each block a decisive improvement in capability.

Read that very carefully, because it explains precisely what should be happening with the F-35. It also makes a very important point that many critics seem to miss - "when retrofit was initiated, it was accomplished as part of a scheduled block change to keep the cost low." Or, once final configuration is agreed upon, all aircraft will be brought up to date with a scheduled block change.

The problem for the F-35, of course, is the slowdown in production as implemented by DoD & Congress makes it hard for the efficiencies and economies of scale full production would bring. Additionally, it is obviously impossible to put fighter in service in volume if DoD slows the production process. These delays have directly affected the software development insofar as they have "kicked the can down the road" as it were for certain benchmarks to be addressed.

Why does this happen with every new plane? Because we learn a lot of lessons, but then we (and by we, I mean elected officials mostly) forget them (assuming they bothered learning them in the first place). People come and go, and when they leave, they take that operational experience with them. It's up to the newbies to learn as much as they can from them before they go.

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...