What factors go into this mis-management?
Do we lack sufficient people with the brains and skills?
Is it Agile vs Waterfall?
...
—
The concept of “Joint Strike Fighter” is the heart of the problem. The idea of a single platform that will work for every role. It’s like one of those does-everything Swiss-army knives. Yes, it has a screw driver, pliers, saw, etc. They just don’t actually work very well for a dedicated purpose.
Leatherman is pretty decent. I carry one almost all time.
Look at the roles or missions an aircraft could be tasked with today: defensive interceptor, offensive TARCAP, general air superiority, recon, precision strike, SEAD, EW, anti-armor, anti-ship. Launched from established air bases, launched from forward operating bases, launched from aircraft carriers.
Other than sharing the requirement of something that flies, most of these missions have contrasting and competing, even opposing requirements. The air-to-air role is arguably the most demanding. You want stealth to stay off the adversary's long range sensors. You want long range weapons and sensors for a BVR engagement. Yet you want to be able to turn and burn with a highly maneuverable aircraft for dogfighting. Now decide you want to be able to do all that not only over your own defended assets, but a thousand miles away or more establishing TARCAP. If you really want to be the best air superiority fighter you're designing and building a thoroughbred, a Ferrari.
But then someone says they want the same aircraft to haul a decent amount of precision strike ordnance. You need to build a pickup truck. Then someone says they want to slam it into a carrier deck repeatedly in the controlled crash Navy pilots call landing. So you build it with off-road level suspension. Then someone says they want it to take off and land vertically from unimproved fields. So you build it light with great MPG...
The problem really is expectations. As technology has improved yes, multi-role aircraft can and have improved at all their roles. However, dedicated single-mission aircraft can and have also taken advantage of these technology improvements. Trying to force a multi-role to be as-good-as a dedicated airframe is a recipe for disappointment, problems, redesigns, failures... gee, kind of what we're seeing with the F-35.
I believe we should build 2, maybe 3 "classes" of airframes. One should be a dedicated, kill anything in the sky fighter. That's it's one job and it is the unquestioned best. Yes it may need tanker support, may have limited internal weapons inventory to maintain stealthiness. Build simple, dedicated hotrods. I know some ex fighter pilots - there would be fist fights to join those squadrons. The second class would be strike support. Reasonably fast, able to get there in time to matter, but with airframes optimized for hauling the mail. Yes they would "hide" behind their fighter brethern, but these guys would have the capacity to carry the ECM and EW support. They'd carry the long range weapons that could be launched and handed-off electronically to the fighters out in front of them. These would be simple rugged airframes. Carry a couple dozen weapons - air-to-air, air-to-ground. But these are just the delivery vans, firing and handing off the weapons to the fighters. The third class would be the brains behind them all. Something like AWACS, but at a tactical level on more like an A-6 airframe. These would be the expensive, electronics laden brains behind the fight, but in close enough to matter - to maintain links via RF or laser in spite of jamming efforts etc. These are the ones that allow you to keep the others relatively simple aircraft.