History contradicts your inept assertion.
Posted on 01/13/2011 11:28:42 AM PST by too_cool_for_skool
While I was a student at the Air War College, our guest speaker one day was one of the "Whiz Kids." During the question period following his talk, when my turn came, I challenged him on the phony "systems analysis" that went into the F-111 decision. I still remember the round of applause I got from the several hundred of my fellow officers in the auditorium. (Having a PhD in mathematics helps immensely in situations like that.)
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the F-35 is "deja vu all over again."
I work in the aerospace defense industry so I’m not naive to how government bumbling and shifting requirements can drive up costs. But the contractor is often just as at fault through poor program management and shoddy engineering. Yet there is little financial penalty since most of these programs are cost-plus - the contractor continues bumbling along while the government pays for it.
Lockheed has maneuvered itself into a good position. Program costs have exploded (+100%) and the schedule has slipped another 6 years (+60%). But they’ll get rather rewarded for their efforts because this program is “critical” to national security and must be funded. Despite a terrible track record with the F-22 and F-35, they will win future programs as well since the USAF in its myopia awarded all of the 5th-Generation fighter jets to Lockheed, effectively squeezing out Northrop and Boeing and leaving Lockheed with a monopoly on jet fighters.
You want to fix the national budget? Get defense contractors under control.
History contradicts your inept assertion.
You fail to mention the extensive engineering and money involved; neither of which would be minor, to navalize the Raptor.
and the good old boys of GW Bush started this whole affair
The JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996.
Easy conclusion for a keyboard warrior.
Seems that people soon forget the long and at times troubled development of just about every great weapon system. The much vaunted F-22 went through just about the same cost overruns and delays that the F-35 is experiencing. The C-17 was another example of an aircraft that the hand-wringers yelling "cancel" because it was costing too much to develop. The F-14 had its own problems in development, yet I still read here on FR how much that aircraft is missed.
There are other opinions on the F-35, especially the B model:
Marine F-35 Problems Are FixableAuthor:Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
Date:Thursday, January 13, 2011Last week, the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, announced that he had placed the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on “double secret probation.” The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, has two years to fix problems with the air frame and engine. It is noteworthy that the Secretary said that the other two parts of the F-35 program for the Air Force and Navy are proceeding satisfactorily.
Building a STOVL aircraft is an extraordinarily challenging undertaking. The aircraft has to be able to operate in both vertical and horizontal dimensions, have a useful operational range and carry a meaningful payload. The same power plant engine must be used to power the aircraft in both flight modes. Only two STOVL systems have ever been deployed, the Harrier and the Yak-38 Forger, and the latter was a failure. The former was a notable success particularly in the Falklands war and Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the Harrier is based on 1960s technology. The Harrier production line closed in 1997 and remanufacture of older versions into the current Harrier II Plus configuration ended in 2003.
A new STOVL aircraft is needed. But to meet emerging threats and new mission requirements, it must have stealth characteristics, a supersonic speed and the kind of advanced avionics that can cope with the modern battlefield. This is particularly difficult when one is building a plane that can also land like a helicopter. This further complicates aircraft design. A hinge flap on an inlet door had to be redesigned when it compromised the F-35B’s stealth characteristics.
What exactly are the F-35B’s current problems? As the Secretary noted, they include both structural and engine issues. Apparently, a bulkhead cracked during testing. While it has been redesigned, additional testing of other structural elements to ensure against a repeat of the problem is ongoing. Lockheed has said that resolving structural issues will not require replacement of the aluminum structures, a move that could add cost and weight.
The engine problems are more challenging, which is to be expected given the nature of the power plant required by a STOVL aircraft. In vertical flight mode some of the components of the lifting portion of the power system have not operated as expected, creating mechanical and heating issues. These are not fundamental technical problems but questions of component design and subsystem integration. The engine manufacturer asserts that it can fix these problems without adding weight or cost.
It is likely that the Lockheed team will be able to resolve the issues that have delayed the STOVL portion of the F-35 program. The challenge is to do it while the clock is ticking.
F-111 was indeed superior in many rspects to the F-15E and now the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is inferior in most performance categories to the F-14D that it replaced.
The JSF will go down as the greatest failure and boondoggle in the history of aviation. The TFX program will be a model of success and good judgement in comparison. And the only reason Lockheed execs shouldn’t be sent to prison for fraud and bilking the taxpayers is that much of Congress would have to share cells with them. This is what happens when defense programs become more important as jobs pork than as military weapons.
The F4 Phantom II became a tri-service aircraft due to its performance. It was designed solely as a navy interceptor.
Now in my 39th year in aerospace, I will tell you it is NOT “control” of contractors that’s the problem.
Politicians designing systems by voting district (2nd engine supplier for F-35).
Establishing a contract price based upon an order quantity and then cutting the quantity in half. (Drives up unit price)
DoD treating the acquisition field like career purgatory. (They leave about the time they learn the ropes)
“Poor Program Mgmt”, driven by late funding, changing requirements, followed by customer pressure to meet the original schedule by cutting testing.
Customers end running the Prime contractor by going direct to the subcontractor.
It’s amazing to hear the former military come to work for industry and exclaim, “Oh, I didn’t realize what we did to you guys.”
i’ve never met a carrier pilot that would agree with you and I have met a bunch having 2 in the family.
Apparently, the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 BlackWidow was stealthier and faster than the YF-22 Raptor. The reason the Raptor won was a mix of it being more maneuverable (2-D thrust-vectoring helped here), being less unconventional than the BlackWidow design, being perceived as easier to convert to the NATF concept (the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter that was cancelled later on), and also Lockheed's past delivery as compared to McD's fiasco with the A-12.
It is important to note that both designs passed the ATF requirements for a 5th Gen fighter with flying marks, and any design would have been superlative to anything that was flying then, is flying now, or will be flying in the future. There was even a plan to bring back the YF-23 as an interim bomber. Thus, it is not really accurate to say the YF-23 was not as good as the YF-22 because (in two areas, namely stealth and super-cruise speed) it was better, and it primarily lost out due to the NATF issue plus a couple other areas. Both aircraft were, in essence, equal to each other and would have served the USA very well.
As for the Chinese copying the YF-23 design ...no, they have not done that. What they have done is copy the (cancelled) Soviet/Russian MiG-MFI (MiG 1.42/1.44) design of the late 1990s. It is basically a MiG-MFI design, with the one change being side intakes. Here is a small pic of the MiG-MFI ...exactly the same plane as the J-20 apart from the MiG having intakes at the bottom (Eurofighter style) while the 'original' J-20 has intakes on the sides (F-15/Raptor style):
keyboard warrior, right... go to hell, on your way how about I shove my 20+ years of service up your ass.
Two words inertial dampeners.......
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
You nailed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.