AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 02:38

This editorial is kind of a big deal:

"Instead, the cost to develop and produce the aircraft has grown to $330.5 billion, far more than the original $177.1 billion estimate (both in 2012 dollars). Projections of operating and support costs for the F-35 have escalated far beyond the estimates of 2001, and fielding is years behind the original schedule. In fact, 11 years in, the exact timings—and capability levels—for initial operation of the three variants are still uncertain.

Before going farther down this cracked and broken path, the Pentagon needs to take a hard look at the consequences. On schedule and affordability, the JSF program is already a failure. In terms of capabilities and the long-term benefits of commonality, the jury is still out. And even if the F-35 delivers on everything it promised, the world has changed since 2001."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 08.xml&p=1
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 957
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 03:00

Thanks Bill, glad they didn't bother to credit you.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7698
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 03:06

Prinz_Eugn wrote:Thanks Bill, glad they didn't bother to credit you.

Yeah, noticed that too.. :D
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23166
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 03:47

AvWeek more like PisWeak.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

hobo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 324
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 14:39

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 03:49

A big deal how?


If that Aurora spy plane had materialized, THAT would have been a big deal.


This is just the same thing for the 100th time. Really, it isn't unreasonable, it just doesn't offer much in the way of a way forward either.
Offline

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 687
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 04:20

Before I rant, full disclosure:
1. I have never been a fan of the one-size-fits-all, 3 variant F-35 on the simple design/performance rationale that when you task any machine to perform three disparate things, at best it's performance on any one of those things will always be compromised.
2. It's bad for the defense industry to be reduced to ONE active aircraft manufacturer.
3. It's bad for innovation. Who innovates against themselves?
4. It's reduces (eliminates?) competition.
5. If the one winner/survivor fails to perform, now what?

Thank the US Congress for this mess, they mandated this. Morons.

All that said, we're into this aircraft up to our necks and the services need to recapitalize their fleets. This is the aircraft we have, it is in production, it is well through testing, infrastructure is being built and training has begun. However many we end up buying, we need to procure this aircraft in numbers that make it affordable. In addition, there are partner nations invested in this aircraft who are waiting to recap their fleets as well.

We should take some hard lessons from this fiasco but we need to proceed with production. That's reality.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 05:08

stereospace wrote:Before I rant, full disclosure:
1. I have never been a fan of the one-size-fits-all, 3 variant F-35 on the simple design/performance rationale that when you task any machine to perform three disparate things, at best it's performance on any one of those things will always be compromised.
2. It's bad for the defense industry to be reduced to ONE active aircraft manufacturer.
3. It's bad for innovation. Who innovates against themselves?
4. It's reduces (eliminates?) competition.
5. If the one winner/survivor fails to perform, now what?

Thank the US Congress for this mess, they mandated this. Morons.

All that said, we're into this aircraft up to our necks and the services need to recapitalize their fleets. This is the aircraft we have, it is in production, it is well through testing, infrastructure is being built and training has begun. However many we end up buying, we need to procure this aircraft in numbers that make it affordable. In addition, there are partner nations invested in this aircraft who are waiting to recap their fleets as well.

We should take some hard lessons from this fiasco but we need to proceed with production. That's reality.


We could have done better; we could have done cheaper; but there's no way we could have done better AND cheaper.

AV week needs to get over itself and stop being such a crybaby. The fancy UCAVs aren't gonna be here until the mid-late 2030s at the earliest (and that's being generous).
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 630
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 05:15

In news that is actually interesting ... and is news, the photo from that page shows some nice developments with the aircraft.

Looks like a more permanent fix for the tail blistering has been implemented.

Image
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8387
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 06:53

stereospace wrote:Before I rant, full disclosure:
1. I have never been a fan of the one-size-fits-all, 3 variant F-35 on the simple design/performance rationale that when you task any machine to perform three disparate things, at best it's performance on any one of those things will always be compromised.
2. It's bad for the defense industry to be reduced to ONE active aircraft manufacturer.
3. It's bad for innovation. Who innovates against themselves?
4. It's reduces (eliminates?) competition.
5. If the one winner/survivor fails to perform, now what?

Thank the US Congress for this mess, they mandated this. Morons.

All that said, we're into this aircraft up to our necks and the services need to recapitalize their fleets. This is the aircraft we have, it is in production, it is well through testing, infrastructure is being built and training has begun. However many we end up buying, we need to procure this aircraft in numbers that make it affordable. In addition, there are partner nations invested in this aircraft who are waiting to recap their fleets as well.

We should take some hard lessons from this fiasco but we need to proceed with production. That's reality.



It's not one size fits all, but one size (with many differences) fits most.

We still have the F-22 for air superiority, the EA-18 for Electronic Attack, etc.

btw, there was & is competitions and Boeing lost the last round. We shall see what happens in the next one or do you think that Boeing should just be handed the next round? What would that say for competition/innovation?

On the innovation against yourself issue, LM has already proved you wrong. They are consistently making announcements about new processes and capabilities that are being driven from the F-35 program. Remember the recent announcement about CNRP being introduced in the F-35 program?

And yes, on the delays and complexity I blame Congress a lot. The F-35 would have still ended up a single engine fighter though and would likely have been heavier than it is today due to not needing SWAT.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 12:47

maus92 wrote:This editorial is kind of a big deal:

"Instead, the cost to develop and produce the aircraft has grown to $330.5 billion, far more than the original $177.1 billion estimate (both in 2012 dollars). Projections of operating and support costs for the F-35 have escalated far beyond the estimates of 2001, and fielding is years behind the original schedule. In fact, 11 years in, the exact timings—and capability levels—for initial operation of the three variants are still uncertain.

Before going farther down this cracked and broken path, the Pentagon needs to take a hard look at the consequences. On schedule and affordability, the JSF program is already a failure. In terms of capabilities and the long-term benefits of commonality, the jury is still out. And even if the F-35 delivers on everything it promised, the world has changed since 2001."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 08.xml&p=1


"Kind of a big deal"?

Ah yeah. How is this any different from Sweetman's usual tripe? In every instance he calls for xyz 4 gen aircraft to replace planned numbers of F-35's.

Just like he's doing here.

The only difference here is only one manufacturer he is pimping for (ie: the manufacturer of the Super Hornet and F-15 he wants the F-35 to compete against).

Usually it's two (Boeing and SAAB)...
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5375
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 13:55

Prinz_Eugn wrote:Thanks Bill, glad they didn't bother to credit you.


No doubt he didn't want his name on it. He's getting pounded regarding his bias over on Secret Projects. :lol:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5375
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 13:56

1st503rdsgt wrote:AV week needs to get over itself and stop being such a crybaby.


It's pretty much all Bill. The fact that AvWeek allows him to abuse his position in such a way is a disappointment though.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 14:35

hobo wrote:A big deal how?


Unlike many blogs and forums, Aviation Week is a respected industry publication, read by the influential in industry and government worldwide. Scoffing doesn't change that dynamic.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5375
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 14:59

maus92 wrote:
hobo wrote:A big deal how?


Unlike many blogs and forums, Aviation Week is a respected industry publication, read by the influential in industry and government worldwide.


Bill is doing his best to change that.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23166
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Oct 2012, 15:22

Bill BitterSweetman eh.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Next

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests