- Posts: 1547
- Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23
southernphantom wrote:megasun wrote:Navy may need more of an air supiority fighter in future, besides striking drone.
This would be the F/A-XX, which is looking to be a two-seat, twin-engine stealth fighter roughly analogous to a VLO F-14.
megasun wrote:Vulturing itself shouldn't hurt, right? Unless they interfere and require changes in the mean time.
Good point that bidding causes the lowest estimation always being picked.
LRS-B is said to stick with mature technologies. Project runners always know the problem, but do they really know how to control it. If this project is actually quick and under budget, it may also complement the striking fighter, and provide some degree of competition to it. I doubt after bidding is finished, nobody to balance the greed of contractors can be another reason.
arkadyrenko wrote:I would say that the ideal program has technological risk inversely proportional to the size / importance of the program. Hence, a small program to build a small number of airframes will take on high technological risk and vise versa.
The problem with the JSF is that it combined a massive important step for the USAF, wholesale replacement of the F-16, with pretty high technological risk.
arkadyrenko wrote:How to advance forward in technology? I would advocate for the short run construction of 'elite' aircraft, highly specialized and advanced airframes for specific tasks, which then prove the tech that will be rolled into the next major aircraft purchase. The corollary is that the purchase cycle has to be accelerated and the USAF will have to accept a wider range of airframes on the flight line.
Finally, spiral upgrades should be expanded to include substantial airframe modifications.
alloycowboy wrote:Don't forget that both Skunk Works and the F-16 LWF both used off the shelf hardware where ever possible. So really they are piggy backing off of previous avation programs. Where as with the F-35 it is a whole new airplane from the ground up.