Forum: General F-35 Forum

Exactly my point. Many complain that the F-35 dev is taking too long & costs too much (compared to the F-16) without realizing that the F-16 did not become an effective multi-role fighter till C/D.

F-16.net Sponsor

That's true Spud, but the Hornet and Viper A-models delivered on their contracted requirements on time. Yes, later versions were much improved and served as the benchmark for F-35 requirements, but when the USAF/USN signed-up for the F-16A or F-18A they got what they asked for on time. There is no denying that the F-22 and the F-35 did not do that. The F-22 and F-35 are not the first revolutionary fighters out there. The F-86 was a revolution, the F-4 was a revolution, the F-16 was a revolution, etc.. The point is, the companies that built those jets looked at the state of technology and predicted accurately what advancements they could expect in their development window and how much the finished product would cost. True, those same companies have had projects where they failed to do that accurately. The point is that the F-22 and the F-35 contracts promised much more than could be delivered in the time alloted and for far too little money. The quality of the end product can be debated all we want, but that is not the issue at hand in this thread. It is that LM, consecutively, in the two most expensive fighter projects in history, has grossly failed to accurately predict its delivery timeline and unit costs. Boeing and its politicians have highlighted that fact, as it is their responsibility to their stock holders and constituents to do so. LM can, surely, highlight some issues with Boeing and its practices. That is the way it is in a capitalist society. That is the way it should be. I am simply making the point that it is childish to throw rocks at the Boeing folks or MO folks for pointing out valid issues with the F-35 program.

It's relatively easy to predict & meet goals when the bar is set low and your testing regimen is not that strict.

It's much more difficult if you are trying to do everything at once and every step in testing is put under a microscope. The days of going supersonic within the first month (let alone the first flight) of testing are long gone. This problem is not LM or even USA specific. Look how long it took for EF & Rafale development (and they are still not fully multi-role).

twintwinsingle wrote:

There's a similar question for the F-16A/B. The pre-ADF A-models were basically day-only heat/guns fighters.

Wasn't that the basic premise of the requirements they were designed against?

There are two sort of arguments here.

One, he is probably looking out for Boeing, We can't discount this. On the other hand, is it really in the US's interest to go to a single source fighter manufacturer? There is a legitimate reason to be afraid of letting Boeing's fighter shop close up.

Two, it is actually quite unacceptable that a program almost in its 10th year doesn't have an IOC. IOC gives the contractor a deadline and the military a planning benchmark. The fact that the USAF / USN don't want an IOC indicates that a unwilling to accept something. Is the JSF facing another 10 years of development? Is the JSF final maintenance costs going out the window, hence the USAF doesn't want to put them into the budget, as required by a firm IOC? It is bad if a program is avoiding setting a deadline for its final completion.

This is a mixed problem. On the one hand, the rep. is looking out for his company. On the other hand, it is completely ridiculous that after these years, the JSF doesn't have any clarity about when it'll be ready.

twintwinsingle, your posts are some of the more common sense comments I've seen on this forum. As a former employee and current customer of LM I couldn't agree more with your characterization of their reputation as over promising and under delivering.

We have a single source commercial manufacturer in Boeing. Should we discount that as well? Let's bring in KC-46 and P-8 too if you want to go there. The KC-46 is already deemed over budget and not one acft/demonstrater built.

Sorry twintwin,

Did not read your last comment through. It is a logical statement. However, I still stand by my last comment. I do not see a shining light on Boeing either. The tanker scandal alone says enough of how business/politics works. How much taxpayer time/money did that waste before a decission was even made??

SpudmanWP wrote:

Exactly my point. Many complain that the F-35 dev is taking too long & costs too much (compared to the F-16) without realizing that the F-16 did not become an effective multi-role fighter till C/D.

I respectfully cannot buy this logic, I'm sorry.

If LM could have offered an F-16 priced jet to be IOC in 2013-2014, even if only to include basic A2A capabilities (4 internal AMRAAMs and 2 heaters under the wing) and basic dumb bomb clearance from external stations with the IR sensors being integrated later, that would be a valid Block IOC aircraft worth taking a risk on.

Then just allow the development and block capability progression to continue and feed the incrementally upgraded blocks at F-16 Price (plus upgrade) to the potential customers accordingly. All the way up to what the notional block V platform envisions sometime in 2025 give or take.

Then you'd have a credible and sustainable Program.

But to finally deploy an operational IOC block III F-35A (cheapest variant of the 3 models) sometime in 2018 or maybe even 2019, at a final unit Gross Weapon System Cost + initial spares at maybe somewhere around $170m ea (late LRIP buy), is imho very unfortunately indicative of a flawed acquisition and most likely not sustainable at anywhere close to expected (AND REQUIRED) buy rates.

You missed my point. The F-16 was designed as a LWF and later became an effective multi-role fighter (still without fused sensors). The F-35 will be an effective multi-role fighter from the onset.

Designing the F-35, without knowing what the avionics needs will be, will only end in sub-par avionics and massive upgrade costs.

The D0D did the whole "spiral upgrade path to multi-role" thing with the F-16. They then analyzed all the time, energy, and costs involved (hello "mistake jets" ala A/B), then decided not to repeat that plan with the F-35. They must have had a good reason.

Well, the point is... just don't include the F-16 in your comparisons... a fighter which took, what, all of about 7-8 years from Program start to become a relevant multi-role configured model of the day (and at an F-16 price!)? It's a poor argument really and not a logical comparison. To have to (hopefully) wait for an entry level block III IOC of possibly 2018-2019 now (at unsustainably high procurement costs) is a completely legitimate issue on which to confront and debate alternative recapitalization requirements.

cywolf32 wrote:

We have a single source commercial manufacturer in Boeing. Should we discount that as well? Let's bring in KC-46 and P-8 too if you want to go there. The KC-46 is already deemed over budget and not one acft/demonstrater built.

Well, they aren't due to have delivered a demonstrator yet, so that's a moot point. The P-8 is proceeding beautifully, so that would hardly make your case either. As to the cost overages on the KC-46A, the contract is written such that anything over a set amount (300 or 500 mil, I don't have the statement in front of me) is to be covered by Boeing, the USAF is off the hook.

If the F-35 needs more money for development, Lockheed certainly isn't obligated to make it happen themselves.

The truth of the matter is that the Super Hornet and Growler program has been brilliantly run by Boeing, with the Strike Eagle program having been too small as of late to really bear comparing to the F-35 program. But, the Super Hornet is Nowhere near as complex as the F-35 is, and its development and certification were veritable walks in the park in terms of what would have to be proven compared to the F-35.

Honestly, we've never attempted a program this ambitious for an aircraft before (excepting perhaps the B-2 and V-22, one of which was a black program, and the other of which played out much differently due to its rotary winged nature). While its sad, and ugly, how much money has been thrown at this jet to simply watch the IOC date slip to the right, what else can we do? Do we think we can suddenly make all the problems right, and have the jets in the air over Afghanistan next week without spending more money? Fence the F-35 spending and watch the IOC date slip even further to the right in most likelihoods.

I am all for the USN procuring additional Super Hornets to enable LM to focus primarily on certifying the F-35A/B, and enabling the oldest Legacy Hornets to be parked. Once a handle has been gotten on those first two variants, the Navy can then IOC with a later block aircraft, and having learned from the USAF/USMC experiences. Will it happen... not likely, but fencing this program wouldn't do anyone any favors, unless you work in St Louis, Chicago, or Seattle.

HV

Excellent Post HV, with the one debatable exception of your very last sentence there. To the contrary, one could legitimately argue imho that 'fencing in' the Program, whether it was 2-3 years ago or tomorrow, would absolutely benefit national defense interests in forcing a more sustainable and viable, alternative recapitalization strategy in the near and medium-term. That is, if one is looking at this Program and assessing it as simply being incapable and unsustainable of fulfilling requirements going forward, then yes, an urgent and decisive national security alternative plan should be evaluated. (regardless of which manufacturer is 'favored', or regardless of any joint-venture project).

geogen wrote:

the F-16 ... a fighter which took, what, all of about 7-8 years from Program start to become a relevant multi-role configured model of the day (and at an F-16 price!)?

The F-16 took 16 years to go from Program start (1972) to multi-role IOC (F-16C in 1988). The F-35 will take from 13 to 17 years (2002 to service IOC) depending on when the USMC & USAF declares IOC.

SpudmanWP wrote:

The F-16 took 16 years to go from Program start (1972) to multi-role IOC (F-16C in 1988). The F-35 will take from 13 to 17 years (2002 to service IOC) depending on when the USMC & USAF declares IOC.

And doing it the way F-16 did it would never work in today's world. The whole idea of F-16 was to reduce costs & complexity by reducing the plane's abilities compared to an established already-flying standard, taking a step backward on the path of combat plane evolution. That concept was a pretty uncommon phenomenon in the history of combat machines. Normally, such as right now, everybody wants as much as they can get in capabilities; the basic concept of deliberately handicapped planes didn't even really last for much of F-16's career, since the first thing everybody did was look for ways to start dehandicapping it. Any company or government entity which tried that idea again now would soon find the project canceled as completely worthless amid screams and laughs at how silly and stupid it is to set a goal to make a plane that can't do anything. Striving to include everything you can possibly jam into it right from the start is the only presently acceptable way to go.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

IOC or else