Forum: General F-35 Forum

The initial Blk 30, and even the blk 25 F-16C was a game-changer over the Blk 1-5 mistake jets no doubt, but the block 50/52 'CJ' with HTS and improved avionics was even more a game-changer over the earlier F-16 capabilities than the blk30... so not quite sure about your comparison.

Re: how long it will take for Blk IV F-35 to achieve IOC will of course be dictated by success of SDD being completed later than expected, but nonetheless being completed and then dependent on further efforts primarily being focused on completing IOT&E for enabling and proving a FOC F-35 blk III. Blk IV requirements (and schedule) could still be adjusted too, according to complexity and costs associated with bringing the follow-on block to maturity. That being said, it would be speculative to assume mature follow-on block upgrades be achieved roughly every two years as was originally estimated.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by SpudmanWP on May 14, 2012 - 05:06 AM; edited 1 time in total

@retchief70: I think that you misunderstood my point. I was using the Blk30 F-16 as a beginning point where the F-16 (as a whole) became truly multi-role (per my May 11, 2012 - 06:53 PM post above). Blk30 F-16s went IOC in 1988.

I realize that earlier Blocks had upgrades that gave them multi-role capabilities, but these generally came after 1988.

@Geo: Blk4 does not have to wait for Blk3 to finish before it starts. Blk4 development has already started. Software modularity allows Blk4 to begin development and if changes are made in Blk2/3 that require a change in Blk4 structure, those will be feathered in as they occur. If you take a look at the "Non-Recurring" costs of the FY2013 F-35s, you will notice that Post-SDD development costs are included. Elsewhere in the USAF budget (starting in FY2013 thru 2017 in $mil USD), the FoD budget going forward is 8.1, 50, 104.8, 132.1, and 229.9.

According to the planned Blk roll-out timeline, Blk4 was to come out 1 year after Blk 3 and the follow-on Blks every two years thereafter.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt27 ... 589893.jpg

@Geo: The HTS could only be carried on the Blk50D/52D models, not all Blk50/52 models.

F-16 had multirole capabilites prior to 1988. 401st TFW was flying all the forementioned type missions in 1984. 50th TFW even earlier. In fact when I left USAFE in August 1982, the 401st was still flying F-4Ds. When I returned in April 1984 they had totally, or nearly totally, converted to three squadrons of F-16A/Bs. Two squadrons would forward deploy to Incirlick, the third one to Aviano. There wasn't a lot of time to waste in those days. Ten years after first flight there were hundreds of combat ready F-16s on USAF flightlines.

What block F-16A/B are you speaking of?

Block 10.

count_to_10 wrote:

What I actually meant was the way that actual requirements sometimes change in the middle of the development period. That can add cost to the developer that was not included in the initial bid, which means that the contract has to be increased by some amount.

Or "The design has been compromised by China due to idiots in IT, we have to redesign. . ."

twintwinsingle wrote:

...However, to be fair, the last 3 projects that McD/Boeing had (F-15E, F-18 and F-18E/F) were delivered on time or early and at or under budget. Even the F-15A/C, which did have a significant price increase during its procurement was delivered on time...

You must be too young to remember when the F/A-18A/B was being developed. It was highly controversial for its development overruns, its excessive unit costs and its non-performance relative to requirements (conspicuously, range/radius among others). A 1988 CRS study on concurrency pegged its unit cost at 188 percent above the target -- and it had zero program concurrency. Super Hornet shipped alotta developmental items off the program to C/D development or separate GFE contracts in order to allow the program to remain below its Congressional cap for both NRE and URF. When it got in trouble in flight test they reduced the test point requirements (where was DOT&E then ??). Would that have passed scrutiny today?

The age of information has changed aircraft development and not all for the better. While we shouldn't let LM entirely off the hook, one can argue that F-22 and F-35 were the first two major programs of the age, and have suffered accordingly.

geogen wrote:

The initial Blk 30, and even the blk 25 F-16C was a game-changer over the Blk 1-5 mistake jets no doubt, but the block 50/52 'CJ' with HTS and improved avionics was even more a game-changer over the earlier F-16 capabilities than the blk30... so not quite sure about your comparison.

Re: how long it will take for Blk IV F-35 to achieve IOC will of course be dictated by success of SDD being completed later than expected, but nonetheless being completed and then dependent on further efforts primarily being focused on completing IOT&E for enabling and proving a FOC F-35 blk III. Blk IV requirements (and schedule) could still be adjusted too, according to complexity and costs associated with bringing the follow-on block to maturity. That being said, it would be speculative to assume mature follow-on block upgrades be achieved roughly every two years as was originally estimated.

People need to get real about this 'mistake jet' nonsense. Gordon England hit it correctly in article last week -- since when is there one 'final' configuration? In aircraft development there isn't -- period. And oh-by-the-way, one man's concurrency is another man's ECP. 'Zero program concurrency' Hornets went all the way to Lot what...21? Go look at the 'correction of deficiency' funding lines for Super Hornet. Does that mean they're 'mistake jets'? No; or perhaps more correctly stated, no more or less than early F-35 LRIP lots.

The concurrency monster was the canard the government used to extract money from the program. Critics extended the thought virally using 'mistake jets' as a mantra. It's nonsense.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

IOC or else