Bye Bye ODIN, Welcome Back ALIS

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

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3290
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post24 Apr 2021, 14:35

Scripted? Yep. ‘Political theater.’

They wanna take dollars away? Yep.

Services have a long history of short-sheeting spares/sustainment when push comes to shove.
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post24 Apr 2021, 15:12

quicksilver wrote:Services have a long history of short-sheeting spares/sustainment when push comes to shove.


I think this is beyond just the services. Under the BCA caps OCO accounts and UPL's, the Congress too was incentivized to add procurement $$ as opposed to sustainment. I wonder if that will change but I wouldn't mind if they re-balance the portion of funding going to the various elements of the program though I feel that some will just want to take money away and not put it back into sustainment. With 480 F-35A's delivered or on order (USAF), the AF badly needs to buy 60-80 A's a year if it plans to transition to NGAD in the early 2030's wit minimal disruptions.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1323
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 09:24

mixelflick wrote:It's difficult to imagine a dumber, more damaging decision than Gates' cutting the F-22 numbers. But an F-35 cut could indeed Trump that. The fulcrum of Western air power... cut off at the knees.

You'd think they would have learned with the F-22, but nope...


F-22 was relic of cold war so cutting it down wasn't stupid at all.

F-22 wasn't design with war over longer ranges in mind, it is design to fight Soviet fighters over W.Germany.

Also it isn't design to be multirole fighter either.

If F-23 was selected then things would be quite different and probable NGAD wouldn't be need at all, upgraded F-23 would do fine for example with more fuel, extending tank all the way to tails:
https://yf-23.webs.com/Pics/F-23A/F-23A ... 201415.jpg
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2793
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 15:03

milosh wrote: upgraded F-23 would do fine for example with more fuel, extending tank all the way to tails:


You can just wave arms and magically add more gas to a design -- as easy as that? Amazing.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4441
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 15:47

milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:It's difficult to imagine a dumber, more damaging decision than Gates' cutting the F-22 numbers. But an F-35 cut could indeed Trump that. The fulcrum of Western air power... cut off at the knees.

You'd think they would have learned with the F-22, but nope...


F-22 was relic of cold war so cutting it down wasn't stupid at all.

F-22 wasn't design with war over longer ranges in mind, it is design to fight Soviet fighters over W.Germany.

Also it isn't design to be multirole fighter either.

If F-23 was selected then things would be quite different and probable NGAD wouldn't be need at all, upgraded F-23 would do fine for example with more fuel, extending tank all the way to tails:
https://yf-23.webs.com/Pics/F-23A/F-23A ... 201415.jpg


Sorry Milosh, I disagree...

You're right about this: The F-22 was spawned during the cold war, but you're wrong about it being a "relic". In fact, it'd come in handy right now (the new cold war). If you don't believe that, talk to the F-22 units and ask them if they're being stretched too thin. Or if they're in demand much. The answer is "hell yes" to both.

It may not have been designed as a multi-role fighter, but it does have a multi-role capability. Ideal for air to ground work? Probably not. Ironically though, it can fly air to ground missions that no "mult-role" F-15, 16 or 18 could. By virtue of its speed, stealth and sensors - it's the only survivable platform of those I just mentioned (and plenty others). Doesn't have the range everyone wanted? There's a solution to that, it's called tankers. We have lots and lots of them BTW..

Whether the F-23 would have been better is irrelevant. The F-22 was chosen, so that's what was procured. If we were sitting on 500 F-22's right now, we wouldn't be building F-15EX's, talking about a "new build" F-16's or worrying about the possibility we won't secure air superiority in a near peer conflict. And the F-35 would have still been built, albeit probably in smaller numbers or become operational a few years later..
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3290
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 16:32

Well said mix. Could quibble about the tanker numbers a bit, but at least there’s something new in the pipeline.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2286
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 18:28

mixelflick wrote:
Whether the F-23 would have been better is irrelevant. The F-22 was chosen, so that's what was procured.


Yes basically both YF-22 and YF-23 met the requirements and the rest is history.
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2482
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 23:39

Salute!

I greatly enjoy the perspective that we have from Milosh!!!

From my own perspective, the F-23 would have been a point design with less overall capability than the LM F-22. Was I dissapointed when the F-22 buy went down, then down again? Yep.

The plane I really wanted to see fielded was the F-16 version of the F-22. Not the F-35, but a A2A design with a bit of A2G capability, but small, low RCS, good legs... AESA dar and internal carriage of Slammers.

Gums sends..
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7551
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Apr 2021, 00:09

Honestly, really very little difference between the F-22 and F-23 overall....Yet, as another member pointed out totally irrelevant as the USAF choose the F-22 Raptor.


As for the F-22 today it's extremely useful and the US is glad to have it. Comparing it to the F-35 is very much Apples and Oranges. That said, if we had to choose only one. The latter would clearly come out on top. Yet, again that is also "irrelevant" as we don't have to choose!
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25913
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 May 2021, 22:23

ALIS Working Better, But F-35 Full-Rate Date Still Unclear
13 May 2021 Theresa Hitchens

"...Transition To ODIN
As Brown mentioned, Lockheed Martin’s ALIS, the troubled proprietary maintenance and planning software, continues to contribute to high costs and dismal readiness rates. But Fick said the pain is easing.

However, he declined to commit to any new deadline for transitioning from ALIS to the new government-designed and owned system known as ODIN, (Operational Integrated Data Network) — explaining the JPO has decided to take some time to “recalibrate our plan.”

While Air Force coders and former head of acquisition Will Roper were enthusiastic about ODIN being created at the speed of Silicon Valley, it turns out they were too ambitious. Fick said the JPO’s outside advisors on software development told the JPO that coders simply couldn’t work fast enough to build ODIN as quickly as hoped.

At the same time, fixes to ALIS have yielded better results than expected, he explained.

Further, initial hardware designed to run ALIS upgrades and support future ODIN software “is actually solving some of our issues and some of our crises, and we’ll be able to roll out a more detailed plan, I’m going to guess, within the next six to nine months.”"

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2021/05/ali ... l-unclear/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3564
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post18 May 2021, 08:00

LOL at "high costs and dismal readiness rates"... Yeah, they are not quite there yet overall but both components are currently on a very good track I'd say.

I think ALIS will be used for years and eventually ODIN and ALIS might actually be merged as one. I'm also not in the least surprised that there are troubles with ODIN. It's definitely a big and complex system with high performance requirements. Many such products from Silicon Valley have taken years or even decades to become truly mature systems. It's not like some geeks sit in a dark room for couple of nights and voilá, there is ODIN... :roll:
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3290
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post18 May 2021, 15:59

My sense is that much of this hooyah about ‘organic’ sustainment pieces (whether it be 3-level maint or supply chain mgt etc) is really about the data rights. Several articles allude to it but they understate the degree to which this drives USG desire to bring as much sust’t as possible back under the big tent. Other interesting phrase, “...government-driven program...” which is fundamentally another indictment if the same system that now wants it all back, not just the 60% (of the sustainment model) that they already control.

We still haven’t seen any public discussion of where the problematic cost components of the sustainment model reside. All we hear about is ‘ALIS’ which is a pretty big body of water to drown in when you’re crying for help.

I should probably go read some more recent reports but the wx is too nice...
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7125
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post19 May 2021, 18:43

steve2267 wrote:
milosh wrote: upgraded F-23 would do fine for example with more fuel, extending tank all the way to tails:


You can just wave arms and magically add more gas to a design -- as easy as that? Amazing.


why not just apply the magic to the F-22 in that case. all we needed was the F-23...And a massive redesign. see that last part kind of feels like breaking the original rules. There were proposals for big range big winged F-22s as well...

Image

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's really no "fighter class" airplane that's going to give you "bomber class" range. Its all "short range" in the pacific because the pacific is the largest battlefield in human history.

People act like the Pacific got bigger overnight.
Choose Crews
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 925
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post20 May 2021, 02:08

It’s reasonable to say that the F-23 design has a greater emphasis on range, especially supercruise range, compared to F-22 design. Based on cross section diagrams of the EMD F-23A, it appears to carry a greater volume of fuel too. During the ATF competition, the supersonic performance and range of Northrop’s design was always noted, although the contract was made so that exceeding requirements didn’t really have any bonuses, while Lockheed’s design still met the requirement.

That said I don’t think the F-23 can meet the range requirement of the Pacific either.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7125
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 May 2021, 19:40

disconnectedradical wrote:It’s reasonable to say that the F-23 design has a greater emphasis on range, especially supercruise range, compared to F-22 design. Based on cross section diagrams of the EMD F-23A, it appears to carry a greater volume of fuel too. During the ATF competition, the supersonic performance and range of Northrop’s design was always noted, although the contract was made so that exceeding requirements didn’t really have any bonuses, while Lockheed’s design still met the requirement.

That said I don’t think the F-23 can meet the range requirement of the Pacific either.



no fighter class airplane can.

thats the frustration. a man orders steak. You cook him a steak. When you bring it to him he says "this isn't a salad"

If we wanted to make giant YF-12, B-1R sized bombers we could have done that. But when we do that, people whine. So we make them what they want and they whine more.

Image
Choose Crews
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests