...except for what exactly happened (no plan survives first contact).
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdfpage 13: The delay was exacerbated by the consolidation of the former JAST and ASTOVL programs, discussed in footnote 54. Normally, in a development program, the most technically simple variant is developed first, and lessons applied while working up to more complicated variants.
Because the Marine Corps’ Harrier fleet was reaching the end of life before the Air Force and Navy fleets the F-35 was designed to replace, in this case, the most complicated variant—the F-35B—had to be developed first. That meant the technical challenges unique to STOVL aircraft delayed all of the variants
The underlined part is completely untrue, before we even get to my main point. in fact even some basic research would do wonders on that claim.
I think you've moved the goal posts here. After being schooled on
performance compromises you had to dig somewhere and find development delays instead. But I don't consider Delays and Flight Performance to be in the same ball park at all, but you had to find "something" instead of just dropping it.
Perhaps something was lost in translation, but you never said a thing about time being a compromised. Moreover, The F-22 was a perfectly USAF airplane that also experienced delays. Lots of aircraft programs internationally suffer delays that have nothing to do with STOVL or the Marines. Allow me to demonstrate:
Program suffers delays: Reeee its delayed and overbudget!
JSF suffers any problem: You know its the STOVL requirement! The Marines!
Weasel's note: The original intent of the F-35 was design commonality across all variants. Clearly all the issues with the F-35B resulting in substantially less commonality than originally envisaged.
What? Do tell me exactly and precisely CTOL Vs STOVL what was envisioned vs what took place. Be specific.
before you say anything, I'll counsel that "commonality across all variants" is more than just sharing the same section of tubing somewhere in a bay. The most expensive parts of an airplane in the 21st century is engines and avionics. The people looking at the relatively simple parts like common undercarriage doors and such are on the wrong track.
And theres a lot of wrong tracks with the JSF and F-35 since the internet makes it up as it goes and several narratives that were never true have taken hold.
Not to mention changes in production & assembly strategy especially during early development.
That never happens!!!
I can understand why people forget since it was at least 16 years ago when that happened however I still remember the weight limitation issues for the F-35B which was necessary for STOVL. What happened to all those quick mate joints?
Turns out they were heavy and unnecessary. I don't know who's brainchild they were originally but it was one of those "great idea!" that aren't needed. Maybe it was to win the contract. (I've seen that happen) but they seem perfectly capable of not having them as currently evidence. The only downside was the added time needed to get rid of them.
please don't hit me with this it was "16 years ago", while acting like some of this stuff is somehow unique and only JSF?F-35 problem. Where was it written that if the F-35 was redesigned, delayed, or constructed diferently, or that things were added or taken away over the years, that it was unacceptable?
Was JSF the first program that was supposed to be completely and utterly inflexible? Even the mighty Gripen NG has had delays and redesigns and plans change. That seems to be pretty standard fair doesn't it?
It seems to me you are working hard to REACH after being stymied on the performance "compromise" claim. But then they had to change plans guys! Thats STOVLs fault! LOL ok.
I am too lazy to search for all the articles that questioned why the forces then decided to go for commonality etc. It may be easily forgotten here but I doubt that experience would have been so easily forgotten in the leadership.
clearly You don't even really know what the experience is.
If commonality isn't a requirement for NGAD, then there is no need for the air force to take into account STOVL requirements...
... I would safely say that STOVL isn't part of the equation here.
I think the twin engined STOVL quip was in jest anyway. some people took it seriously which is why I try to use pictures and gifs so often in this forum.
I think the context of what I stated matters. STOVL is only used by the USMC. The USMC concept of ops clearly dictates that range isn't as important as STOVL. The simplest illustration is that the F-35B has a 450nm range vis the F-35A/Cs much greater range. If range is that important, they would have baked that into their concept of ops.
Sure, people are entitled to their opinion to think that the USMC made a mistake and should have had the F-35B designed with more range (I don't choose to read Xandercrew's remarks as inferring that) but clearly that shorter combat radius was something the USMC thought was sufficient. I agree the statement would not be accurate outside the context
I think the original statement is rather silly to say, Range is like money, whatever I have I could use more. obviously decisions got made moreover comparing range to F-35A/C to make the point is also a cheap shot. as Hornetfinn pointed out. "Shorter" compared to what? picks some of the few aircraft that actually do outrange it, as its about equal to teens and vastly better than harrier.
but I can't control how other people choose to interpret what I'm trying to say.
You can control the lies and assertions and flat out wild a$$ guesses. in the age of the internet ignorance is no excuse, but as you said, you're lazy.
untruths-- Thats what I have issue with
Sure, we can pretend that the chinese aren't targeting air tankers or that the USAF wants tankers to be operating within the PLA kill zone.
is it like how you "pretended" there was any mention of tankers at all in the PDF you provided of what we "know"?
Of course the USAF doesn't want their tankers targeted, you did a cheap rhetorical trick there wherein me saying "we don't know if its optimized for X mission" means that the USAF must want its stuff to die in X mission!
child, Please
No doubt the USAF like always wants to keep its support aircraft out of harms way, like they always do. Is the NGAD built specifically to facilitate that?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA and are instead making an assertion and treating it as fact.
weasel1962 wrote:XanderCrews wrote:surely it hasn't-- but you still have no idea what NGAD is, you're guessing like most people here.
Thought I start by addressing this first by agreeing. I would point out that applies to everyone else, not associated with the program, none of whom are presumably posting on this forum since that would rightly involve federal prison time.
What we do know...
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/IF11659.pdfI would say first with some certainty that since propulsion happens to be the one technology being looked at as part of NGAD. And since no one is funding anything remotely resembling a lift fan that can handle 2 engines,
Yup, but the range of the strategic bombers means tanking can happen much further back as compared to shorter ranged fighters right...So unless the Chinese fighters can match the same range of the bombers, there will always be a safe zone. Sure those chinese fighters can tank to extend range but the flip side applies to them.
Is it some quirk of the human condition where we decide that the thing we know the most about it we surround with questions and doubt but the thing we know the least about we speak with such conviction?
look at even this thread.
What will an F-35 cost in 2025? Well we THINK around $25,000 in 2025.
and what will NGAD be per hour in the year 2035?
We just KNOW it will be cheaper!
Really? HOW? We don't even "know" what an F-35 will cost in 4 years but we can definitely say what an NGAD will cost in 2035?
Of course I have no idea about what NGAD is or what it entails. But here is the top 10 features and objectives of NGAD?
The same person telling me "no plan survives first contact" is telling me definitely what a NGAD concept demo will do when its service years from now and the emphasis that has been selected, but as for the F-35 "well things change, 16 years ago was a long time" Its important to note one of the first compromises on F-22 was range. Not only do we know little about NGAD in terms of the fact that its very much in its infancy, we know even less than that because so much of it is classified info.
But you go right ahead, and keep on inventing things.
06 Apr 2021, 04:57
