steve2267 wrote:I keep going back to requirements. In the USA (anyway), contractors work to the requirements that are baked into the contract. If it's not a requirement, they don't do it, because they won't get paid. Commercial enterprises are like that.
I'll throw some broad numbers out. I'll say that the JSF program could have been done cheaper. By half. But for the requirements. Not the stelph & STOVL, those were bedrock requirements. No, the requirements that resulted in a phenomenal pack-hunting velociraptor because of it's networked situational awareness. In short, the avionics that were demanded by the program requirements. All the operators (i.e. the pilots) rave about the situational awareness. Oh - yeah, it accelerates like a Hornet with four motors. Oh - yeah, it pirouettes like a Bug. Oh - yeah, it hangs with a Block 50 Viper (clean). BUT LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT THE SA!!!! WOW!
I do not know the entire history of the JSF program in detail. Well, I know of what Dr. Bevilaqua wrote up to the X-35 vs X-32 flyoff. But I do not know a whole lot about what happened after contract award esp. vis-a-vis the avionics requirements. Now, Dr. Bevilaqua himself has stated the thought too much "stuff" was added to the X-35. And I appreciate his opinion. BUT, that stuff -- integrated EOTS, DAS/EODAS, EW, panoramic display, HMS -- and all the software and sensor fusion that went into it -- all that stuff is what transformed, IMO, the F-35 from being a 4-to-1 or 8-to-1 transformative, next-gen fighter to this 20-1 or 30-0 velociraptor.
If the requirements had been such that the X-35, with the original 2x1000lb internal bomb requirement, just needed to be tweaked for production, with an AESA radar, a conventional HUD combined with the standard helmet mounted cueing system of the day, a built-in EOTS (i.e. electro-optic with integrated thermal & laser designator), and a basic self-defense EW jamming package (i.e. an F/A-18E type avionics with an AESA), the F-35 prolly would have been IOC 5-10 years earlier and cost a lot less, and maintenance would be a LOT less. I bet the CPFH of the F-35 would be down around an F/A-18E by now (maybe less), and possibly approaching an F-16V. But you may only have been seeing 4-to-1 or 8-to-1 exchange ratio in Red Flag. A lot of Blue Force jets would be getting shot down in Red Flag because that kid fresh out of flight school wasn't able to say "Hey dude, you need to go a different direction, cuz you're about to get smoked by a bandit" to a 5000 hour Viper vet.
Somewhere, someone was either sold a bill of goods, or got the bright idea, "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if we could... merge the data from all sensors -- from the radar and the passive EO?" Someone else said, hey, if we did that, we could automatically task the laser to get you a range on that bandit. Then someone else said, and if we automatically spread all this data to his wingman via a Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) radio link... and she was interrupted -- "forget wingman, let's spread it to all the aircraft that are up in the package!"
Then someone in the corner spoke up, "Excuse me... that's all great... but maintenance costs are going to be through the roof with all these integrated computers." To which another person piped up, "BUT... if we incorporate fault tolerant computing with integrated self-test, and tie it all together with software on the ground to track all the hardware and predict failures -- like they're doing in the airlines -- we could actually bend that cost curve down." Then some numbnutz engineer who plays a lot of Scrabble said, "We could call it ALIS -- Automatic Logistics Integrated System!"
And it all got written into the requirements. And the customer saw that it was good. And was happy.
Right and I'll pass on some comments, without breaking things up line by line like I usually do.
theres a lot of really basic stuff that could have made JSF easier and cheaper, there was a lot of "own goals" and ramping up the difficulty and just plain mistakes. A lot of the problems with JSF/F-35 are political/government/beauracratic in nature. I'll give some examples
X-32 vs X-35. As far as LM was concerned --and Bevilaqua made this clear --was that the STOVL lift system that was a "deal breaker" and the crux of the entire competition, was good to go from the start and the battle of the X-planes should have never happened. LM should have been sole sourced. But Boeing threw a fit and pulled every political string to ensure there was a competition, arguing that theres only one successful STOVL airplanein the world, and it uses Direct lift and is now made by "Boeing" AKA MCAIR. AKA Boeing. now of course X-32 ends being an absolute joke in terms of STOVL, and the STOVL lift system in X-35 F-35 has been nothing short of remarkable in terms of success vs risk, and problems. The biggest show stopper of the entire JSF endeavor ended up being rock solid. So Boeing wasted a lot of time and effort and money competing a joke of a "rival"
The F-35 as an "air Vehicle" as in imagine an airplane and an engine, and not the brains and sensosrs that make it a warplane, has been very solid. It pulled 9.9G and hit Mach 1.66 back in
2011. There was the engine rub issue, there was premature cracking here and there and modifications that most aircraft have to go through. But the post-SWAT F-35 as an aircraft has been remarkable for a progam most people thought was "impossible" We don't have it crashing and killing people like the V-22, its not suffering flight software problems like F-20 and Gripen did initally. Its not "lawn darting' like F-16. Not bad for an "impossible" airplane
NAVAIR supplied the wrong tailhook info that affected F-35C, and X-47. I don't think even vaunted 2021 design AI would have fixed this, because again bad numbers bring bad builds. This is an example of an "oh s**t" that just makes you bang your head against the wall. its a costly mistake, but its not an engineering flaw. They built something on government furnished info that turned out to be wrong. not LMs fault but like a good contractor LM was polite enough not to mention it.
The 2k Bomb bay thing has been covered, It made life tougher. We could do without it probably, the good news is the bay is bigger now, future weaponers will be happier to have more space to fill.
ALIS is not a bad idea. its taking from the civilian airline industry that has had great success with such systems. most of the people who complain about ALIS have no idea how it even compares to previous systems, computers, and methodologies the military uses now. They just know it sucks. but can't even tell you how its done on F-18s now, or how it differs from the way its done on F-16s. The Military was completely right to "reach" for a better way of doing things. Moreover, since ALIS sucks and doesn't work, the Military has been working around it anyway.
As you point out, more computers and sensors were added, beyond what was ever really first set out. only 1 in 3 F-35s was supposed to have EOTS, but that changed as ISR lessons via the war on terror took off.
A Rand study found that 50 percent of modern costs are engines and avionics, and I am very inclined to believe this. Those are 2 aspects as to "where the money is made" and if one looks at gripen E, theyll note Saab outsourced both. So a fighter company that takes pride on low costs reached to outside areas for the 2 most expensive aspects of fighter design. not a coincidence.
The original construction concept changed post SWAT to a more conventional style. The big Wing joint Idea(sorry I can't find a picture) was abandoned and a more conventional structure that goes from wing tip to wing tip was used. this added costs, but saved weight. SWAT I think was resolved in less than 2 years and produced the definitive vehicle. The Lift Fan has been a god send in terms of reliability. the physical part of this airplane, has been very very good under normal circumstance and phenomenal in terms of the "impossible" design goals.
If AI and next gen engineering software is the golden bullet people think it is, someone needs to tell Boeing they should maybe consider using it. 737Max and and now 777X (which is now suffering delays that will last more years) could probably use some of these engineering silver bullets. KC-46? No? oh well I guess. someday.
I can go on, and I still might. but the problem is basically this: the engineering is not really the issue with these airplanes. the Engineering is relatively easy and even an "impossible" airplane like the F-35 has done very well. The STOVL lift fan had fewer hick ups than the tailhook. Did anyone predict that? Who had bets on the F-35A being the first variant to suffer a loss? I know I didn't. I thought the B was going to be like osprey 2.0 and fight and kick and scream and probably kill a few people before it settled into reliability. I was wrong.
F-35 program is massive. its going to stand out. the sheer scale means that delays and overruns are also massive. Moreover it essentially monopolized the fighter biz. Which means that every fighter maker has big financial incentive to knock it off the top of the mountain. now who "wins" from there is a secondary concern, but they know that nobody can win unless its gone. so they work to make it gone, and they have lots of help.
The USAF thinks it has some gold ticket, I assure you it doesn't. there's no amount of engineering that stops politics, unpredictability, dumb mistakes, testing issues, buearacrats (Xander, you should learn to spell that correctly someday. No, theyve wasted enough of my life), funding problems, requirements changes midstream, risky scary risk of risk, rivalry, bad press, etc. its not an airplane problem, its a system problem. until you fix the sytem problem the airplane problem will barely move the needle one way or the other. In some ways the hyper fast building may cause problems "wow thats neato kid! what happens when we have the computer draw it up to carry a 5,000 lb hypersonic?"
oh no sir... why...
If you look at Gripen NG/E program its rife with missed opportunities, long development times, cost and weight escalation, and this is supposed to be a "safe" follow-on design as done by one of the best in the world (many consider it THE best). Sweden delayed their order for years. So Saab had to wait for a co-developer which was finally the Swiss in 2011 after the program started offcially in 2006. Swiss drop out, but Brazil signs on in 2014, Then Sweden asked to extend the timeline out. They hope to have it fully operationally capable in 2026/7 it still has years of testing and F model is a couple years out as well. The program is not "delayed" its just very delayed at the request of the customer.
Remember this is the "good company" with the "Safe" design.
10 Mar 2021, 08:35
