US Defence Cuts Announced: F-35 program delayed AGAIN

[BombTaxi]

Pentagon Cuts: Defense Spending Expected To Save $100 Billion

Worst news here (for a Brit like me) is that the F-35 could be delayed by two more years, leaving our new White Elephant-class megacarriers with nothing but Merlins and Lynxes until god-knows-when. Anyone fancy fitting Sidewinders to a Lynx? Or a £10 flutter on the F-35 going the way of Skybolt?

[Matt308]

Its that damn STOVL version that the marines insist they have. Personally I think STOVL is a waste in our current non-coldwar, UCAV persistent environment. We should shitcan it immediately.

[FLYBOYJ]

Watch what you read from Huffington - they've been known to put a real liberal spin on their articles.

I saw the article and it actually said this;

"The Pentagon's largest weapons program, the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is facing another restructuring that could extend the program's development phase by up to two years, said a third source familiar with the plans."

That third source was not named.

The F-35B is the part of the program running behind because of the complexity of the aircraft. The F-35A flight test program has been running rather smooth and been lumped into some of the bad press of its sister ship. Here's a better article on this...

For Lockheed's F-35, 2011 may be a do-or-die year | Business | Dallas Business, Texas Bu...

Lockheed-martin can't afford any more delays or screw ups and they know this. They already given money back to the government for some of their delays and may face more penalties if they don't comply with their current contract.

[Matt308]

Agree about the Huffington and Puffington Post, it is a liberal rag. But the F-35B has been developed to fight a war that has not materialized and our means of fighting such a war has changed over the course of its development.

It really boils down to whether an MEF needs F-35s on their light carriers. But are we really gonna send an MEF somewhere alone where we wont have Navy Carrier support nor indigenous runway assets? I think the likelihood is very low and cannot justify the huge costs and performance hit to the airplane. With these manned assets and the predator follow-on, Orion, having a 5 day loiter with 1500lb of ordnance I can't believe that there are not other alternatives.

The cost of the F-35B is killing the Marine's budget. If they continue to choose to stick with it, they will be forced to make some rather serious cuts to other weapon systems that are equally important, if not more, to their mission.

[BombTaxi]

Understand about the spin from HuffPo. I read it with the same neutrality/cynicism that I do Fox Still, any more delays are, from this side of the pond, an absolute nightmare. If it weren't for the political impossibilities, I would be advocating QEII and PoW sailing with Rafale's on deck...

[Matt308]

You guys gave up on the B, right? Or was that just a MoD Quadrennial Review recommendation? I thought you had already decided upon shifting to the C version and modding your carriers appropriately?

[ivanotter]

I think it is a correct observation that it is the B version which is problematic, but that it unfortunately will spill over to the A and C versions. Bad press may kill the entire project.

That said, cracking spars and having Mr. Gates to put it on probation does not instill any confidence in it.

Maybe one of the major problems facing all the a/c developments is the very long development cycle.

Maybe we have got into the habit of expecting this development to take 15+ years, whereas we should perhaps look at a paradigm shift here.

Developing a new car is not 15+ years (yes, I do know there is a difference between a Ford Ka and an F-35), but why do we accept such long development times?

I do understand the need for "joint" programmes and development of common goals, etc. But have we sacrificed effectivenes and responsivenes on the altar of the politically correct "jointnes"?

Looking at the Super Hornet, having buyers without even a hint of a carrier, it is a more wholesome project as it was designed for a specific environment (I think). The F-35 comes across as a compromise in any way possible.

Modern software integration is a major part of all a/c developments, but could it be cut down?

Imagine fielding a new a/c in 2 years? 3 years? 5 years max? That would do something for fielding the right solution at the right time instad of fielding the right solution to a 15+ year old situation (which obviously has moved on anyway).

Maybe the brits will have to go back to the Harriers or find something else to fly. The ripple effect can turn into a tsunami.

Yours,

[The Basket]

What's more impossible...having carriers without fighters or Rafales?

The super carriers are such a nonsense in the first place I expect no joy from them. Bad ideas lead to bad ideas.

[Matt308]

Maybe one of the major problems facing all the a/c developments is the very long development cycle.

There is some truth to that. Poor programmatic oversight is surely an issue that DoD is fully aware of. But another is that aircraft integration (both military and civil) are taking on a different mantra wrt development lifecycle timelines. F-35, A400M, A380, B787, A350, Sukhoi Superjet, etc. There are discussions that the typical 5yr "approval" cycle needs to be 7-10 in the future generations. And that does not include the engineering development and prototype phases.

[ivanotter]

...and that may be our undoing.

We may have to look at a paradigm shift in development cycles. otherwise we may design equipment now, which we ASSUME will be ok for the changed world situation in 15+ years. Who can predict the world 15+ years from now? and get it right?

Maybe we have become too obsessed with a goal of 100% where less could do?

An analogy is the building of the Liberty ships. Maybe not 100% but who could have imagined that a ship could be built in days? ...and they did the job there and then, not two years down the line.

The moon programme is another example (at least to a layman). Going through Mercury, Gemini and Apollo in a decade was an achievement.

Compared to that, why must the F-35 be a total of closer to 20+ years?

Another example is the German MP40 machien gun (the Schmeisser). fantastic and good, but the AK47 is still around, becuase it works, can be operated by novices and is cheap and moderately effective.

The nation to cut development cycles by a magnitude may be the winner in having equipment solving the issues NOW rather than solving the CURRENT issues in 10 years time. Maybe at a lower cost and at less functionality than desired but still within reason?

It also touches on all the "jointnes" of all programmes. If everything has to be designed by committee, have we then sacrificed other things on altar of the correctnes of the jointnes?

Just more thought into it.

Yours
Ivan

[BombTaxi]

I think joint programs are about much more than politics. The UK does not possess the infrastructure to develop a combat aircraft alone, thanks to disastrous government interference in the aviation industry during the 60s and 70s. The raw skill may or may not be there, but we lack the factories to build the finished product in, and what private company will invest in new plant unless it is guaranteed a large, multi-national order pool? The current government will not foot the bill, for both financial and (sorry mods) ideological reasons.

[ivanotter]

I think that joint development will make more sense IF we have users with very similar requirements.

The entire F-35 comes across as disparate requirements (USN, USAF, USMC, RN) pooled together because it MUST be "joint" for political reasons.

As a layman looking into the "tent", the Super Hornet comes across as a more "wholesome" a/c, not because it is not "joint" but because it had to fulfil requirements form users with similar wishes (I think that is fair to say).

My entire point is as well, as you also stipulated: Nobody can go it alone--> and my addition: AT THE CURRENT PRICE LEVELS.

If the heavy pricing is also because of the long development cycle and trying to perfect systems (beyond what is really clled for), no wonder nobody can do it alone.

Now, I am not saying the F-35 can be turned into a low-cost machine, but have we gone too far in perfecting things?

The development of the Harrier did not take 15-20 years, and i don't thnk the cost was as high as the F-35, so where did we go wrong (if we did go wrng indeed).

[Matt308]

All good points gents, but we are comparing disparate animals.

The Harrier was a phenomenal leap in airframe and propulsion integration. And it was a success.

But nowadays, airframe and propulsion integration is passe'. Virtually anybody can do that. Compound that with airframe, propulsion, sensor fusion, avionic, LPI data link, and ISR. The engineering complexity is magnitudes greater.

We can argue that such integration is not necessary, but we are not fighting the cold war wherein one side might throw masses against the other (with the exception of China perhaps in 25-30yrs). We are talking about nation states with relatively sophisticated anti-air defenses networked into their command/control supported by 4th gen air assets.

So should we build the modern version of the F-5 or MiG-21? In my opinion, no. Not with the foreseeable threats. But I do question the need for a $$$$$ STOVL airplane given the ability to establish air dominance for virtually any theater of war we car imagine in the near future. Especially if that same airframe will sacrifice the ability to field other airframes or warfighter weapons due to budget constraints.

[ivanotter]

But I do question the need for a $$$$$ STOVL airplane given the ability to establish air dominance for virtually any theater of war we car imagine in the near future. Especially if that same airframe will sacrifice the ability to field other airframes or warfighter weapons due to budget constraints.

The term is "putting one's eggs in one basket" I believe.

So, certain things have become "run of the mill" stuff in terms of airframe intrgation, etc, and other things have evolved and become more complex. That cannot be surprising.

The key question is still: why do we accept such long development cycles where equipment is near obsolete when finished?

Has it got something to do with utilising non-industry standard components, where everything has to be developed from scratch? That will typically push any development cost through the roof.

I am thinking specifically in terms of software development and this I don't know.

Maybe the solution is not to have the F-35 running Windows 7 and TCP/IP, but it will surely cut down on costs (It is TCP/IP now?).

Yours

[evangilder]

If any airplane were running Windows, it'd be in serious trouble. You don't use a consumer grade OS on a complex machine. Most likely it is a stripped down version of BSD or something similar. I would venture to guess it is some kind of hybrid UNIX OS that is set up with only the functionality it needs. THEN the software is developed for the needs of the aircraft.

Is there "out of the box" software for it? I doubt it. Besides, each generation of aircraft has newer and more complex systems that demand more programming and processing power.

Maybe a more modular approach to the software is the key. Once you have basic building blocks that all work, adding a module is less labor and time intensive.