Comments on: Carter Orders JSF Changes

By: cfwittel

cfwittel — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:23:20 +0000

The Government gets what it deserves. Secretary Gates cancels the orders for additional F-22s, retires additional F-16s, F-14s. Our commander and chief is a joke. Our secretary of defense is a joke. Both of these men are idiots. Any time that the priority of the Government is on a Healthcare Bill over the defense of the Citzens of the United States, there are goining to be dire consequences. Unfortunately, all of this is taking place at a dangerous time were terriorists are plenty, and ready to bomb us at any time. If our nation is over-run by terrorists, we only have ourselves to blame, for voting both of these people into our Capital in Washington D.C. Next time, vote republican!

Sincerely,
C.F. Wittel

By: Anthony J. Conway

Anthony J. Conway — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:53:11 +0000

As they say, a picture (or, in this case, a movie ) is worth a thousand words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpFlN-OvD04

Do a little more research before coming to a final conclusion.

I am both a Desert Storm Vet as well as a Test Engineer.

I have worked on the LM systems that test all LRU’s attached to the F-35.

The F-35, and its support infrastructure, are setting new paradigms in the DoD. That ain’t easy!

The program is only about 1/2 done with the SDD phase and the LRIP just started last year.

Go to http://www.JSF.mil for archived (both good and bad) as well as current news.

Don’t let those whom oppose any type of advanced military hardware snow you over!

Anthony

By: Unibrowser

Unibrowser — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:23:31 +0000

I’ve spent 36 years in the aerospace industry and heard the baloney before. If the government and the politicians would leave the engineering to the people who know what they’re doing instead of changing the requirements from day to day and month to month, we might see reasonable cost containment.

Northop tried to do just what was suggested by Drake1 on the F20 and got burned because of it. The B-1B cost were driven up because every congressman wanted a piece of the pie. Still, that program produced 100 aircraft under cost and ahead of schedule.

Now, no one contractor can take on be the prime contractor, but must be part of a team of contractors. The contractor team must now accept foreign partners from multiple countries. The supply chain is now unimaginable and bulky„„ and we’ve only started.

By: George

George — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 06:07:55 +0000

GO WARTHOG!! Oh, but we have to look cool and WARTHOGS aren’t cool. They just win!

By: AV8R

AV8R — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:41:00 +0000

Here’s how these big-ticket ACAT 4D programs are structured:
1. Promise fantasy capabilities based on immature, unproven technologies.
2. Price it low with unrealistic hand-waving savings assumptions.
3. Promise it early.
4. Spread the spending around to the districts of influential lawmakers.
5. Spend lots of money early without generating any real product to get the government invested.
6. Start the delay game, blaming the delays on “technological difficulties” (see step 1)
7. Increase the cost, blaming it on step 6.
8. Repeat steps 6 and 7 as many times as you can, realizing that once the government has invested $billions, it will be extremely reluctant to walk away from the sunk costs. (I’ve often said that if the government were in the oil drilling business, once it began to drill there could only be two outcomes that would terminate the effort — strike oil or come out the opposite side of the Earth!
My observations are based on a 42 year career as a military aviator, flight test engineer, and consultant to DoD (in the acquisitions area).

By: Slumpy

Slumpy — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:02:48 +0000

The USN should get out of this black hole and buy F-18E/Fs forever. And if the USN really had a choice, I believe they would have bailed years ago,

By: JTS

JTS — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:07:27 +0000

Hummm. What’s REALLY wrong with this whole F-35 picture? How about what is really needed isn’t a 4th generation fighter, but an air-to-mud alley-cat fighter that: fights in dirty places; loiters for a long time, i.e., sips gas like a miser, and has huge self-sealing fuel tanks; is highly survivable against small arms and battlefield anti-acft threats; can drop/shoot highly lethal stuff all day, and can insert smart weapons in the cranial orifices of cave dwelling idiots; can fly low and slow enough to put iron/lead on target with superior accuracy; can be modified to operate off of carriers. Gee, let’s see here, hummmmm. WOW! Here’s a thought: reopen the WARTHOG assembly line, and make an ENTIRE air force and navy of A-10s for the cost of, oh, adozen F-35s??!?!?!?! Shoot, this is even cheaper that making ROVs (which in case nobody’s noticed are getting ever more EXPENSIVE!

By: bob ramos

bob ramos — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:45:55 +0000

The fix to the problem is to take the F-35 program away from lockheed and give it all to Northrop.They will build it like the F-18 and in 5 years you will see 1000 F-35 flying around.

By: tabacman

tabacman — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:29:57 +0000

What will we take to the air with in 2030 when the airframes for the F22 start fading?
What a/c program in history has been on budget, on time, and on tech targets?
What technological breakthrough will be had for future airframes if you discontinue the last major advanced tech development program of this scale and scope?
If you give it up and assume old tech is good enough — then that’s exactly what you will end up with — good enough. And by 2030 that will mean the end of superior airborne weapon platform (with a driver at least).
If there are budgetary problems — by all means address them. Prioritize what you want to do. This program fell victim to too much expectation (multi-role, multi-force platform) and too little expectation of the costs of integrating something we have never done before. One plane to concievably cover the missions of roughly 4 or 5 separate ones isn’t a bad idea — its just one that hasn’t really been done to this level — and hence the woeful under estimations of time, material, and money required.
Frankly the nonsense about testing aircraft before you fly is a ruse at best. The REAL test of aircraft is operating them in theatre and under duress. Deny it if you want but it is true. We learned a lot from the F22 and will learn a lot from the F35 — but only if it gets out and flies. The easiest, safest, cheapest planes on earth are the ones on paper — they can’t fail and they can’t succeed.
Put it in the hands of the guys out on the deck and see if it really is worth building more. Test regimes only tell me about what I THINK should happen — they tell me only so much about what really happens.
onejetjock — you should get it man — and I hope its everything and more that you guys need.
If we as taxpayers have a problem with money then I posit we have a LOT of other low hanging fruit we can clip first… some alluded to and millions/billions more that weren’t.
Keep up the good work here on the buzzsite!

By: onejetjock

onejetjock — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:13:28 +0000

Stop jawboning… Just get us the thing before everyone and everything is too old.. .. We’ll fly it..

By: Doc

Doc — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:15:41 +0000

Too late to add more F-22s at the last reported cost — SECDEF, Obama and Congress had to act a year ago when the early part of the production line was winding down. By now many component producers have built the last set of parts as it takes about 3 years from order to delivery. This means a production break has occurred — overcoming it would cost big bucks as layoffs and some shutdowns have taken place.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:05:49 +0000

Should have given the contract to Boeing after all.

By: Bill R.

Bill R. — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:34:37 +0000

So here is my ground pounder perspective on all this. For close air support, we need precision and responsiveness. While UAV platforms have some ability to deliver precise strikes, SA is limited. I’m not convinced that you will get the responsiveness you need from a platform that is remotely operated, much less a UAV in autonomous mode. If you could get away with that, all you would need are appropriately packaged cruise missiles. I know there are parts of the Air Force that are enamored of standoff precision, but the combat record in Serbia/Kosovo and Lebanon ain’t all that hot when those tactics were used, so there is much room for good old fashioned treetop level bomb runs. If you think otherwise, give the money to Army and bring back Commanche.

By: Seavets

Seavets — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:34:02 +0000

I agree on the comments to cancel the F-35, add F-22’s, let the Navy get UCAV’s and F-18E/F, believe the Navy wanted that any way,.……all too often a standard is set and is not met, withhold an incentive? If this were a comercial proejct, how would it rate? Not good.….and you bet there would be no incentive, more like a penalty

By: Flip

Flip — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:57:47 +0000

The F-35 is a totally different platform than the F-22 designed for a different mission. It is not designed for A/A combat, nor is it as stealthy as the F-22. With the advent of other planes from the Russian/Asian front, the F-22 is still very much needed and the F-35 will not perform the same mission, no matter what anyone says. Regarding the testing, this airplane has already undergone more testing before the first flight than ten F-16’s did after they had been flying over a year. Just because it wasn’t in the air doesn’t mean that with modern testing facilities and methodology it isn’t sufficiently being tested. That is all a smoke screen. And, every time you have a joint project, you can bet there is going to be issues that are not related to the hardware.

By: 2Wheels

2Wheels — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:17:50 +0000

Drake1 — you do not know of what you speak and are clearly ignoring many publicized data proving the opposite of what you are attempting to imply.
Not to take from the F-22 in any way, but you do understand in basic terms that the F-35’s components are decades ahead of the F-22, don’t you? Some similar systems on both — but UPGRADED on F-35. Do you catch the drift?
What do you have against the F-35 that you can actually prove?
Personally, I’d love to see an F-22 (2 seat) stretch version, for heavier and more variety of bomb loads with greater sortie distance.….combined with a nice mix of F-35’s and F-22’s as exist now.

By: 2Wheels

2Wheels — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:09:02 +0000

Cocidius…

“Borrowing Parts from other aircraft” has occured on every program in aircrat history and is well known officially to our customers. Do more homework before you slam this program — as it has broken more SDD phase records (in a positive light) than any other program you’ll be able to find in modern history.
There are thousands of vendors to this program and parts availability will ALWAYS need ironing out in the early phases. Do you not know this?

Are you so shallow as to think these aircraft are going to be delivered without thorough testing? Do you think the government would allow such?

By: EddieD057

EddieD057 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:03:28 +0000

One thing you have to realize about the USMC. They don’t get the aircraft funding that the USAF or USN, thus they essentially take the aircraft when the can get them. They realize for the most part if you delay things too long the program gets cut and you get nothing for another 10+ years. On that note how many USMC pilots have died in the development of the AV-8B and V-22, lots. A good idea, no. A workable means to the final objective close air support and transport, yes. Being former USAF and working with the USMC over 30 years I have seen a completely different mind set in regards to aviation. I think I summed it best when I made this statement while working at a USMC Depot. ” The USMC in regards to aviation is so used to having to do so much with so little for so long, that if give them a shadow they will build you an airplane”.

By: Tony C

Tony C — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:52:32 +0000

I remember these same type arguments placed on the F-15 during development and the F-18 during development, yet both turned out to be superb aircraft for the missions they were envisioned to perform.
The cost of development are high, even higher for stealth airframes. The issue to consider for the future is are manned fighters relevant. The US Navy wants UCAV’s and all the services are upgrading or developing new unmanned systems. My personal opinion is the manned fighter gives you better situational awareness and control in a combat situation. The F-35 has been touted by the SecDef because it was supposed to be significantly cheaper than the F-22A. If this is not the case, cancel the F-35 and purchase more F-22A’s. Let the US Navy develop their UCAV’s and purchase more F-18E/F’s. Then the services will get part of what they wanted from the beginning. Bombing missions can be achieved with unmanned systems or missiles anyway.

By: jacques navarre

jacques navarre — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:18:16 +0000

They.…. kill the Rapter.…they.….. kill the 17 program,shame on my country!.…..what is needed is an infusion to testicular fortitude.…Oh Gen.C. LeMay…I only wish you were here now! worriors demand to be lead into battle by their peers and soon they shall be again; Bomb the enimies of our people back to the stone age and soon we shall drink the wine of victory.