The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

Broncazonk said:
move on.
Click to expand...

Move on to what? Is there an F-36 out there we don't know about?

I am absolutely convinced, that had the JSF not been invented pre F-22 cancellation, it certainly would have been after. The F-22 was a kick in teeth cost wise, its a clearly cautionary tale of what happens when individual contries/services "go it alone" in terms of development. the requirements for the next half century that have been laid out by the US military (and other militaries as well) are so extremely expensive, the requirements of an LM Marketing-term-that-has-the-number-5-in-it so costly, that the only way to pull it off is to come together and share the expense, while at the same time eliminating redundancy of multiple programs, And relying on large serial production and a huge common fleet to drive down costs.

Could you imagine if the USMC, USN, and other JSF partner countries were trying to make their own F-22s? If the USN had as many F-22 type aircraft as the USAF, it would barely be able to equip its carriers with such a small force. even now the USN relies heavily on Marine Air, the USMC will provide 80 F-35Cs for naval carriers. can you imagine the USAF, USMC, and USN all going their own way and only get 50 percent of what they require for the next 50 years?

If you can think of a better, faster, cheaper way to produce over 3,000 common 5th generation fighters (not rehashes, not upgrades, not improved versions of old, not SLEPs that are 4.5 generation) for multiple services both in the US and in Europe and other allied nations, I'm all ears.
 
Hmm- they could buy the Shenyang J-31? ;D

Everything else is made in China these days, its the logical next step...
 
Sferrin - So that would be the same idiots who predicted four years ago that the JSF was on course to miss its schedule and budget goals completely, and that it wouldn't be that hot in flight performance?
 
LowObservable said:
Sferrin - So that would be the same idiots who predicted four years ago that the JSF was on course to miss its schedule and budget goals completely, and that it wouldn't be that hot in flight performance in the year 2012?
Click to expand...

Fixed.

Much like sports, the score only matters at the end, not the middle.
 
2IDSGT said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
Broncazonk said:
move on.
Click to expand...
Move on to what?
Click to expand...
This is what he recommended elsewhere.

images


The guy is a well known goat connoisseur; best not waste your time.
Click to expand...

Ill take it! The real trick is convincing the Navy and USAF to buy 2000 of them (although they may think it looks strangely familiar...) . Would love to see the look on all the partner nations faces after they gave billions of dollars and waited over a decade and we give em a barely post WWII prop job for their 21st century conflicts. America= Best Troll ever.
 
LowObservable said:
Sferrin - So that would be the same idiots who predicted four years ago that the JSF was on course to miss its schedule and budget goals completely...
Click to expand...
Gee, one could predict that about any program anywhere and be right most of the time. Such foresight! ::)

LowObservable said:
...and that it wouldn't be that hot in flight performance?
Click to expand...
*Hot* was supposed to be the F-22's job. Unfortunately, Gates didn't like fighter jocks very much; guess they must have picked on him back when he was sitting in a Minuteman hole.
 
Seriously, TT - Read the report.

The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 8 seconds.

Anyway... All this argument about "what is the fallback plan?" is decreasingly relevant because the first fallback plans are already being implemented in terms of upgrades to F-16s and F-15s, training and doctrine for mixed stealth/non-stealth operations and Australia's gap-filler buy, if that proceeds. The last few years of USN Super Bugs has also been a fallback plan.

Plans will evolve as the reality of 2020 IOC is recognized and if (as seems likely) even the 2020 IOC will not deliver the full Block 3F capabilities. (Read the report: How far has software slipped relative to the post-TBR schedule?)

Nobody would recommend, by the way, restarting a program with F-35 requirements, so that's a strawman argument. The question is, what investments now provide the best balance of airpower in the future? That means addressing the future incrementally: How the fleet of today evolves in 2020-25, 2025-30 and so on. It also means confronting the fact that we can't have 25-year programs from first serious money to IOC, which means (a) changing culture and incentives and (b) making more sensible requirements.
 
JFC Fuller said:
The odd-ball was the USMC Harrier replacement which chucked STOVL into the mix and has certainly been a source of its fair share of trouble, a quick look at the airframe from below shows how the STOVL requirement became a major design driver.
Click to expand...
I used to think the same thing, but the more I read about the JSF program and its precursors, the more I've come to view USN requirements as the root cause for most of the F-35's problems, not STOVL.
 
God, I love teasing them silly F-35 forum (F-16.net) fanboys. Every so often I'll sign up and twist 'em into knots with simple facts like: the F-35 can't do what an A1-D can do, and it ain't never going to be able to do what an A1-D can do. $175 million per plane and a vintage A1-D can fly twice as far carrying four times as much.

The F-35 will never be a fighter, it's not nimble enough and never will be. F-22's will clear contested airspace of enemy aircraft, and UCAVs will eliminate the SAM threat, so why do we need a stealthy strike fighter? We just need the strike part, and when an A1-D can do the strike part way better, why do we need a 5th-Gen JSF?

Lockheed Martin is bankrupt in 30-days without the F-35 project cashflow. The company is an over-leveraged trainwreck. It's impossible to name a single high profile LM project/product that's not in trouble, and there is not enough server space to discuss the project/product problems. And that's a national security problem. Lockheed Martin does not have our nation's best interest at heart. They have their rotten to the core corporate interests at heart instead.

And just remember, every F-35 that we buy for the next 10-years will be a mistake jet that will need substantial fixing.

Bronc
 
God, I love teasing them silly little F-35 forum (F-16.net) fanboys.
Click to expand...

Well done, Marine. I can see why you are so proud.

Every so often I'll sign up and twist 'em into knots with simple facts like: the F-35 can't do what an A1-D can do, and it ain't never going to be able to do what an A1-D can do. $175 million per plane and a vintage A1-D can fly twice as far carrying four times as much.
Click to expand...

Tell me more about its transonic speed.

The F-35 will never be a fighter, it's not nimble enough and never will be. F-22's will clear contested airspace of enemy aircraft, so why do we need a strike fighter? We just need the strike part, and when an A1-D can do the strike part way better, why do we need a 5th-Gen JSF? Do the fanboys wanna answer that one? Anyone?
Click to expand...

Whats a SAM? And for the record, its not just JSF fan boys that think thats a stupid idea. Whether its APA advocating F-22s, or Bill Sweetman advocating light fighters other than the F-35, we are all amazed at your proud ignorance on display.

Lockheed Martin is bankrupt in 30-days without the F-35 project cashflow. The company is an over-leveraged trainwreck. It's impossible to name a single high profile LM project/product that's not in trouble, and there is not enough server space to discuss the project/product problems. And that's a national security problem.
Click to expand...

the JSF is only a fraction of LM profits. and have you heard of the C-130 or F-16?

Lockheed Martin does not have our nation's best interest at heart. They have their rotten to the core corporate interests at heart instead.
Click to expand...

Unlike Boeing who donates their services and equipment free of charge.

And just remember, every F-35 that we buy for the next 10-years will be a mistake jet that will need substantial fixing.
Click to expand...

unlike the F-22, F-18E/F, F-16, F-18, F-14, F-15, B-2, B-1 etc.?
 
LowObservable said:
Sferrin - So that would be the same idiots who predicted four years ago that the JSF was on course to miss its schedule and budget goals completely, and that it wouldn't be that hot in flight performance?
Click to expand...
How does one define "hot" in flight performance? Do any of your magical Eurocanards have enough oomph to dodge a 5th gen HOBS missile? Yeah, I didn't think so.
 
sferrin said:
Do any of your magical Eurocanards have enough oomph to dodge a 5th gen HOBS missile?
Click to expand...

Well, one thing is for certain--to a mathematical certainty--the F-35 doesn't, and it will never will. As it stands right now, after billions of dollars thrown down a rat hole, an F-105 would own the F-35 in every possible mission: from deep strike to sitting on a tarmac. That's a categorical statement.

Bronc
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
The F-35 will never be a fighter, it's not nimble enough and never will be. F-22's will clear contested airspace of enemy aircraft, so why do we need a strike fighter? We just need the strike part, and when an A1-D can do the strike part way better, why do we need a 5th-Gen JSF? Do the fanboys wanna answer that one? Anyone?
Click to expand...

Whats a SAM? And for the record, its not just JSF fan boys that think thats a stupid idea. Whether its APA advocating F-22s, or Bill Sweetman advocating light fighters other than the F-35, we are all amazed at your proud ignorance on display.
Click to expand...

I answered it, what do I win?
 
Don't know if already mentioned and a Defence Planning Committe attented by the Turkish PM declared the purchase of two F-35s was delayed for another year on the grounds that

-no access to Software provided
-unit cost is now 150 million
-overall cost has climbed from 10 to 17 billions
-the performance is below specifications.

There was a reference to F-35B and interest in it. Not clear whether that's "instead of" or "in addition to" the F-35C. Well, the Naval contract must obviously go to the Russians.

Edit:I see there are a couple of links in Page 173.
 
178 pages has pretty much exhausted all the discussion topics, not just the Turkish issue. And I think the only thing that has been demonstrated, quite thoroughly, is that there are about four people involved whose faith in Lockheed Martin is absolute, and have the manners of the South Park kids - but sadly without the least trace of a sense of humor.


Unfortunately they also seem to have a lot of time on their hands, so that they can repeat previous erroneous assertions and invent new ones, pile one strawman argument on another, and do so at a rate that would make it a full-time job to refute them all factually.


So it is now my strategic decision to quit this discussion, given there are places where a reasoned debate still takes place where each side can learn from the other, and that it looks like things will be busy for a while.
 
I don't have time to write long right now, so I will keep it short.

Here is why Koreans feel they don't need the F-35; the glide bomb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcM0xv0Ks0U

Korean military also ordered 2000 lbs version from Boeing called JDAM-ER. This one is not as maneuverable as the KGGB, but the same purpose.
 
GTX said:
What would the US be left to do then:USAF:
  • Buy more F-22s?
Click to expand...

  • Buy more F-22s.

    - Well that will go down nicely for the budget!
    Click to expand...
    There is not much of a cost difference between the F-22 and the F-35A anyway.

    • Start a new 5th or even 6th Gen Fighter program (maybe even with UCAS)?
    Click to expand...

    • Now that the F-35 turned out to be a disaster, the USAF should accelerate the F-X project, possibly combining with the USN F/A-XX project to save money. An airforce + navy combo jet is doable, unlike the airforce + navy+ marine jet.
    • USN:

      • Keep with the Super Hornet?
      Click to expand...

      • More like the Silent Hornet. The US Navy is talking with Boeing about the Silent Hornet retrofit to existing Super Hornets, that the US Navy could go ahead if Boeing finds the first export customer.

        • Start a new 5th Gen Fighter program? - Again, not a sensible move!
        Click to expand...
        The Navy has the F/A-XX program.

        USMC:

        • Keep the Harriers and Classic Hornets going?
        Click to expand...

        • 1. Buy the Super Hornet to replace the Hornet.
          2. Start a new STOL fighter jet program, based around Gripen or something similar. S/VTOL is dead now.

          Now let’s also look at the non-US partners (and existing/future FMS operators – Israel, Japan, Spain, Singapore, South Korea etc.). Well to begin with, for the US Govt to try to cancel the F-35 (and it would take nothing less then the US Govt) means pissing off a lot of their allies
          Click to expand...

          It would not piss off Israel(Wanted the Silent Eagle over F-35 in the first place anyway, only to be denied by the US), Japan(Just replace the F-35 with Mitsubish F-3), Spain(bankrupt and can't afford new jets), and Korea(F-35 is already ruled out).
      ​
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Hmm- they could buy the Shenyang J-31? ;D

Everything else is made in China these days, its the logical next step...
Click to expand...


No STOVL version. No LM lobbying. No chance.
 
Nils_D said:
Why on earth should they buy more of a less capable platform?
Click to expand...
There are countries lined up to buy the F-22 regardless of price, while everyone is fleeing from the F-35.
 
SlowMan said:
  • Start a new 5th or even 6th Gen Fighter program (maybe even with UCAS)?
Click to expand...

  • Now that the F-35 turned out to be a disaster, the USAF should accelerate the F-X project, possibly combining with the USN F/A-XX project to save money. An airforce + navy combo jet is doable, unlike the airforce + navy+ marine jet.
Click to expand...


  • If you read that report, the Navy version is looking far more troublesome than the USMC version.

    SlowMan said:
    Nils_D said:
    Why on earth should they buy more of a less capable platform?
    Click to expand...
    There are countries lined up to buy the F-22 regardless of price, while everyone is fleeing from the F-35.
    Click to expand...

    Who is "everyone" and which countries are "lined up" for the F-22?

    The F-22 is toxic, and not just politically. You do realize as we speak the F-22 is under flight restrictions for safety itself? The line has been shut down and boxed up as well.

    AS Bill Sweetman has said, its operating costs are where the real expenses are accrued with fighters and the F-22 has an insane CPFH. If Canada for example were to do the a similar audit of the F-22 they would be lucky to operate it for 10 years at the same cost.

    If the USAF couldnt get the nearly 400 they wanted before, how are they going to get 1700 now? Very basic questions. The F-22 is not walking through that door to "save the day" and if it did, it still only be the USA that would get it. We don't want to export it.

    large broad sweeping statements like "everyone hates this except a few people" or "Everyone would buy the F-22 if they could" and all these assumptions that are basically at odds with what we are seeing. just because Korea doesn't want something (for a myriad of reasons) doesn't mean that now "no one" wants it. And just because there are only a few people here that advocate the F-35, while others rally behind future aircraft yet to be invented, or aircraft with propellers from WWII, Or even alternatives that are just as expensive if not more, it doesn't mean that the small minority is in the wrong.

    Finally, all the LM bashing. There are literally hundreds of companies contributing to the F-35 from all over the globe. This idea that LM is some evil corporation that invented the JSF because it was bored one sunday is ridiculous. Boeing competed just as hard for the JSF, they wanted it bad and they lost the competition. Boeing is a business and like LM they are still trying to sell things at competitive prices to make a profit. Its not a charity. Programs like the Silent eagle/silent hornet are smart decisions on their part but are largely underfunded and in waiting. They are essentially paper projects and would take billions and years to develop themselves along with the high prices it would take to bring them up to requirements with similar F-35 like sensors and avionics. Even SAAB has run into the wall with the Gripen NG.

    There are no cheap and easy solutions.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
If you read that report, the Navy version is looking far more troublesome than the USMC version.
Click to expand...
That's why the US Navy would be happy to swap the F-35C for the Silent Hornet.

Who is "everyone" and which countries are "lined up" for the F-22?
Click to expand...

Countries lined up to buy the F-22 : Israel, Japan, Korea, Australia, and more.
Countries fleeing from the F-35 : Canada, Netherlands, Australia(Buying Super Hornets instead of F-35As), and Turkey.
 
Just dump the F-35, restart the F-22 line by combining 200 or so international orders with 200 USAF orders, and start the combined F-X/FA-XX project so that the jets could be fielded in 2030.

This is the least damaging way to get out of this F-35 mess.
 
Ground attack, contrary to the glamor of the fighter jocks, is the only real reason why Airforces exists. Air-air combat, read (F-22) is just a supporting player that enables ground attack against the enemy and prevents ground attack against oneself. F-35 hasn't been said to be fundamentally inadaquate for stealthy ground attack role. It does the thing that airforce needs to do to truely justify its existence well and in a state of the art way. F-22 is, on the other hand, a poor stealth ground attack platform, the obsurd fiction of it being the replacement for f-117 not withstanding. It has limited range, and it's ordinance options are highly constrained not only by its equipment, but also by its airframe structure. To convert it into a ground attack platform will require a major redesign, the cost of which, from start to finish, is unlikely to be less per plane to be purchased than bringing the f-35 to operational status. Also, since unlike the f-15 to f-15e convention, a f-22 derivative truly optimized for ground attack would be stantantially different and structurally heavier than the f-22a, there is no guarantee it would actually still have better kinematic performance than the f-35. In addition, a f-22 derivative would still need yet more work if it were to operate from carriers. It would be by some margine the heaviest tactical fighterever to operate from a Catobar carrier, whether it uses the f-22a as basis, or the strike f-22 derivative as basis.


There is no way replacing f-35 with f-22 in some or all of f-35's roles would be cheaper than bringing f-35 to fruition. It is also questionable if replacing f-35 with f-22 will result in a more stistactory platform for f-35's main intended roles.

BTW, I think everyone with a brain knew from the start that a truly stealthy G5 fighter isn't going to be kenematically superior to what late 1990 technology can make a non-stealthy G4+ fighter, nor could a truly stealthy G5 fighter carry as much or as varied a range of ordinance in stealth mode as late G4 fighters. You know what? I bet you Mig 1.44, if fully developed, could handily out range and outmaneuver the F-22 because the 1.44 had G-5 engines and aerodynamics but didn't have to suffer constraints of stealth. But the bet was stealthy was of bigger benefit than the constraints it imposes was a drawback. I don't understand what the surprise is if F-35 isn't all that maneuverable if its design was based on the acceptance of this trade off. The only thing I can think of is if some one really bought the fiction that G5 American fighters can defy laws of physics and accept the constraint imposed by stealthy without having to sacrafice anything else.
 
SlowMan said:
Countries lined up to buy the F-22 : Israel, Japan, Korea, Australia, and more.
Countries fleeing from the F-35 : Canada, Netherlands, Australia(Buying Super Hornets instead of F-35As), and Turkey.
Click to expand...

Israel, is buying their own version of the F-35, the F-35I
Japan, has already opted for the F-35, they seemed to get over the F-22 pretty quickly.
Korea, you said yourself can't afford the F-35, and wants more industrial offsets/tech (with the F-22 the offsets would be exactly ZERO) Korea wants an F-22 to launch glide bombs?
Australia, other than APA has had no interest in the F-22, and APA knowing its an inferior strike platform, also advocated a super F-111
"and more" , Uhhhh?

Canada, again we have covered Canada
Netherlands,still buying LRIP F-35 aircraft for some reason, still a partner nation
Australia, already covered by the Aussies in this very thread-- they are not buying additional hornets
Turkey is delaying their LRIP aircraft, they are not leaving.

Countries not mentioned
UK- Continuing with F-35
Denmark- Continuing with the F-35
Norway- after doing a Canadian style audit they are sticking with the F-35
Italy- Still going F-35
Singapore- cooperative partner


The way governments work is they send paper work to each other officially expressing what they are buying, and they make official documents of their own, and they lay the ground work and infrastructure for their military plans. At no point did Australia send any of this official paperwork for the F-22. When APA testified before a certain political body in Australia that the "F-35 was a failure in every measure" or something to that affect, the Australian government said "it has not actually failed in any of the criteria that we use to measure our aircraft programs" doh.

So regardless of what is written in the internet or APA, by Australia's own official measurement, The F-35 is still perfectly "within tolerances" and even if it wasn't as you mention, F-18Fs are probably a lot more likely than F-22s considering that the F-22 isn't built. isn't built for export. and is phenomenally expensive in every way you can measure an aircraft.

Nothing is going to bring the F-22 back, and if these governments that you mention are so determined to get it, they sure are sending mixed messages by opting openly for the F-35, signing official paperwork, and sending billions of dollars in support. Which is a very odd way to express not liking something, i feel.

Thank you moderator
 
On Ares: Fire Down Below

Interesting point at the end of Mr Sweetman's blog:
[font=dejavu sans, sans-serif]The report adds to the uncertainty surrounding the F-35’s initial operational capability dates. Last summer, Congress added language to the 2013 budget that called on all the USAF and Navy to name IOC dates for all three versions by year-end – then changed the deadline to June 1 at the last minute. The most recent Selected Acquisition Report disclosed that Block 3F initial operational test and evaluation, a necessary event for IOC, would not be finished until 2019 – and that does not include any additional weapons integration time.[/font]
Click to expand...
 
Arjen said:
On Ares: Fire Down Below
...the awkward fact is that the DOT&E has been reporting on the F-35 program since its inception, and has been critical of the progress of the flight test program since the early days of flying, and (unless I have missed something) nobody has pointed to an example where their reports erred on the negative side...
Click to expand...
Yes, if only the DOT&E had been around to save us from these three colossal boondoggles. Come to think about it, the only all-new fighter design to enter service since the DOT&E was created is the F-22. Great work those guys are doing. ;) Thank you Sweetman for bringing attention to the effect this organization has had on the costs and efficiency of major programs since it came into being.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7diDWBrTjr0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRMCykYWreM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfM5FxnWPm4
 
Two perfect examples of shooting the messenger - in one reply. How efficient.
 
2IDSGT said:
...Come to think about it, the only all-new fighter design to enter service since the DOT&E was created is the F-22. Great work those guys are doing. ;) Thank you Sweetman for bringing attention to the effect this organization has had on the costs and efficiency of major programs since it came into being.
Click to expand...

Arjen said:
Two perfect examples of shooting the messenger - in one reply. How efficient.
Click to expand...
Oh no, the piece was very helpful in an indirect way.

For years, I've been at a complete loss as to why procurement of new systems has been so damned creaky and slow over the past few decades; all I knew was that things started to go south in the mid-late 1980s. What the hell was it? Did everyone in the DoD/defense-industry suddenly become less competent at their jobs? Now I have something that correlates.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
If the USAF couldnt get the nearly 400 they wanted before, how are they going to get 1700 now? Very basic questions. The F-22 is not walking through that door to "save the day" and if it did, it still only be the USA that would get it. We don't want to export it.
Click to expand...

From the Congressional Research Service report "Potential F-22 Raptor Export to Japan":

"The Department of Defense (DoD) is officially neutral on whether the F-22 should be exported, but senior leaders have suggested that they favor foreign sales of the F-22.2 However, since 1998, Congress has prohibited the use of appropriated funds to approve or license the sale of the F-22 to any foreign government.3 This provision, known as the “Obey Amendment,” was debated in the 109th Congress. The House Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2007 proposed to repeal the law, but export opponents in the House prevailed with the Senate in conference."

Japan and Israel expressed interest in the F-22 at various points. Japan in particular offered to pay for the program to make the F-22 exportable, which would work around the Obey Amendment. There have been several different studies done to estimate the costs and complexity of an export variant, with somewhat varying results.

As stated above, DoD is officially neutral on F-22 export.

The CRS report does go on to say:
"A final industrial base issue pertains to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Although originally intended to be complementary aircraft, F-22 and JSF capabilities, development, and production have converged. Implicitly if not explicitly, these aircraft are competing for scarce procurement funds. Extension of F-22 production would likely bring these aircraft into even sharper competition. On the other hand, F-22 supporters argue, keeping the F-22 production line alive could serve as a useful hedge against any potential delay in JSF production."
 
quellish said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
If the USAF couldnt get the nearly 400 they wanted before, how are they going to get 1700 now? Very basic questions. The F-22 is not walking through that door to "save the day" and if it did, it still only be the USA that would get it. We don't want to export it.
Click to expand...

From the Congressional Research Service report "Potential F-22 Raptor Export to Japan":

"The Department of Defense (DoD) is officially neutral on whether the F-22 should be exported, but senior leaders have suggested that they favor foreign sales of the F-22.2 However, since 1998, Congress has prohibited the use of appropriated funds to approve or license the sale of the F-22 to any foreign government.3 This provision, known as the “Obey Amendment,” was debated in the 109th Congress. The House Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2007 proposed to repeal the law, but export opponents in the House prevailed with the Senate in conference."

Japan and Israel expressed interest in the F-22 at various points. Japan in particular offered to pay for the program to make the F-22 exportable, which would work around the Obey Amendment. There have been several different studies done to estimate the costs and complexity of an export variant, with somewhat varying results.

As stated above, DoD is officially neutral on F-22 export.

The CRS report does go on to say:
"A final industrial base issue pertains to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Although originally intended to be complementary aircraft, F-22 and JSF capabilities, development, and production have converged. Implicitly if not explicitly, these aircraft are competing for scarce procurement funds. Extension of F-22 production would likely bring these aircraft into even sharper competition. On the other hand, F-22 supporters argue, keeping the F-22 production line alive could serve as a useful hedge against any potential delay in JSF production."
Click to expand...

Its not coming back. :'(
 
2IDSGT said:
Nils_D said:
Correlation does not equal causation.
Click to expand...
You're right, but it's worth looking into.
Click to expand...
On a more serious note. Bookkeeping is a pain, it absorbs time and money. It's often tempting to skimp on it, because the time and money aren't directly spent on reaching your primary targets. There's also the possibility of overdoing it, burdening any project with red tape. Which is where - surprise - balance rears its head. Are you doing enough bookkeeping to monitor your project, so it doesn't derail entirely? Are you sinking too much time into it? It needs to be done, but not too much. Small projects can get away with a little, big projects need big bookkeeping.

Publicity adverse to a project is inherent to public accounting of any troubled project. That doesn't mean you need to nix the accounting. You need to fix the project.
 
So which came first; the DOT&E, or troubled fighter programs that took ~20 years? I shiver to think what the 1950's Atlas project (arguably a much more challenging program) would have been like in today's bureaucratic climate.
 
2IDSGT said:
So which came first; the DOT&E, or troubled fighter programs that took ~20 years?
Click to expand...
I suspect they have common causes. I would hazard that some form of accounting is indispensible. Twenty+ years projects aren't necessarily a bad thing, if they regularly deliver *operational* stuff along the way. If all the goods are only delivered after twenty years, no matter how good they are, there will be a lot of trouble keeping the project alive through all the passing administrations. Is there still a need for what the project is designed to deliver? If so, can you make do with your legacy stuff until the new goods are in place?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom