The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Triton]

If only that were *why* it were getting all the attention. Instead it's because some are terrified if it's successful that will mean the end of European fighter development. Others are mad because it's getting sales over their favorite F-teen/Eurocanard. Still others are actually stupid enough to think if we cancelled it we'd get something better, cheaper, sooner. I've yet to see objectivity enter the discussion.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. Silly me not recognizing that all the attention given to cost overruns, technical problems, and delays in the F-35 program were motivated purely out of envy. Nice to know it has nothing to do with how my tax dollars are spent or how my nation and its interests are protected. How could I have been so deceived by those shills from Boeing, Dassault, and the Eurofighter consortium.

 

[F-14D]

One might say, in that case, the pilot wasn't following procedure. Sadly, neither was the Osprey pilot.

Did you not see the picture of the tiny nacelle control? Unless you have sensors in your thumb, it is obscenely easy to spin the ridiculously tiny nacelle control too far, resulting in a catastrophe. That is just bad design. An automated transition between flight modes would have saved a lot of lives.

Yes, I saw the picture that appeared in Popular Mechanics. The thing is it was not that he moved the nacelle control too far, but that he moved it at all. Five degrees nose down, in a tailwind just coming out of a VTO or hover, the nacelles shouldn't have been moved at all until a higher airspeed was reached. Aside from insufficient lift over the wings, when the nacelles translate, the cg shifts. The flight control system automatically compensates for this with the proprotors and aerodynamic controls . But if you're already nose down, the tailwind serves to lift the tail, exacerbating the situation. Leaving helicopter mode too soon meant the fcs did not have enough control authority to compensate for the cg shift and the tail being lifted and when this was combined with insufficient wing lift at that too low airspeed the V-22 went into the ground.

We're drifting a bit off topic.

 

[sferrin]

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. Silly me not recognizing that all the attention given to cost overruns, technical problems, and delays in the F-35 program were motivated purely out of envy. Nice to know it has nothing to do with how my tax dollars are spent or how my nation and its interests are protected. How could I have been so deceived by those shills from Boeing, Dassault, and the Eurofighter consortium.

Maybe you could direct me to another new fighter program that didn't have any cost increases, technical problems, or delays? Good hunting. Oh, and make sure to compare apples to apples.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Maybe you could direct me to another new fighter program that didn't have any cost increases, technical problems, or delays? Good hunting. Oh, and make sure to compare apples to apples.

So because other combat aircraft programme had cost increases and delays AND because the F-35 is not "apple to apples" it should be immune from criticism?

 

[bobbymike]

Maybe you could direct me to another new fighter program that didn't have any cost increases, technical problems, or delays? Good hunting. Oh, and make sure to compare apples to apples.

So because other combat aircraft programme had cost increases and delays AND because the F-35 is not "apple to apples" it should be immune from criticism?

Any comparison would, obviously, take into account the complexity of the F-35 program is what he means. In an earlier post I asked if anyone had looked at the F-15 (A/C/E), 16 & 18(B/C/D/E) models as compared to the F-35 because that is the closest comparison I can think of.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Is the F-35 really any more complicated to today's procurement establishment (industry and bureaucracy) than the F-105 was to the procurement establishment of 1955? Both push the technology boundaries of their day.

 

[bobbymike]

Is the F-35 really any more complicated to today's procurement establishment (industry and bureaucracy) than the F-105 was to the procurement establishment of 1955? Both push the technology boundaries of their day.

'For its' day' really means the first stone wheel is just as complicated 'for its' day' as the F-35. Would anyone make that argument?

 

[sferrin]

Maybe you could direct me to another new fighter program that didn't have any cost increases, technical problems, or delays? Good hunting. Oh, and make sure to compare apples to apples.

So because other combat aircraft programme had cost increases and delays AND because the F-35 is not "apple to apples" it should be immune from criticism?

Yeah, that's what I said. :

 

[sferrin]

Is the F-35 really any more complicated to today's procurement establishment (industry and bureaucracy) than the F-105 was to the procurement establishment of 1955? Both push the technology boundaries of their day.

'For its' day' really means the first stone wheel is just as complicated 'for its' day' as the F-35. Would anyone make that argument?

Not anybody with half a clue.

 

[F-14D]

Is the F-35 really any more complicated to today's procurement establishment (industry and bureaucracy) than the F-105 was to the procurement establishment of 1955? Both push the technology boundaries of their day.

Don't want to get into the middle of this, having way too much fun watching from the sides. But, today's procurement establishment is much more complicated to the F-35 than the procurement establishment of 1955 was to the F-105. ;D

 

[Dragon029]

Is the F-35 really any more complicated to today's procurement establishment (industry and bureaucracy) than the F-105 was to the procurement establishment of 1955? Both push the technology boundaries of their day.

F-14D beat me to it, but as a sort of middle-man I would like to say that the heavy amount of software included in the F-35 throws complexity through the roof; unlike aerodynamics, etc, it's not a field you can use field of thumb with, and lest a strong AI be invented, you can't throw software in a windtunnel to see if you've made a mistake.

Plus, on top of all of that, you have so much more scrutiny on the F-35 than F-105; at least the latter was only used by one nation (and one service if you round the ANG and USAF together).

 

[JFC Fuller]

Not anybody with half a clue.

Why? Does the F-35 really push the technological barrier any further, in distance terms, than other aircraft before it?

Just because the F-35 is more complicated than, for example, an F-15 it does not mean that making an F-35 today is automatically harder than making an F-15 was in 1970.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Yeah, that's what I said. :

Actually it is.

 

[LowObservable]

Maybe you could direct me to another new fighter program that didn't have any cost increases, technical problems, or delays? Good hunting. Oh, and make sure to compare apples to apples.



This falls into the "ask a silly question, get a silly answer" bracket. Most efforts that involve new technology going into complex vehicles will hit problems. The question is one of severity, impact and how the program manages them.


Everyone, pretty much, gave JSF a pass on its 2003 weight problems and the consequent delays. The criticism started to heat up in 08, however, as every outside observer (JET. GAO, Navair) started to question the schedule, as SDD first flight dates started to slip and the flight rate stayed low. The program's response was to do nothing effective while taking pot-shots at the messengers and blaming the customer for getting its predictions wrong.


By the time Venlet came on board the mess was so deep that it took a year to identify the problems and another year to stabilize the program (to the dates/costs in the FY11 SAR).


And now DOT&E is firing warning signals of a further delay and the contractor's response via its de facto spokesman is to blame everything on the mythical "testing community" and assure us that all is well.

 

[sferrin]

Maybe you could direct me to another new fighter program that didn't have any cost increases, technical problems, or delays? Good hunting. Oh, and make sure to compare apples to apples.



This falls into the "ask a silly question, get a silly answer" bracket. Most efforts that involve new technology going into complex vehicles will hit problems. The question is one of severity, impact and how the program manages them.

Yes, they will. Which is why the daily hysteria coming out of Ares and it's associated blogs can't be taken seriously. Hardly a day goes by where old news isn't repackaged into a new "OMG look how crappy the F-35 is" tirade. One could say, "well, there's a lot going wrong" which would be somewhat believeable if it wasn't the same old saws day after day, and if there were some semblance of objectivity (you know, writing about what goes right in additon to what goes wrong). Tell me Bill, did you write an article explaining WHY the F-35 had tailhook problems (and how the X-47 was affected in the same way due to the same bad data from the Navy)? Or did you stick to the SOP of blaming the whole thing on Lockheed and incompetence?

 

[sferrin]

Yeah, that's what I said. :

Actually it is.

You should look up the teacher who taught you to read and demand a refund. What I'm saying is that the F-35 is unprecidented in scope and ambition, and that it should surprise exactly nobody that it's not going to be smooth sailing. That is not the same at all as saying it should be immune to honest scrutiny.

 

[JFC Fuller]

You should look up the teacher who taught you to read and demand a refund. What I'm saying is that the F-35 is unprecidented in scope and ambition, and that it should surprise exactly nobody that it's not going to be smooth sailing. That is not the same at all as saying it should be immune to honest scrutiny.

Every aircraft generation produces programmes that are"unprecidented in scope and ambition", the F-35 is hardly unique in that. And you clearly do think the F-35 programme has some sort of get-out clause when it comes to criticism which is why you keep rambling on about "apple to apples".

 

[sferrin]

Every aircraft generation produces programmes that are"unprecidented in scope and ambition", the F-35 is hardly unique in that.

Really? Perhaps you could tell me all the other programmes that produced CTOL, CV, and STOVL stealth aircraft? No? I didn't think so.

And you clearly do think the F-35 programme has some sort of get-out clause when it comes to criticism which is why you keep rambling on about "apple to apples".

Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of what you're reading. When I say "apples to apples" I mean if you're going to compare it to another program, pick one of equal complexity. Comparing the F-35 to say the "Super" Hornet would be completely assinine. (And even the "Super" Hornet had problems. Wing drop, air brakes disguised as pylons, etc.) Comparing it to what the F-22 was suppose to be (i.e. NATF included) would be a more accurate comparison. [/quote]

 

[JFC Fuller]

Every aircraft generation produces programmes that are"unprecidented in scope and ambition", the F-35 is hardly unique in that.

Really? Perhaps you could tell me all the other programmes that produced CTOL, CV, and STOVL stealth aircraft? No? I didn't think so.

Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of what you're reading. When I say "apples to apples" I mean if you're going to compare it to another program, pick one of equal complexity. Comparing the F-35 to say the "Super" Hornet would be completely assinine. (And even the "Super" Hornet had problems. Wing drop, air brakes disguised as pylons, etc.) Comparing it to what the F-22 was suppose to be (i.e. NATF included) would be a more accurate comparison. [/quote]

You are aware that you just demonstrated my point right?

It is not about directly comparing the F-35 to the F-105, F-15 or F-22 programmes. It is about comparing how far they push the technology of the day and it is far from clear that the F-35 is a unique stretch of technology compared to what previous programmes attempted. The F-35 is a technology drving fast-jet programme, it is entirely legitimate to compare it to other technology driving fast jet programmes- saying otherwise is just distraction, especially as the complexity is part of the programme and therefore itself a sensible area for analysis.

 

[bobbymike]

Every aircraft generation produces programmes that are"unprecidented in scope and ambition", the F-35 is hardly unique in that.

Really? Perhaps you could tell me all the other programmes that produced CTOL, CV, and STOVL stealth aircraft? No? I didn't think so.

Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of what you're reading. When I say "apples to apples" I mean if you're going to compare it to another program, pick one of equal complexity. Comparing the F-35 to say the "Super" Hornet would be completely assinine. (And even the "Super" Hornet had problems. Wing drop, air brakes disguised as pylons, etc.) Comparing it to what the F-22 was suppose to be (i.e. NATF included) would be a more accurate comparison.

You are aware that you just demonstrated my point right?

It is not about directly comparing the F-35 to the F-105, F-15 or F-22 programmes. It is about comparing how far they push the technology of the day and it is far from clear that the F-35 is a unique stretch of technology compared to what previous programmes attempted. The F-35 is a technology drving fast-jet programme, it is entirely legitimate to compare it to other technology driving fast jet programmes- saying otherwise is just distraction, especially as the complexity is part of the programme and therefore itself a sensible area for analysis.
[/quote]

You are answering your own question the F-35, for good or for ill, is the most unique and complex technology aircraft EVER attempted in three iterations. Materials never used before, electronics and avionics never used before, 30 millions lines of code unprecedented in aircraft history.

I can agree on one criticism that is brought up, mainly, 'Is the scope and complexity of the aircraft TOO difficult and shouldn't have been attempted' but that argument is logically followed by, 'OK but what do we do now that we've built 100+ aircraft and are working though the issues?'
1) Stay Gen 4 planes less capable and less surviable
2) Develop three (or two net of F-35B) individual aircraft IOC 2100 making us need the Gen 4 planes for fifty + more years?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Nobody said is was not complex, but is the F-35 programme today really more ambitious than the B-70 programme was with the technology in the early 50s/late 60s? Or the Blackbird? Or the F-15 programme in its original form?

Every new generation of aircraft uses "Materials never used before, electronics and avionics never used before" using new technology is not unique.

 

[bobbymike]

Nobody said is was not complex, but is the F-35 programme today really more ambitious than the B-70 programme was with the technology in the early 50s/late 60s? Or the Blackbird? Or the F-15 programme in its original form?

Every new generation of aircraft uses "Materials never used before, electronics and avionics never used before" using new technology is not unique.

Well then you are back to your 'of its' time' argument again. As I stated earlier the premise follows reductio ad absurdum to logically infer the first 'stone wheel' is as complex, for its time, as the F-35.

 

[sferrin]

Nobody said is was not complex, but is the F-35 programme today really more ambitious than the B-70 programme was with the technology in the early 50s/late 60s? Or the Blackbird? Or the F-15 programme in its original form?

Every new generation of aircraft uses "Materials never used before, electronics and avionics never used before" using new technology is not unique.

So why do aircraft keep getting more and more expensive if the relative complexity hasn't changed?

 

[NilsD]

Shouldn't the question really be if the program was supposed to be so complex and superlative back when it was OK'd? I seem to recall JSF being pitched as an affordable second class fighter, not something an order of magnitude more advanced than the F-22.

 

[sferrin]

Shouldn't the question really be if the program was supposed to be so complex and superlative back when it was OK'd? I seem to recall JSF being pitched as an affordable second class fighter, not something an order of magnitude more advanced than the F-22.

Not sure how any thinking person could believe that a fighter with CTOL, STOVL, and CV versions would be less complex, program wise, than the F-22.

 

[JFC Fuller]

So why do aircraft keep getting more and more expensive if the relative complexity hasn't changed?

Inflation and purchasing power. US nominal GDP in 1980 was $2.86 trillion, in 2012 it was $16.24 trillion. Aircraft have become more expensive because there is more money to spend on them.

 

[bobbymike]

Well then you are back to your 'of its' time' argument again. As I stated earlier the premise follows reductio ad absurdum to logically infer the first 'stone wheel' is as complex, for its time, as the F-35.

I never left it. You tried bashing a stone into a wheel with nothing but other stones and a stick? Rather challenging I would suggest.

So no technology is 'more complex' for its' time historically ever, OK now I get it.

I hope I get to talk to the scientists and engineers building the first hyper-drive, anti-matter powered space ship that can travel at .9C and say to them 'Whatever try the stone wheel sometime'.

 

[Triton]

"If we don’t keep F-22 Raptor viable, the F-35 fleet will be irrelevant” Air Combat Command says"
by David Cenciotti
Feb 04, 2013

Source:
http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/04/f-35-needs-f-22-acc-says/

In an interesting, open and somehow surprising interview given to Air Force Times, Chief of U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command Gen. Michael Hostage, explained the hard choices made by the Air Force as a consequence of the budget cuts and highlighted the position of the service for what concerns the F-35.

First of all, forget any chance the A-10 will survive. According to Hostage, one of the few ways to save some money cut from the budget is to retire an entire weapon system. And, even though the Warthog “can still get the job done”, the plane does not seem to be the weapon of choice in future conflicts, in which “the A-10 is totally useless“.
Obviously, a less drastic solution, as keeping half of the A-10 fleet in active service, is not viable as it would still require much of the costly support infrastructures the whole fleet need.

Another problem is in the ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) domain. Politics urge the Air Force to keep buying Global Hawks, hence, given the current budget picture, the Air Force can’t afford both the U-2 Dragon Lady and the Global Hawk. That’s why the ACC Commander “will likely have to give up the U-2″ and spend much money to try to get the large Northrop Grumman drone do the same things the U-2 has done for decades.

Dealing with the Joint Strike Fighter, Hostage says he is “going to fight to the death to protect the F-35″ since the only way to keep up with the adversaries, which “are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet”, is by employing a sufficient fleet of 1,763 (“not one less”) F-35s. You can update and upgrade the F-15 and F-16 fleets, but they would still become obsolete in the next decade.

But, the F-22 Raptor will have to support the F-35. And here comes another problem. When the Raptor was produced it was flying “with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console in somebody’s home gaming system.” Still, the U.S. Air Force was forced to use the stealth fighter plane as it was, because that was the way the spec was written. But now, the F-22 must be upgraded through a costly service life extension plan and modernisation program because, “If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” says Hostage to Air Force Times.

 

[F-14D]

So why do aircraft keep getting more and more expensive if the relative complexity hasn't changed?

Inflation and purchasing power. US nominal GDP in 1980 was $2.86 trillion, in 2012 it was $16.24 trillion. Aircraft have become more expensive because there is more money to spend on them.

Inflation is certainly a factor, but it's not the driving force behind the cost increases. Inflation is the driver when you look at what a particular thing costs in year X vs. the price in say, X + 10. For example, at its peak production in the mid-60s, the F-4B/C was costing ~$1.8 million apiece. If we correct for inflation between then and now and try and extrapolate that to the F-35, then a Lightning II would be costing us just $13.3 million. Similarly, if we look at the inflation from 1945 to now, a Virginia class SSN only $129.4 million. The reason this isn't true is because we're not comparing the same things. $13.3 million is what a 1965 F-4 would cost if we were paying for it today, not what an F-35 would cost.

We see the price going up because we ask our planes and whatever to do a lot more than in days gone by. We could build an F-4 for an inflation adjusted price today (although we couldn't do it completely because the bureaucracy and paperwork is so much more). An F-35, though is going to be far more capable. The price of that capability is far more complexity. The flight control system on the F4 was hydraulic, sure, but its design and functionality was way less than what's on the F-35. You pulled the stick back, the nose came up. It didn't go through a myriad of electrical circuits, and densely written software to work execute the command. You got into a flat spin? No autorecovery. 360 degree multi-sensor situational awareness? "You kidding me"? This applies throughout the aircraft. Oh, and maintainable stealth? Don't even go there.

So to my mind the culprit is we ask a lot more and the bureaucracy, paperwork, overhead, CYA tactics, etc. are the big contributors to why things Cost So Much. More than they should? Probably, but how much more is fought over all the time. The true question is whether or not it (and I'm not talking just F-35 here) is worth it in and of itself an compared to alternatives. Yes? Then press on (provided you've got the money). No? Then time to withdraw and "...attack from a different direction".

 

[bobbymike]

So no technology is 'more complex' for its' time historically ever, OK now I get it.

I hope I get to talk to the scientists and engineers building the first hyper-drive, anti-matter powered space ship that can travel at .9C and say to them 'Whatever try the stone wheel sometime'.

Except the scientists who make such a thing will have had the advantage of thousands of years of technological and societal development. The first people to build a wheel didn't.

Like the stone age man did maybe millions of years of evolution from the first time a dung beetle made his first dung ball ;D

 

[sferrin]

So why do aircraft keep getting more and more expensive if the relative complexity hasn't changed?

Inflation and purchasing power. US nominal GDP in 1980 was $2.86 trillion, in 2012 it was $16.24 trillion. Aircraft have become more expensive because there is more money to spend on them.

Oh wow.

 

[Grey Havoc]

At this rate, I'm going to have to install fire extinguishers in my tower case.

Leaving aside the main arguments for a moment, what happens if the worse case scenario occurs and the F-35 program implodes? Would it be possible to fashion a fall-back option out of the program itself? Say for arguments sake dropping the Naval and Marine versions and substituting something like the old F-35D for the F-35A. With a new FCS and a new combat system of course. Would it be possible, do you think?

(h/t lantinian)

 

[_Del_]

Well then you are back to your 'of its' time' argument again. As I stated earlier the premise follows reductio ad absurdum to logically infer the first 'stone wheel' is as complex, for its time, as the F-35.

I never left it. You tried bashing a stone into a wheel with nothing but other stones and a stick? Rather challenging I would suggest.

An acceptable program time schedule would be... two weeks? A month? We should be establishing new combat aircraft paradigms in the same time-frame?
Not a big JSF fan. I would have cancelled it a long time ago. But this is ridiculous...

 

[SpudmanWP]

F-35D...

Your answer to a delayed and overbudget program is to replace the entire thing with the most expensive aspects of each version (Internal Gun from the A, Lift fan from the B, and larger wing & extra weight from the C). Throw in all the extra needed development and testing for good measure.

If all else fails, the only way the F-35 survives as a program is with the F-35A, as it is now.

 

[JFC Fuller]

F-14D,

You missed purchasing power. Inflation is only one element- increased purchasing power allows for more expensive and thus complex, compared to the previous generation (though not necessarily more technologically challenging than the previous generation was in its development period), programmes over and above what inflation would produce. Aircraft of each new generation are more expensive than the previous because we have more money to spend on them, we therefore demand more from them. However, it does not mean that each new technological challenge is any harder than the one before it.

Again, every new generation of aircraft is more complex than the previous- being more complex than previous programmes does not make it unique nor justify hiding it from criticism.

 

[Grey Havoc]

F-35D...

Your answer to a delayed and overbudget program is to replace the entire thing with the most expensive aspects of each version (Internal Gun from the A, Lift fan from the B, and larger wing & extra weight from the C). Throw in all the extra needed development and testing for good measure.

If all else fails, the only way the F-35 survives as a program is with the F-35A, as it is now.

Just throwing it out there.

 

[Triton]

No one using the force multiplier argument to justify the higher cost of the F-35?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Just throwing it out there

I know, I was just nipping it in the bud.

I also noticed that while it's added the features of the B&C it cannot perform their missions, so their is no point in doing it.

While it could do STOL, it would still fail to do so in the length of an LHD, so no ship ops for the USMC.

With its setup it cannot do CATOBAR (no hook) and could not fit on the deck as well (non-folding wings) so no CVN ops for the USN.

With the Liftfan and internal gun it would loses too much fuel and would have less range than the A.

There would be no benefit to creating this version of the F-35.

 

[bobbymike]

So why do aircraft keep getting more and more expensive if the relative complexity hasn't changed?

Inflation and purchasing power. US nominal GDP in 1980 was $2.86 trillion, in 2012 it was $16.24 trillion. Aircraft have become more expensive because there is more money to spend on them.

Oh wow.

Actually if you consider we are spending a smaller percentage of GDP on defense then we did in 1980 then your comment has it exactly backwords. Which translates into expense = complexity not more money to spend.

Reagan averaged 6.2% of GDP wich would be $1.054 Trillion on today's $17 Trillion economy (latest report 4th quarter 2013 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis) Now that would be cool another $500 Billion to spend/year. Wish list;
1) 20 Carrier battlegroups
2) 1000 F-22's
3) New ICBM
4) 20 SSBN(X)
5) 100 Viginia Block V's
5) Lots of Orion Nuclear Battlestations

 

[F-14D]

F-14D,

You missed purchasing power. Inflation is only one element- increased purchasing power allows for more expensive and thus complex, compared to the previous generation (though not necessarily more technologically challenging than the previous generation was in its development period), programmes over and above what inflation would produce. Aircraft of each new generation are more expensive than the previous because we have more money to spend on them, we therefore demand more from them. However, it does not mean that each new technological challenge is any harder than the one before it.

Again, every new generation of aircraft is more complex than the previous- being more complex than previous programmes does not make it unique nor justify hiding it from criticism.

I'm not saying a program is immune from criticism. However, I'm not sure that I can accept the concept of "We've got this pile of money sitting here, so our driver is to design something that will be expensive enough to use more of it". We've seen lots of cases where the thing's cost goes up and so stuff has to be left off. For example, the side AESA arrays on the F-22. The relaxation of some requirements on the F-35 and V-22; not done because the original wasn't doable, but because to do it was more than we were willing to pay.



Naval example: we could have built the new generation of carriers more advanced in hull, concept and capability than the Ford class (look at some of the earlier CVN-21 concepts), but when we saw what it would cost...

Note that I am not disagreeing with you on the relative technological advance/challenge. I have posted elsewhere comparing the development times of the F-15 and F-14 (design 1968, contract award 1969, first flight 1970, IOC 1974, first deployment 1975), which were major technical advances, with the times it takes us today. BTW, talk about technical advance, they had to invent the microprocessor in order to build the F-14.