Trillion Dollar Trainwreck: How the F-35 Hollowed out the US Air Force by Bill Sweetman

I get the impression is that the overall principle is that limiting what changes you need to make is critical. If someone wants it to be VTOL, then cut them loose and let them go it alone on that. Generally, design creep is death, and design for three services will guarantee it, so start where you want to go.

hushkit.net

Bill Sweetman shares 10 ways GCAP can avoid the hell of the F-35 project with little or no effort​

You hear a lot of “the Global Combat Air Programme’s going to cost just as much and take as long as the F-35 has, so why bother?” Based on the work I did for TRILLION DOLLAR TRAINWRECK (now availab…
hushkit.net
hushkit.net
 
One way of looking at the whole picture:

The JSF program was designed to remake the U.S. military aircraft industry (and defense, of which it was the largest part) in a form that was sustainable in the post Cold War era, as it was seen in the 1990s. Hence the following elements of the strategy:
- One common aircraft, to reduce cost and force mergers, for the USAF, USN, USMC and export - "quad-common"
- Stealth to differentiate it from current generation aircraft
- Low cost to blow away all export competitors

What happened, however:
- Stealth plus quad-common was impossible within timeframe and cost (R&D, procurement, sustainment)
- Single design meant that there was no Plan B
- Mergers, forming megaprimes, and "competimate" relationships among defense companies, nuked what was little competition there was.
 
LowObservable said:
One way of looking at the whole picture:

The JSF program was designed to remake the U.S. military aircraft industry (and defense, of which it was the largest part) in a form that was sustainable in the post Cold War era, as it was seen in the 1990s. Hence the following elements of the strategy:
- One common aircraft, to reduce cost and force mergers, for the USAF, USN, USMC and export - "quad-common"
- Stealth to differentiate it from current generation aircraft
- Low cost to blow away all export competitors

What happened, however:
- Stealth plus quad-common was impossible within timeframe and cost (R&D, procurement, sustainment)
- Single design meant that there was no Plan B
- Mergers, forming megaprimes, and "competimate" relationships among defense companies, nuked what was little competition there was.
Click to expand...

So, monopoly control and higher profits were the answers? Forced mergers? Investors, not people who actually know something, take over. For more profits. Unsustainable? Does that mean technology or just more profits? I suspect the latter.

Once the cow gets milked to death, leave the carcass by the side of the road.

Perhaps a bit more scholarly reply goes like this: Closed door meetings at the Department of Defense to decide what to do now that a major enemy has left the field. Although this is slightly less worse than a nuclear war, a defense industry that was put in place in the late 1940s has to be dismantled in some kind of orderly fashion. The sharks/investors begin to swarm and contact their contacts in defense. The defense industry is set upon and those who are trying to formulate reasonable plans are run over by a massive stampede of investors who >demand< to be heard. This is the takeover opportunity of a lifetime. Those on the technology side are greatly hindered by a mostly organized group of investors who insert themselves into the decision-making process.

I suggest looking into a think tank formed in 1997, Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Someone had to look out for and plan America's future. The final plan would insure American global dominance for the next 100 years.
 
LowObservable said:
- One common aircraft, to reduce cost and force mergers, for the USAF, USN, USMC and export - "quad-common"
- Stealth to differentiate it from current generation aircraft
- Low cost to blow away all export competitors
Click to expand...
The programme did largely succeed with all three of those points. But there are also multiple downsides as you note.

At the same time then it's difficult to see any clearly better alternative course of action across all metrics.
 
LowObservable said:
We could have a much more informed discussion if you read the 2000 words on the issue in the book, rather than making the point I already made in the flyer.

View attachment 732557
Click to expand...
Nor is any other govt with an aviation industry. The helpless Euros vs the American Godzillas got old when it was new. Aren’t they all united over there to make sure the US knows its place? “Just send over everything & everyone you have in case someone big messes with us and when it’s over go away and don’t sell to our markets.”
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Nor is any other govt with an aviation industry. The helpless Euros vs the American Godzillas got old when it was new. Aren’t they all united over there to make sure the US knows its place? “Just send over everything & everyone you have in case someone big messes with us and when it’s over go away and don’t sell to our markets.”
Click to expand...
Europe has more people and a bigger GDP than the US. For them to keep on like this is, well, kinda pathetic. They have three fighters they could offer in competition to the F-35. Surely at least one of them would win something.
 
Europe has more people and a bigger GDP than the US. For them to keep on like this is, well, kinda pathetic. They have three fighters they could offer in competition to the F-35. Surely at least one of them would win something.
Click to expand...

The Rafale is doing quite well, thank you.

Of course Dassault 36 airframe per year is a little light, when compared to Lockheed's 156. Then again, what's the point in producing 156 F-35s a year if the TR-3 upgrade becomes such a colossal bottleneck ?
www.forbes.com

The Dealer Lot Is Full - Where Is Lockheed Martin Storing F-35s?

With F-35 deliveries to the U.S. military halted since last July and F-35 production continuing apace, stealth fighters are stacking up on a ramp somewhere.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
sferrin said:
It's so terrible it "won every export sales battle that it has engaged in". Imagine how terrible the losers must be. Hmmmm.
Click to expand...

This is like saying

I see Priuses on the road all the time. They must be awesome cars and everything else sucks.
 
sferrin said:
Europe has more people and a bigger GDP than the US. For them to keep on like this is, well, kinda pathetic. They have three fighters they could offer in competition to the F-35. Surely at least one of them would win something.
Click to expand...
The theory is that the “evil forces” (CIA, industry, you know, THE COMPLEX) shows up in some Euro politician’s home and, well… they get in line. There’s 2 competing mentalities there:
1. We in Europe don’t use our resources on atavistic tendencies, that’s America’s thing
2. We in Europe don’t need American trash products. Our stuff is superior if only we could build in sufficient numbers but that would interfere with Airbus airliners and, hey Airbus is good business, know what I mean?!

Sweden can easily go from producing 1 Gripen a month to 2.

There’s a 100 things wrong with the f-35 but bringing up the American boogeyman ain’t one of ‘em.
 
Archibald said:
The Rafale is doing quite well, thank you.

Of course Dassault 36 airframe per year is a little light, when compared to Lockheed's 156. Then again, what's the point in producing 156 F-35s a year if the TR-3 upgrade becomes such a colossal bottleneck ?
www.forbes.com

The Dealer Lot Is Full - Where Is Lockheed Martin Storing F-35s?

With F-35 deliveries to the U.S. military halted since last July and F-35 production continuing apace, stealth fighters are stacking up on a ramp somewhere.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
Euro leftists and rightists will cut off any massive aerospace defense infrastructure build up. But yes the American boogeyman still works.
 
Questions answered in the book. Although I must say that I did not address the fact that Europe has not had a single government for a few years, because I thought people knew that.

rome.jpg

In seriousness, Europe does present a united industrial front on commercial airframe integration, but is far from that in defense. And although people have often asserted that Europe should pull together, there are more institutional barriers than you could shake a stick at.
 
LowObservable said:
In seriousness, Europe does present a united industrial front on commercial airframe integration, but is far from that in defense.
Click to expand...
Going with the American Boogeyman theory.
So by say 2005, 40 yrs of Euro defense integration (aka stop the Americans), failed to…stop the Americans.
What did Napoleon say about allies again?

And Rome is lovely this time of year.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Going with the American Boogeyman theory.
Click to expand...
Does the U.S. exert more influence than any other nation (let alone Brussels) in defense matters?
Is that more important now than in more stable times?
Does the U.S. have industrial and operational motives to push the F-35?
Does it make a difference that U.S. influence is not divided between two aircraft (i.e. F-16 and F/A-18 days)?
 
Archibald said:
The Rafale is doing quite well, thank you.

Of course Dassault 36 airframe per year is a little light, when compared to Lockheed's 156. Then again, what's the point in producing 156 F-35s a year if the TR-3 upgrade becomes such a colossal bottleneck ?
Click to expand...
I think sferrin's point was that the Eurocanards (including the Rafale) have never won a competition against the F-35. Yes, Rafale is selling quite well but only to countries that dont have access to the F-35...
 
LowObservable said:
Does the U.S. exert more influence than any other nation (let alone Brussels) in defense matters?
Is that more important now than in more stable times?
Does the U.S. have industrial and operational motives to push the F-35?
Does it make a difference that U.S. influence is not divided between two aircraft (i.e. F-16 and F/A-18 days)?
Click to expand...
The same things said in 1954.

Mind you, I think the f-35 has a lot of problems.

It sounds like you’re mad at the US for Europe not having united its aerospace defense sector.
The enemy is Russia, right?

What investments in combat aircraft production has Europe made since 1991 or 1981 for that matter?
Trump acted like an asshole towards Europe since 2016. And?

Yes, tell America to fukk off. What could go wrong?
 
F-35 has a certain cachet that Rafale and Typhoon don't have - i.e. much is made of its LO characteristics and advanced avionics, something that neither of the 1980s designed European fighters have (they don't overtly 'look' stealthy and today as any fule kno, your stealth plane has to be an F-22/F-35 looking clone).
For some air forces they can't afford to hedge bets so buy what's billed as the most advanced fighter on the planet, they may only have a dozen but they are (on paper at least) the best money can buy and can be deployed with your NATO/US buddies without logistical worries.

Most buyers of F-35 are already locked into NATO or other bilateral US defence treaties, so there is no surprise that diplomatically it makes sense, most are already users of US weapons so there is no integration risk, most are already users of F-16s or F/A-18s, so again less perceived risk and corporate links are solid. Even those AFs that have older Mirages or Typhoons/Jags/Tornados have/had US kit like F-16s, there never was much exclusivity. Europe has MBDA but still isn't dominant in the arms market compared with the US (BAE Systems of course straddles both camps) and countries like South Korea, Turkey and UAE are ramping up their own arms efforts in a way we've not really seen before from 2nd-3rd tier military nations.

SAAB have always been niche, unless you were Denmark or Austria its likely you never heard of them pre-Gripen. Had they marketed it under a BAe label it might have sold better.

I don't see much tears from Europe regarding F-35, the UK and Italy jumped on the bandwagon pretty quickly and secured production shares. If anything Europe is riding two horses. If anything the real problem is that the Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen did nothing to dent the F-16's export performance because they were direct competitors - not the F-35 which is in a different league and is a distraction (indeed you could argue the phasing out of F-16 has opened the chances for Rafale and Typhoon as we've seen of late).

F-35 comes with a maintenance package deal - much like modern cars, you don't need to tinker yourself in the hangar or take it to your local backstreet guy to get it serviced (let's just hope the just in time replenishment doesn't screw up). In contrast BAE and Airbus offered competing support packages for Typhoon, BAE's seems to perform well, Airbus screwed theirs up. Dassault seems to do ok.

I still think that Tempest and SCAF will be too late to really do much against the F-35 market, but then most of the air forces who want stealthy 5/6 Gen will have already got F-35s (if they can), or attempt to build locally. It will be a repeat of the Typhoon/Rafale sideshow, a few orders in mixed fleets from those with deep pockets. I still would place bets that before either enters service in the 2040s that LM launches a refreshed new Block F-35 to rekindle export interest to hoover up repeat batch buys.
 
SteveO said:
I found it a very interesting read. No mad ranting noticed, just a good presentation of the many difficulties and flaws of the F-35 program.

Good job Bill :)
Click to expand...
I'm still amused that anybody could think one aircraft to replace the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier would be easy It's pretty much THE most complicated aircraft program in history. That said, it's still cheaper, and less trouble, than if you'd done it with three different aircraft programs.
 
LowObservable said:
I'm not trying to change geopolitics, nor am I mad at anyone except liars and frauds. Just suggesting that people accept reality.
Click to expand...

The liars and frauds are quite wealthy. Some think they can meddle in things they know little about. That's the current problem in the U.S. and not just in the aerospace industry. When you look at who started the aircraft industry here and who runs it now, you have to say it. Very wealthy people are looking for new companies run by talented individuals so they can buy them. They are also looking at old, established companies for the same reason. Right now, the U.S. Justice Department is looking at buy-outs of companies that leave a functional shell still standing so it doesn't trigger a Justice Department investigation. This has not gone unnoticed by the Justice Department who plans to stop such nonsense.
 
Last edited:
LowObservable said:
About right. The added costs (such as they were) of building separate aircraft would have been offset by the fact that separate requirements would have been less demanding. But as the book explains, there were other reasons for doing JSF the way it was done.

I'm just reading a recently unearthed 1997 Congressional Budget Office paper on TacAir. It seems quite perceptive and I may add comments later.
Click to expand...
LO,

I have read the paper. I think there are huge issues raised by the paper. EVERYTHING is in this paper. If papers like this were read, processed, and made digestible to more people, perhaps disasters like this would not happen. I would very much value your thoughts on the paper.

What is in the paper?

1. The US focuses on air power in order to reduce the need for ground forces. This has caused a situation where ground forces might not be equipped for new types of conflict like what we see in Ukraine.

2. Industrial base issues. The Military Industrial Complex is people. When those people are outsourced, downsized, etc. the MIC withers away to single contractors that can build things that do not work and profit for decades selling fixes that do not work and then selling fixes for the fixes. After all, it's all about shareholder value. They could be making soap, TV shows, or soft drinks. It's all the same in American business. The notion that the MIC should be different does not seem to have crossed anyone's mind. What about a series of programs to preserve the skills base in each area so that the MIC is there when needed, as it is after a period of relative peace? Instead, they decided that one program would save the fighter component of the MIC.

3. Incompatibility of the USAF, USN, and USMC needs. The USMC has a powerful lobby and has sold the Guadalcanal myth well. (As an aside, the use of carriers in the Guadalcanal campaign is the best historical analog for how carriers will be used in a China conflict). The USMC has a powerful lobby and they often get what they want. Combining STOVL into the JSF was a huge mistake. Some say ASTOVL would have been cancelled. So what? If Japan, UK, et al really needed the capability they would develop a Harrier replacement. Combining ASTOVL with CALF/JAST etc. was absurd. Combining the USN and USAF versions was highly questionable. The USAF basically wanted a stealth F-16, the USN wanted something much more expensive. 400nm range requirement vs 600nm range requirement is a huge difference in weight and cost. The USN version should have been a twin engine heavier aircraft to take over from the Super Hornet when the SH obsolesced. The USAF plane was totally doable for a reasonable price.

4. Options that would have preserved MIC capacity were proposed and rejected. Building the Super Hornet for the USAF, building updated or existing F-16s and F-15s. Building F-16s and F-15s would preserve production capacity. Design capacity could have been preserved by doing studies and having competitions for new designs that would not necessarily have been serious proposals to build. This would have required major political changes though. Perhaps programs to design improved teen series could have preserved fighter design capacity.

Where the paper really fell short, looking back 27 years, is in not examining air power and questioning why it is such a focus of US procurement. A Russia scenario is mostly a ground war where fires can be delivered by artillery and missiles while ISR can be provided by satellites and drones. A China scenario is naval and requires strategic air, not tactical air. Tacair is for beating up on the "rogue states" of the world. (There is a term we have not heard in a while). The teen series was plenty good to beat up on those rogue states. If the US military is needed for China, Russia, COIN, and "rogue states", what is the best mix of forces to achieve this? Masses of tacair does not seem to be the cost effective answer.

An idea I have kicked around is that the 5th generation aircraft were a mistake. The F-22 is too expensive and supercruise was probably not ready for prime time. The plane was developed when IR was not as refined as it is now and the F-22 lacks IRST and the low bypass engines are hard to make IR stealthy. The F-22 lacks the connectivity the F-35 has. The F-35 appeared too late to be something affordable like a canard delta, improved teen series or a stealth F-16, but too early to be a drone or a long range "quarterback" controlling drones, missiles, and fusing sensors, sending and receiving masses of data. Perhaps the 5th gen as built should have been skipped and a much more capable 5th gen researched and developed, then refined as threats and tech changed, then built once it became clear that China scenarios are the issue.

Having said all the negative about the F-35 above, there is another perspective. The inflation adjusted cost proposed in 1994 for the USAF plane is 60 million in 2024 dollars. The F-35 is about 50% per plane and is much more capable. I think the problem is sustainment costs.

Edited: I edited a spelling error
 
Last edited:
Look at the history of every aviation company started in the United States, It was started by men with a passion for the field. To improve on what had been produced before. In the 1950s, a lot of procurement money flowed to counter the Soviet threat. But as the Soviet threat disappeared in the 1990s, what to do with the remaining companies? In the last 20 years, enter the investors. The sharks smelled blood in the water. They selected their targets. Mergers and acquisitions, followed by cheap in order to maximize profits. "Indeed, the report, commissioned by the department of defense concludes that over 40 percent of the semiconductors that sustain DoD weapons systems and associated infrastructure are now sourced from China. In addition, between 2014and 2022, American dependence on Chinese electronics increased by 600 percent."

Seriously? And people call China the enemy? China cannot invade Taiwan except for a few months out of the year. Dedicated satellite coverage would preclude such an attempt. The Chinese would be caught loading ships in the open. Their attempts to put advanced aircraft into production are known. The same with the Soviets. Designs and test vehicles for anticipated future threats should continue. But the current threat environment does not bode well for the production of manned aircraft.
 
edwest4 said:
Look at the history of every aviation company started in the United States, It was started by men with a passion for the field. To improve on what had been produced before. In the 1950s, a lot of procurement money flowed to counter the Soviet threat. But as the Soviet threat disappeared in the 1990s, what to do with the remaining companies? In the last 20 years, enter the investors. The sharks smelled blood in the water. They selected their targets. Mergers and acquisitions, followed by cheap in order to maximize profits. "Indeed, the report, commissioned by the department of defense concludes that over 40 percent of the semiconductors that sustain DoD weapons systems and associated infrastructure are now sourced from China. In addition, between 2014and 2022, American dependence on Chinese electronics increased by 600 percent."

Seriously? And people call China the enemy? China cannot invade Taiwan except for a few months out of the year. Dedicated satellite coverage would preclude such an attempt. The Chinese would be caught loading ships in the open. Their attempts to put advanced aircraft into production are known. The same with the Soviets. Designs and test vehicles for anticipated future threats should continue. But the current threat environment does not bode well for the production of manned aircraft.
Click to expand...
I think this takes the thread a bit off topic but I agree with both points.

1. Neoliberalism and financialization have destroyed the USA, not just aerospace. If it continues unabated, finding people willing to fight and being able to build any equipment in the USA will be jeopardized. The F-35 debacle and the Boeing stuff are the tip of the iceberg. It's every institution in the entire US. The entire country has been weakened enormously since this started. The effects of this demoralization and rending of the social fabric have rendered the majority of US 18 year olds unfit for service.

2. China cannot invade Taiwan but they can attack it with various fires and they can blockade it. Is trying to build trillions of dollars worth of AI driven systems to defeat a rising superpower in its own backyard the best idea? Probably beyond the scope of this thread.
 
Airbus A340 Fan said:
3. Incompatibility of the USAF, USN, and USMC needs. The USMC has a powerful lobby and has sold the Guadalcanal myth well. (As an aside, the use of carriers in the Guadalcanal campaign is the best historical analog for how carriers will be used in a China conflict). The USMC has a powerful lobby and they often get what they want. Combining STOVL into the JSF was a huge mistake. Some say ASTOVL would have been cancelled. So what? If Japan, UK, et al really needed the capability they would develop a Harrier replacement. Combining ASTOVL with CALF/JAST etc. was absurd. Combining the USN and USAF versions was highly questionable. The USAF basically wanted a stealth F-16, the USN wanted something much more expensive. 400nm range requirement vs 600nm range requirement is a huge difference in weight and cost. The USN version should have been a twin engine heavier aircraft to take over from the Super Hornet when the SH obsolesced. The USAF plane was totally doable for a reasonable price.
Click to expand...

ASTOVL and CALF were entirely compatible, the shaft driven engine (or alternatively a lift jet) would not add that much weight to a single-engined lightweight fighter. USN requirements were too much, hence why A-F/X should have continued to give the USN and USAF a viable long range fighter bomber and interceptor to replace the A-6, F-14 and F-111.

Airbus A340 Fan said:
4. Options that would have preserved MIC capacity were proposed and rejected. Building the Super Hornet for the USAF, building updated or existing F-16s and F-15s. Building F-16s and F-15s would preserve production capacity. Design capacity could have been preserved by doing studies and having competitions for new designs that would not necessarily have been serious proposals to build. This would have required major political changes though. Perhaps programs to design improved teen series could have preserved fighter design capacity.
Click to expand...

This would not have preserved production capability, as nobody would the practical experience to be capable of building an LO aircraft.

Airbus A340 Fan said:
Where the paper really fell short, looking back 27 years, is in not examining air power and questioning why it is such a focus of US procurement. A Russia scenario is mostly a ground war where fires can be delivered by artillery and missiles while ISR can be provided by satellites and drones.
Click to expand...

Entirely wrong, survivable LO TACAIR would be vital in a war with Russia to penetrate modern IADS and sustainably conduct interdiction and Offensive Counter Air with stocks of easily stockpiled munitions like JDAM and SDB. 4th Generation aircraft cannot do this as they are too vulnerable, see the evidence from Ukraine, and if the burden of penetrating defences falls to stand-off munitions, then these are too expensive to be stockpiled and too sophisticated to produce in the numbers required.

Airbus A340 Fan said:
A China scenario is naval and requires strategic air, not tactical air.
Click to expand...

The China scenario requires significant amounts of TACAIR, firstly it is the main means of of naval forces influencing events on land, and if is also the main method of suppressing enemy defences to enable strategic air to operate with limited losses.
Airbus A340 Fan said:
An idea I have kicked around is that the 5th generation aircraft were a mistake. The F-22 is too expensive and supercruise was probably not ready for prime time. The plane was developed when IR was not as refined as it is now and the F-22 lacks IRST and the low bypass engines are hard to make IR stealthy. The F-22 lacks the connectivity the F-35 has. The F-35 appeared too late to be something affordable like a canard delta, improved teen series or a stealth F-16, but too early to be a drone or a long range "quarterback" controlling drones, missiles, and fusing sensors, sending and receiving masses of data. Perhaps the 5th gen as built should have been skipped and a much more capable 5th gen researched and developed, then refined as threats and tech changed, then built once it became clear that China scenarios are the issue.
Click to expand...

F-22 was entirely reasonable given the context it was developed in. Canard Deltas are no cheaper than F-35, and will be much less useful, as they are not survivable. Just seen the result of every recent contest that the F-35 had taken part in, everyone has rejected Canard Deltas and has instead purchased the F-35.

Of course an aircraft designed in the 2000s is not to going to be fully adaptable to capabilities that will not be mature until the 2030s at the earliest. That is why 6th Generation aircraft are being developed. 5th Generation should have been developed more widely, however the security environment of the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s was benign enough to the point that most countries did not have the need to conduct air campaigns in the face of modern defences. As for the 5 Generation being skipped, remember there is a greater than 50 year gap between when the F-22 began development and when the first 6th Generation aircraft is expected to enter service. The political and technological context is entirely different.

Airbus A340 Fan said:
Having said all the negative about the F-35 above, there is another perspective. The inflation adjusted cost proposed in 1994 for the USAF plane is 60 million in 2024 dollars. The F-35 is about 50% per plane and is much more capable. I think the problem is sustainment costs.
Click to expand...

Defence Inflation has always increased faster than background inflation. This observation is not new.
 
Arjen said:
How much of that is down to mismanagement and decay of tribal knowledge in the goverment?
Click to expand...
Mismanagement is universal to all sectors, Defence inflation was still higher even in the post war period when there was significant institutional knowledge in defence bureaucracies and firms.
 
Bill Sweetman has name recognition on some of his earlier works so maybe I will buy just on that alone.

I think that we have a 100% problem with the F-22/F-35/B-21/RQ-180 etc. Platforms that delivered 80-90% of their capability would probably still be better than the top end Soviet (yeah that's how old I am) and Chinese designs, but might be developed so much quicker and at disrupting defense paradigms.

Maybe that's how NGAD is being restructured. Maybe we, the US, could help ourselves and our allies with something like a buy in to the Korean stealth jet. And then we throw a squadron or two to you Brits because you need the mass.

Thats the Pacific war. The European theater has been so radically changed by Ukraine, I think anyone over 40 shouldnt be allowed to conceptualize solutions there. Lots and lots of SAM's, Artillery Shells, and rocket artillery!
 
"Defence inflation" is fiction. No such thing. In the 1950s, the driving force was time, not money. "We need this now." The threat environment was high. The safety and security needs of the United States were high. Today, the threat environment is low. It is very important that the talent pool consists of the best available, and that they have a full understanding of emerging threats and some historical context knowledge. Today, due to mergers and acquisitions, it's cheap parts and cheap labor followed by high profits. Or "How cheaply cam we make this to get the highest profit possible?" As far as military aircraft, history shows requirements being sent out for a new aircraft that could accomplish what was listed, i.e. desired range, speed and bomb load. At that time, aircraft designers had some idea of what the threat environment looked like and the need to come up with new ideas that would likely be useful in future requirements. That way, they would be in a better position to win a contract. I submit that today's need environment for new aircraft has diminished and national military budgets have been adjusted accordingly.
 
Arjen said:
How much of that is down to mismanagement and decay of tribal knowledge in the goverment?
Click to expand...

marcdjohnson496 said:
Bill Sweetman has name recognition on some of his earlier works so maybe I will buy just on that alone.

I think that we have a 100% problem with the F-22/F-35/B-21/RQ-180 etc. Platforms that delivered 80-90% of their capability would probably still be better than the top end Soviet (yeah that's how old I am) and Chinese designs, but might be developed so much quicker and at disrupting defense paradigms.

Maybe that's how NGAD is being restructured. Maybe we, the US, could help ourselves and our allies with something like a buy in to the Korean stealth jet. And then we throw a squadron or two to you Brits because you need the mass.

Thats the Pacific war. The European theater has been so radically changed by Ukraine, I think anyone over 40 shouldnt be allowed to conceptualize solutions there. Lots and lots of SAM's, Artillery Shells, and rocket artillery!
Click to expand...

A general rule is that to have a system 50% as good it costs 20% as much. 80% as good costs 50% as much. NGAD is being restructured because it is not cost effective. The extent to which Desert Storm influenced thinking must be understood. An incompetent army left out in the desert with no terrain to hide them with air cover and air defenses that can be brushed aside. Weak effort at camouflage etc. The systems sit out in the desert for months. There was almost zero ability for the Iraqis to target airfields that were very close to Kuwait. In this scenario it makes sense to send relatively small ground forces and let TACAIR generate the overwhelming force. Now change the scenario. Competent army, better camouflage, countermeasures against platform and weapon sensors. Weather and terrain. The opponent can strike the air bases through various means. GBAD and maybe even an air force that is better than incompetent. This is an entirely different thing than Desert Storm. The extrapolation of the 4th to 5th gen to the 6th gen says that the 6th gen needs to be have all aspects wideband VLO, supercruise, long range, and a large payload. The cost of the system is astronomical.

So, they are trying to find alternatives. Smaller, cheaper planes that can take off and land from dispersed bases or be launched from a B-52 and land somewhere. The logistics of this are not clear. The planes will be attritable or even expendable.

CCA Study
 
edwest4 said:
"Defence inflation" is fiction. No such thing. In the 1950s, the driving force was time, not money. "We need this now." The threat environment was high. The safety and security needs of the United States were high. Today, the threat environment is low. It is very important that the talent pool consists of the best available, and that they have a full understanding of emerging threats and some historical context knowledge. Today, due to mergers and acquisitions, it's cheap parts and cheap labor followed by high profits. Or "How cheaply cam we make this to get the highest profit possible?" As far as military aircraft, history shows requirements being sent out for a new aircraft that could accomplish what was listed, i.e. desired range, speed and bomb load. At that time, aircraft designers had some idea of what the threat environment looked like and the need to come up with new ideas that would likely be useful in future requirements. That way, they would be in a better position to win a contract. I submit that today's need environment for new aircraft has diminished and national military budgets have been adjusted accordingly.
Click to expand...
Not if you listen to the true believers. They want multitrillion dollar budgets to buy it all. If we just spend X% more, THEN we will be secure. To justify the spending they see everything as a potential threat. We'll see how many 60 ton+ bisonic grain of sand RCS thousand mile radius planes get procured. Or for that matter how many clouds of AI piloted drones actually get built.
 
Airbus A340 Fan said:
Not if you listen to the true believers. They want multitrillion dollar budgets to buy it all. If we just spend X% more, THEN we will be secure. To justify the spending they see everything as a potential threat. We'll see how many 60 ton+ bisonic grain of sand RCS thousand mile radius planes get procured. Or for that matter how many clouds of AI piloted drones actually get built.
Click to expand...

In the 1950s, those in charge of budgets were frightened by the "bomber gap" or "They have more bombers than we do." Followed by the "missile gap." The people in charge of handing out money are human beings. And their perceptions can take control. Right now, the word is the Russian Federation has more nuclear missiles than the U.S. I cannot know if that is true.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom