Originally Posted by
Commando Cody
So you can see why I'm not a fan of stretching out FARA. The requirements are not that big a push beyond wat we have now as so we should move on it soonest. There's also the consideration that if we add two years to FARA, we run into the possibility of its funding spike starting to overlap that of FLRAA, which could be a big problem for both of them in getting to production.
You failed to mention that the F-14 reused the F-111 engines. Not having to work through parallel development of a new engine and aircraft was a huge leg up for Grumman. And you can’t dismiss that having a engineering team coming right off the F-111 B onto the F-14 was not a big help. Not dismissing the Grumman engineers busted their butts and did a good job. But this aircraft’s two years period between contract award and first flight should not be viewed as a yardstick for other programs.
Also realize that FARA will also be doing a parallel development for both the aircraft and a new GE engine. Never a good plan for new aircraft development.
I agree that the attention span of our government and its unwillingness to commit to properly funding an aircraft development program is problematic. It has been the primary cause of new aircraft program delays and cost overruns. Although our government’s elected officials prefer to blame contractors for their own failures.
Starting at MCAIR in St Louis four decades ago, I was lucky to have learned what it takes to build an aircraft from a clean sheet from the best in the business. I also learned that unnecessary compressed schedules result in bad engineering compromises.