F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Biggus]

I have no great knowledge of the F-35 programme, nor am I either a fan or detractor, but I would offer the following general advice:


Several years ago I was in the position of visiting many aviation companies, both aircraft manufacturers, and sub contractors building everything from radars to wheels. Generally we were always met/briefed by one of three distinct types:

1. The recently retired (actually not normally very senior) ex-military type, recruited for his experience and social networking contacts - whose pitch was along the lines of "hello mate, you know me, so can trust me when I say this is a great piece of kit...."

2. The boffin or scientist who did actually have patches on the elbows of his jacket, and looked like he should have a piece of chalk behind his ear. Brain the size of a planet, and very enthusiastic about his subject. His main problem was being able to open the door to get in and out of the room.

3. The "company man". The phrase that springs to mind is "snake oil salesman"!

My point, one that hopefully is obvious to anyone with half a brain - treat what the company says with a heavy degree of scepticism. As a rule they only ever tell you the good news, and reluctantly tell you the bad (with a good spin) when it has become blinding obvious to everyone.


One other point I would make, the more software dependent (and system integrated) modern aircraft become the more a new series of problems, configuration, documentation and testing become, to the extent that operating cost comparisons might well be skewed such that modern aircraft actually become more costly to maintain than older generation ones - its just that the costs are not as apparent. Older generation aircraft costs are easier to appreciate if you see them sitting u/s on jacks in a hangar. More modern aircraft may look more effective, sitting serviceable on the flight line, but if they can't fly because of a software fault and you're literally burning far more money developing and testing your software which is the best option in reality?

In the world of computer software actually writing it is the sexy part, which people want to do. Correctly documenting it, preserving configuration and especially thorough testing is the cinderella part of the industry that it is difficult to find anyone who wants to do. Thorough testing of software (F-22 crossing from 179E to 179W?) is extremely difficult, if not actually impossible (given time and money constraints) to achieve, and normally needs repeating for even very minor changes.

I once knew a guy whose mantra was "there's no such thing as a simple software change", and I personally believe he wasn't very far from the truth!