KenV I would like to read your opinion on the points raised on TurbineD's post #6660. thank you.
We used to call this customer dumping, the customer is alway at fault or wrong.
Hmmmm. The customer is the one who demanded industry produce a single airframe that could do CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL. Industry had no choice but to try to meet the customer's demands. It is YOU guys who insist that this approach was wrong if not utterly foolish.
If what you guys claim is true (I'm not entirely convinced of that) then yes, it must be the "customer's fault".
[quote]But, nobody forced the tiny little company, Lockheed-Martin, to take this big contract, did they?[/QUOT] Hmmm. If Lockheed had not competed, they would now have........nothing (well except an F-16 line that has very little future). McDonnell Douglas lost in the first round and without JSF they ended up getting bought my Boeing. What happened to Boeing when they lost JSF in the second round? All they have is F-15 with a bleak future and F/A-18 with an even more bleak future.
Every US fighter manufacturer saw JSF as a "must win" project with the high probability of going extinct as a fighter manufacturer if they lost. So to dneclare that no one was "forced" to accept this project is to deny history.
Today's F-35 problems date back to how Lockheed ran or really may not have run the program. Did L-M really have the knowledge and experience to run a Concurrent Engineering program? (followed by blah blah blah of what concurrent engineering is and why its bad.
Maybe. Maybe not. But if not Lockheed, who did? Did Boeing? McDonnell Douglas? BAE? Dassault? Airbus? Concurrent engineering was another requirement imposed by the customer. The vendor was required to propose concurrent engineering and how they would accomplish it. And that proposal was evaluated by the customer. Lockheed won. Boeing lost.
If L-M ran the Concurrent Engineering program correctly, we would not still be only halfway through the development program and have over 100 development aircraft instead of a population of production aircraft.
Really? And you know this how? Your years and years of experience running a concurrent engineering program? And LtGen Bogdan can complain all he wants about Lockheed's approach to concurrent engineering, but what actual experience is that based on? None you say? Concurrent engineering is inherently risky. Designing an airplane that can do CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL is risky. Integrating stealth into all three versions is risky. Developing AND concurrently integrating all sorts of other new technology is very risky. And integrating requirements from multiple nations added even more risk. The customer(s) imposed all this risk on the vendor. Risk is not free. It costs money. Lots of money. And time. Lots of time. And now we're shocked and dismayed that the project is over budget and behind schedule? Really?
Finally, I have previously agreed that there is much to be sad about this project. The vast majority of the sadness is the fault of the customer who demanded all this risk AND strongly implied that whoever would not take on such risk would no longer build fighters for the US government.
And the bottom line is that NONE of this has absolutely ANYthing to do with a blog post about the F-35s close-in dog fight performance. NONE. You folks are so busy crying wolf, you are now crying out when a kitten crosses your path.