F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by PhilipG

I am sure historically that LM's profit position was not helped by the reduction in the number of F22s for the sole customer the USAF being reduced from c750 to the final 187.

Funny how the "sole source" hammer has not yet fallen on L-M. A few decades ago, sole source procurement strategies attracted much heat and hate.

[LowObservable]

KenV

And in the beginning the JSF was led by a Marine general with the Marine requirements the priority.

This statement would appear to be flat-out false.

JSF.mil > Leadership > Former Leadership

By the time Mike Hough was on board, the requirements were largely set - the JIRD-JORD process was largely complete and the PWSC designs were well under way. You have also stated:

Have the requirements shifted nearly constantly? Yes.

That's also bilge. RP asked you for evidence and you ignored the challenge, because you don't have any evidence. The requirements have remained stable except where they have been relaxed.

[riff_raff]

The F-35 models are all very impressive aircraft. If you had the opportunity to see one up close, I think you would agree. I actually was involved in the design of various parts of the F-35B propulsion system, and it is a significant leap over any other STOVL aircraft. All the public criticisms you read regarding the F-35's capabilities should be taken with a grain of salt. While the program costs have gotten out of hand, that is mostly due to lack of discipline by the program management. You cannot blame the primes like LM, P&W, R-R, etc. for agreeing to being paid for modifications proposed by the customer.

[glad rag]

Yep lugging ALL that weoght, which it appears the USMC are in the process of re writing their air warfare doctrine to specifically exclude the use off, makes it an incredibly impressive aircraft indeed!

[MSOCS]

Oh hello LO. Welcome back. How's the new job? Or was it a vacation before starting?

3 weeks of professional and courteous debate was always going to be a temporary respite! There was always a grain of hope.

PS - using words like "bilge" etc in your responses just inflame. They aren't necessary. Just say you think someone isn't correct and then show them why (which you do).

[LowObservable]

While the program costs have gotten out of hand, that is mostly due to lack of discipline by the program management. You cannot blame the primes like LM, P&W, R-R, etc. for agreeing to being paid for modifications proposed by the customer.

Sorry, RR, but I'm going to call for evidence on that statement. As far as I am aware, the actual system capability requirements were established in great detail in 1995-2000 via a few iterations of JIRD (Joint Interim Requirements Document) leading to the JORD (Joint Operational Requirements Document). Boeing and LockMart both proposed SDD programs based on the JORD.

I know of no major changes to the JORD since then, apart from the relaxation of some requirements. The modifications to the aircraft, of which there have been many, were done to meet the JORD specs - in the case of the F-35B in 2003, the design was on track to fail catastrophically.

MSOCS - I'm frightfully sorry if I upset you. But KenV's attempts to inject massive untruth into the public discussion (for whatever reason), and then smugly refuse to back it up, is also offensive, and to characterize it as "professional and courteous debate" is, well, the wet bit in the bottom of a boat.

[MSOCS]

Well LO, I'm also sorry that you have to incessantly turn up the wick on a debate whenever it doesn't fit your known facts. People are inevitably right, wrong or somewhere in between. What if KenV genuinely is misinformed or has made an incorrect assertion? There's absolutely no need to start the emotive language discourse again. Just post the link (against forum rules but, hey, whatever!) and state you believe him to be wrong. Let the diaspora make their mind up after that.

If you have proof that KenV is deliberately being wrong to wind you up, show it.

Otherwise, be mindful that not everyone is an award-winning journalist with a openly polar view on the F-35 Program.

[glad rag]

Or what??

The truth about F35 is it has not delivered for xx years whilst keeping plenty if people in well paid taxpayer funded employment...

As you gloatingly stated "the big wheel keeps on rolling"

glass houses and all that...

[Heathrow Harry]

and think of the money the Bad Guys have wasted over the last 20 years working to counter it!!!!

[glad rag]

Counter what exactly?

A non operational aircraft?

Well yes, they fell for star wars so maybe you have a point

[Heathrow Harry]

on the other hand it has kept a lot of our colleagues in Russia & China in work so no doubt they light a candle for LM every so often.......

[glad rag]

hope they get paid in cash then, mind you the Chinese have greenbacks galore...

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by KenV

But the shifting requirements and priorities took their toll on the schedule and on cost.

Same with Typhoon in the early days. And some of the later days, come to think of it. Lucky "JSF" was lead by only one country. It could have been worse.

[Turbine D]

It all started with the US DoD decision to save money by using a common platform for three services and three different missions. It will all end with none of the mission capabilities being achieved to the degree possible with three independent different designed platforms. Even the decision to save money hasn't panned out and never will except by accounting manipulations. A study of history and lessons learned from previous experiences were dismissed as not applicable in the F-35 decision making process.

So who's to blame? Both the customer, who demanded it be done and the suppliers who really didn't know how to oblige the customer's demands, but pretended it could be done, "Yes sir, we can do that!" So was the problem a result because of changes in requirements once the program left the starting gate? Hardly, if anything, favorable moving of the goal posts as insurmountable technical issues were encountered provided respite. And yes, you can blame more than just L-M, the US Congress, P&W, the software producers and the magic helmet suppliers can all be held accountable for a program that is years late. Does anyone understand what it means when technological advantages are lost when a program is as late coming to market such as the F-35? Geez! Even the JPO Leader General Bogdan now sees the mistakes and has advised appropriately for future platforms yet to be designed.

CM, You may think it would be worse if more countries had been co-program leaders such as the Typhoon program. Nevertheless, for the F-35, the UK will bear the increased acquisition costs, life of aircraft costs and performance shortfalls as if they would have been a co-leader, sometimes it makes no difference or maybe even be worse. Think of it this way, the US had 49 participating States as co-program leaders, far more than the Typhoon program and less pragmatic.

[Robert Cooper]

Spot on TD

Bob C

[KenV]

Ken, In my view comparing aircraft from different generations is like comparing cars from different generations,

I completely agree. That's why I did not compare "aircraft from different generations". I compared processes. Since the advent of jet aviation brilliant aircraft have been developed and built. Many of those brilliant aircraft did not do well in real world operations in their OWN time. That was not the fault of flawed design. That was the fault of flawed requirements. So once again, IF the F-35 does not meet today's real world operational requirements, that is not the fault of flawed design. It is the fault (just as it has been for well over half a century) of flawed requirements.

[KenV]

This statement would appear to be flat-out false.
JSF.mil > Leadership > Former Leadership
By the time Mike Hough was on board, the requirements were largely set - the JIRD-JORD process was largely complete and the PWSC designs were well under way.

LO, thanks for your reasoned, polite, and unemotional reply. I stand corrected. My memory clearly failed me. I regret that.

Nevertheless, there is often a lot more to the "set" requirements than meets the eye. The C-17 for example requirements that were firmly "set". Once development began those basic requirements remained the same, but lots of sub requirements got added. Like fly-by-wire flight control. C-17 was bid with mechanical flight controls and a stability augmentation system. USAF demanded fly-by-wire. C-17 was bid with a few basic missions. Then they added aeromedical evac, HALO, SOLL, and more. And unlike C-5 and C-141 which had kits for different missions (like cargo airdrop, CDS, troop drop, aeromedical evac, etc), the C-17 was required to do all these additional mission without kits. Everything had to be part of the airplane all the time. And even though over 30% of its operational life would now be spent at low altitude and high speed, it still had to meet it original service life. Surprise surprise, it got heavy. And worse, it got tail heavy because all that equipment for all those other missions were stowed in the empty tail area, requiring significant redesign. (The entire volume aft of the ramp is unpressurized in the C-141 and C-5. Essentially all the volume aft of the ramp is fully pressurized in the C-17).

Have the requirements shifted nearly constantly? Yes.
That's also bilge. RP asked you for evidence and you ignored the challenge, because you don't have any evidence. The requirements have remained stable except where they have been relaxed.

Perhaps my memory on that is faulty also. I'll do some digging and see what I can find, but here's what comes to mind just off the top of my head: Was the windshield bird strike requirement "set" in the JORD? Or was that a later UK requirement and the reason the F-35 now has a bow in the canopy even though it is a one-piece canopy like the F-16 and F-22, neither of which have bows. Was the requirement to include a magic helmet part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have full spherical passive sensor coverage (DAS) part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have a single sensor (EOTS) that functions as both a FLIR and an IRST part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have a stealthy datalink (MADL) part of the JORD? Did these systems add weight, cost, risk, and time to the program? Was the requirement to have an ejection seat capable of safely handling a 103 lb to 285 lb pilot part of the JORD? Now, having been asked the questions, will you, using your wording, "ignore the challenge?"

And BTW, while I can play your adversarial games, it is rather tedious doing so. I've now countered with what you call a "challenge." I'll leave it at that.

[KenV]

Even the JPO Leader General Bogdan now sees the mistakes and has advised appropriately for future platforms yet to be designed.

Why does that sound familiar? O yes, the F-111 debacle resulted in all sorts of warnings to "future platforms". And the result was that instead of demanding one airplane be designed for two services, the government demanded one airplane for THREE services, with one of those services demanding a STOVL version! The government is a very slow learner and quick to forget past lessons learned. The government is forgetting recent lesssons learned right now with the LRSB. They're demanding LRSB (a super stealthy new long range bomber with many exotic features) be developed FIXED PRICE! Past efforts at fixed price development programs, even for a very unexotic transport aircraft like the C-17, proved to be BIG mistakes. Did they learn? Yes. For a short while. But they've already forgotten and are making the same mistake(s) again.

[KenV]

Counter what exactly? A non operational aircraft?

Good question. The B-70 never went into production. But the soviets reportedly spent gazillions developing counters for it.

[AtomKraft]

Wouldn't it have been easier to build say, two aircraft- rather than try to make ONE aircraft do everything?

One fighter, and one mud hen, say.

You could make the fighter a really nice, optimised air to air beastie- say, a bit like the F-22....

And you could make the mud mover into a really solid ground pounder, maybe like GR.4 or F/A-18...or maybe, GR.9 if you need VTOL.

I know getting one 'airframe' to do everything sounds like it ought to be cheaper, but is it?

And does anyone think the F-35 is going to better in one of its 'jack of all trades' roles, than any specialised aircraft that we could havebuilt with the same level of tech?

I don't think so.

Jack of all trades......Master of none.

Edit to add: if it's really all about having great SA due to fancy electronics, why not just stick those self same electronics into a proven airframe? F-35 electronics in a Buccaneer would likely make a great aircraft.