|
Because F-35 is such a massive program, the hope is to prove out these fresh approaches and then drag them onto other sets of major defense acquisition programs, including the use of data analytics to find ways to cut costs. “One of the things we’ve been talking about a lot is that we will be data driven. So we are frankly wasting people’s time if we sit around with opinions and concepts,” Lord said. “If that is not backed up by analytical rigor and the data behind it. So, we’re practicing all of that on the F-35. I think we’re getting a little sharper in all the areas.” |
Which means ----? |
Brat,
Development:- the process of developing or being developed. "she traces the development of the novel" evolution, growth, maturing, expansion, enlargement, spread, buildout, progress. I guess that limits developed aircraft to those (usually the last ones) on display in museums... |
[quote=Brat;10040121]
Originally Posted by glad rag
(Post 10037353)
No it isn't "under development" at all lolol.
It most certainly is. lolol! Development:- the process of developing or being developed. "she traces the development of the novel" evolution, growth, maturing, expansion, enlargement, spread, buildout, progress. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ization-06583/ Yes George, it is still evolving, growing, getting bigger better, maturing. This must be the case surely, otherwise why waste even more money on "development". |
[quote=glad rag;10040471]
Originally Posted by Brat
(Post 10040121)
So you agree that they have deployed aircraft on operations that do not have the appropriate, cluster, :) of characteristics that will enable the aircraft to succesfully engage the enemy and survive. This must be the case surely, otherwise why waste even more money on "development". A perfect parallel is your beloved Tornado, which is quite a different beast now to when it first came out of the factory. As is the Typhoon, even in its Tranche2 guise, which has evolved from no air to surface capability to a reasonable (whilst not earth shattering) capability. This air to surface capability, along with other capabilities (air to air, defensive suite etc) that will continue to evolve as new software standards, hardware and weapons are added. What’s the point? If you stand still in mil aviation your going backwards. Why you would be critical of the JSF solely seems quite absurd. |
[quote=flighthappens;10040685]
Originally Posted by glad rag
(Post 10040471)
Glad Rag... you really are quite tiresome regarding the F35. The fact is that most aircraft are continually upgraded throughout their service lives. A perfect parallel is your beloved Tornado, which is quite a different beast now to when it first came out of the factory. As is the Typhoon, even in its Tranche2 guise, which has evolved from no air to surface capability to a reasonable (whilst not earth shattering) capability. This air to surface capability, along with other capabilities (air to air, defensive suite etc) that will continue to evolve as new software standards, hardware and weapons are added. What’s the point? If you stand still in mil aviation your going backwards. Why you would be critical of the JSF solely seems quite absurd. The Typhoon update was the result of a change in role from A2A to A2G. Both are completely different to the pre EIS updates of F35 which are essentially to achieve spec compliance. |
[quote=Buster15;10040696]
Originally Posted by flighthappens
(Post 10040685)
But, the difference with Tornado was that during its 35+ years life cycle, it only had one real upgrade programme and the GR4 upgrade was primary the result of lessons learnt during GW1. The GR4 upgrade was NOT prior to EIS but over 10 years after. The Typhoon update was the result of a change in role from A2A to A2G. Both are completely different to the pre EIS updates of F35 which are essentially to achieve spec compliance. |
[quote=flighthappens;10040701]
Originally Posted by Buster15
(Post 10040696)
If you think Typhoon Tr1 was a finished product at EIS 😱 My apologies for forgetting that. |
Tornado F2 anyone....?
|
A perfect parallel is your beloved Tornado
ROFL. Now getting back to those F35's that are quite clearly REMF material.. |
A perfect parallel is your beloved Tornado And I have no doubt, given 10-15 years, the RAF will be able to modify it to perform adequately as a platform, if not brilliantly. It’s just unusual in that they are usually forced to do that to keep incompetent UK companies in business, not American..... |
Originally Posted by Turbine D
(Post 10040250)
Brat,
So what you are saying is that any aircraft still flying is being developed? I guess that limits developed aircraft to those (usually the last ones) on display in museums... |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10041590)
ROFL.
And I have no doubt, given 10-15 years, the RAF will be able to modify it to perform adequately as a platform, if not brilliantly. It’s just unusual in that they are usually forced to do that to keep incompetent UK companies in business, not American..... The RAF might be able to inherit some of those Gucci F/A 22's by then.... |
I wonder if the F-35 Program will become part of this accounting fiasco as more auditing goes on:
One of the Pentagon’s largest agencies can't account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending, a leading accounting firm says in an internal audit obtained by POLITICO that arrives just as President Donald Trump is proposing a boost in the military budget. Ernst & Young found that the Defense Logistics Agency failed to properly document more than $800 million in construction projects, just one of a series of examples where it lacks a paper trail for millions of dollars in property and equipment. Across the board, its financial management is so weak that its leaders and oversight bodies have no reliable way to track the huge sums it's responsible for, the firm warned in its initial audit of the massive Pentagon purchasing agent. The audit raises new questions about whether the Defense Department can responsibly manage its $700 billion annual budget — let alone the additional billions that Trump plans to propose this month. The department has never undergone a full audit despite a congressional mandate — and to some lawmakers, the messy state of the Defense Logistics Agency's books indicates one may never even be possible. “If you can’t follow the money, you aren’t going to be able to do an audit,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and senior member of the Budget and Finance committees, who has pushed successive administrations to clean up the Pentagon’s notoriously wasteful and disorganized accounting system. |
And, as every year, the more the F-18 orders go up, so the planned F-35 orders go down....
Trump to seek 24 Boeing Super Hornets in budget President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2019 budget will request 24 Super Hornet jets built by Boeing, reversing an Obama administration decision to stop buying the fighter after this year, according to two people familiar with the decision. The Navy has argued that it needs more of the planes designated F/A-18E/F to fill a shortage in its inventory until more of Lockheed Martin’s newer F-35s are deployed. Before Trump even took office, he’d promoted the Super Hornet as a less costly alternative to the F-35, though the two planes have different capabilities. The proposal in the budget due to be presented Feb. 12 is likely to be welcomed in Congress, which has consistently added more Super Hornets than requested and resisted Pentagon plans under former President Barack Obama to phase it out. Lawmakers approved 12 of the aircraft in fiscal 2016 when none were requested and 12 more in fiscal 2017 when two were requested. This fiscal year, House and Senate appropriators have proposed adding 10 aircraft to the 14 requested. If Boeing “can get the cash for this, it’s very good news” because 24 aircraft per year is the minimum economic production rate to keep Boeing’s plant in St. Louis operating, Richard Aboulafia, military aircraft analyst for the Teal Group, said in an email. Boeing also is working with the Kuwaiti government to build as many as 32 F/A-18s for Kuwait over the next few years. “The big question is: How long will the Navy sustain the line?” Aboulafia said. “But in the ‘here and now,’ this is very good news for one of Boeing’s most profitable programs.” The people familiar with the budget request asked not to be identified in advance of its release. Lt. Seth Clarke, a Navy spokesman, said in an email, “I can’t confirm a specific number” for any aircraft procurement in the coming budget. The fiscal 2019 request for the Super Hornets will be the largest since fiscal 2012, when the Navy asked for funds to buy 28 of the fighters..... |
Originally Posted by pr00ne
(Post 10029042)
Just how could the RAF (not that they spend the money) actually have achieved better VFM at the time?
As there was a cash shortage it HAD to be on HP. There was not the amount of cash available for an up front purchase of 14 Airbus A330 aircraft, their conversion into tanker/transport configuration, simulators, new hangars, ground support equipment, training, maintenance and support. Now with 75% aircrew and over 50% groundcrew and contractor back up providing the rest, the RAF has a real meaningful capability. What would you have cut at the time if you wanted to buy all that lot up front? |
Originally Posted by Turbine D
(Post 10040250)
Brat,
So what you are saying is that any aircraft still flying is being developed? I guess that limits developed aircraft to those (usually the last ones) on display in museums... And as an interesting adjunct to the subject of ongoing development of certain aircraft over others, it was interesting to see a suggestion that the USAF might be considering the retirement of the B1 and B2 Bombers in favour or replacement by the B21 Raider, while retaining the upgrades B-52’s. USAF's Controversial New Plan To Retire B-2 And B-1 Bombers Early Is A Good One - The Drive While Taylor Rogoway is sometimes considered as a somewhat off-the-wall blogger on military affairs, he does have a reasonably long record of following developing trends, and, the article contains logical postulation. https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...w-b-21-raider/ |
Originally Posted by Brat
(Post 10050914)
As previously stated...some more than others.
And as an interesting adjunct to the subject of ongoing development of certain aircraft over others, it was interesting to see a suggestion that the USAF might be considering the retirement of the B1 and B2 Bombers in favour or replacement by the B21 Raider, while retaining the upgrades B-52’s. USAF's Controversial New Plan To Retire B-2 And B-1 Bombers Early Is A Good One - The Drive While Taylor Rogoway is sometimes considered as a somewhat off-the-wall blogger on military affairs, he does have a reasonably long record of following developing trends, and, the article contains logical postulation. https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...w-b-21-raider/ |
Originally Posted by glad rag
(Post 10051159)
One simple google undoes all the hyperbole BRAT
|
The story is baćked up by Defence News.
Planned retirement of B-1 and B-2 fleets and official USAF announcement in the FY19 budget proposal. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.