9 ms·

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed t

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for lower total cost and be operational on a shorter timeframe. The F-35 reminds me of this short story by A. C. Clarke http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html And this scene from pentagon wars: https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA

dexterdog 10y ago
Plus if it's three different ones when the world changes and you need 85% carrier drones, 10% stealth bombers and 5% close air support you can build accordingly. Not to mention the fact that one of those can be available when it's done instead of not getting anything until they are all done.
- incongruity 10y ago
  Seriously – this is project management and design 101 stuff here. The points you make highlight the HUGE cost savings that could be accomplished by breaking it up into 3 different aircraft, at different price points, tailored to the different roles.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Sounds like a great idea. It's not like an adversary could shoot down satellites, jam controller transmissions or hack a drones control plane. We'd be better off buying aircraft from the French.
hga 10y ago
The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project Or an example of how we don't learn from history, for the same exact thing happened with the '60s TFX, except the F-35 substitutes S/VTOL for air superiority. 5 models of it were planned, two for the Navy, all but what ended up as the F-111 were canceled, and we resumed building focused planes like the F-14 through F-16, and the A-10 I think. Read the relevant section in Possony, Pournelle, and Kane's classic The Strategy of Technology https://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html for lots more details. ADDED: And I've now recalled that there was stiff criticism of the F-111 as it starting flying and was fielded in the hot war of Vietnam. By and large the bugs were worked out, and e.g. surviving pilots were convinced that they should not turn off the terrain following radar and auto pilot system so they wouldn't follow their predecessors in immediately flying it into a hill. Which didn't happen with the following similar in that way B-1, come to think of it. That I remember mostly from contemporaneous reports, the frequently poor prosecution of the Vietnam war was a big issue in the heartland.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>Or an example of how we don't learn from history Of course we learn from history. The thing you have to understand is that everything is working as intended. F-35, and programs like it, are a way to use public money to create private sector jobs. They aren't meant to be efficient or even effective means to develop and manufacture military hardware. You can see a direct analogy of this in the space sector, where SpaceX came along and severely disrupted the incumbents by doing things efficiently.
  - projectileboy 10y ago
    I agree, except the problem is that it's sold to the public as defense, not as a jobs program. Part of the sales job is involves having American pilots fly those airplanes into combat.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    You beat me to it. I was going to add something along lines of expanding existing corruption where military people authorizing it get cushy jobs in return over time. The "revolving door." So consistent that it should be our first hypothesis for every program like this.
  - popmystack 10y ago
    The thing you have to understand is that your initial statement has literally no foundation to it. There isn't any solid proof that program failures like this are direct means to keeping workers employed (where it is implied that they otherwise wouldn't be). I am also not really sure how some crazy guy (I am being hyperbolic) betting hundreds of millions of dollars (some of it his own funds) somehow becomes analogous with a purposefully obtuse military industrial complex scheme to keep people employed. There are certainly cases where the government soaks up funding, gives it to a company, for absolutely no other reason that we can tell other than to just funnel money along into their little corner of the country (and thus their constituents). But I have a really hard time believing that is the case here.
    - 10y ago
LoSboccacc 10y ago
It is a respunding success according to the amount of porking it generated. Is the f-22 exported? Edit: to clarify: they're not exporting the good one which could change an actual war.
- jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
  No exports of the F-22. It's apparently got some technology they're not willing to transfer, even to allies.
  - mrweasel 10y ago
    I'm half-way suspecting that the F-22 isn't available for export, because it would hurt the sales of the F-35.
    - vanattab 10y ago
      The F-22 is not for export because we want to make sure we can shoot down the f35s we do export.
      - ino 10y ago
        a software kill switch could be a solution to that problem
        matt_wulfeck 10y ago
        Good thing we have such competent developers on the project.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        secfirstmd 10y ago
        The French are known for doing that. I'm sure most militaries do in some way http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/the-hunt-for-the-kill-switch http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/the-hunt-for-...
jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
RAND published a writeup of joint acquisition programs recently: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1225/RAND_MG1225.pdf http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/... Spoiler: they're a bad idea.
- neurotech1 10y ago
  RAND didn't mention the commonality between the F/A-18A and the F-117A aircraft. McDonnell-Douglas significantly upgraded the YF-17 mission systems and cockpit avionics for the F/A-18A/B and it was more advanced than the F-16A version at the time. The F-117A basically used the same mission avionics and engines as the F/A-18 which was a few years ahead in development. Having inter-service commonality in major systems and components sometimes a better option than a joint aircraft program. The USAF is upgrading the F-15C (& some export customers) with AN/APG-82 radar, which is basically a larger AESA "antenna" on a AN/APG-79 radar from a Super Hornet.
  - johngalt 10y ago
    When designing for complex functions think orchestra not one man band. Lots of standard interchangeable parts that can be individually replaced rather than one "do-it-all" pile of dependencies.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    F-117 commonality was due to the "Skunk Works" model. Lockheed didn't have the time to pursue a custom set of avionics. IIRC, Lockheed also used existing forgings for landing gear for a similar reason.
    - hga 10y ago
      There's great coverage of all that in: http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/d... In particularly, they patched together their prototype in a way which all hackers will appreciate.
  - 10y ago
Someone1234 10y ago
It is also worth considering that the reason given for merging three aircrafts into one was to save money. I know the F-35 has a lot of defenders, but even they have to admit it is unlikely that the F-35 will ever be seen as a cost saving measure.
- coredog64 10y ago
  I'd defend that statement even though I'm not an F-35 fan. For cost savings, think of what it would have cost to field two different designs (F-35 as F-16 replacement and F-XX as Harrier replacement). VTOL has added cost to F-35, but it's unlikely that it has been so much that you could fund an entirely different airframe as well. Then you get into the situation where the second aircraft is delayed by one FY because nobody wants to put two of these programs into one budget. Then there's pressure to diverge on engines, avionics, etc. which winds up adding to the cost of the second program.
gaius 10y ago
You could start a brand new Harrier programme right now, same basic design but new build airframes, avionics and engines using modern materials, and you would still beat the F35 not only into-service, but in a stand-up fight if it ever came to that.
- icegreentea 10y ago
  Harrier design concept is limited by the massive frontal cross section that Pegasus type engines imposes on the craft - this limits aero efficiency, and especially the ability to go supersonic. Harrier design is also completely not low observable. An F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar, and could probably beat out an Harrier in anything but the lowest altitude, lowest speed confrontations. F-35 is full of problems, but there's no sense in bringing up ridiculous arguments. Harriers might be able to perform some CAS roles better than a F-35, but it would get completely demolished in any 'stand-up fight'. Any attempt to turn something based on a Harrier airframe into something as LO and as fast as the F-35 runs most of the same design risks and problems as the F-35.
  - braythwayt 10y ago
    "Hunh, ComplicatedX is expensive and 20% of the project is causing 80% of the overruns. We should just do SimpleY, we get 80% of the value for 20% of the price!" ...Ten years later... "SimpleY is no longer Simple, it turns out that although we got 80% of what we wanted for 20% of the price, the last 20% of what we wanted were responsible for 80% of the overruns!"
  - gaius 10y ago
    F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar And an X-wing could take out an F-35, I mean, if we're talking complete hypotheticals. The Harrier is battle-proven everywhere from the Falklands to Afghanistan. Marry it up with modern radar and air-to-air missiles and you will have a very capable platform - one that the F-35 - if it ever flies in combat - which it won't because no-one will risk those mind-bogglingly expensive airframes in a shooting war - won't see coming because its radar has rebooted again.
prodmerc 10y ago
Unsurprisingly, it's already divided into three different aircraft - F-35A, F-35B, F-35C. They were supposed to be 70% common, but that's simply not achievable so the differences are quite a bit larger.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  By some estimates the parts commonality is now about 25%.
- sharpy 10y ago
  I always felt that F-35B at least should have been its own design. As for A & C, there have been successful examples of naval aircraft being used by air forces too - such as F-4, and F/A-18. But trying to have a design that is also STOVL capable?
  - bdowling 10y ago
    It is my understanding that the biggest problem with the naval version is that it has only one engine. The F-4 and F/A-18 were both twin engine planes and if one engine failed or was damaged, the plane could still fly and the pilot could land on the aircraft carrier and save the plane. With the F-35C, if the engine is damaged far from the carrier, the pilot will probably have to eject and be rescued. In that case, even if cost is no object there is the inconvenience of going to rescue the pilot and being short one airframe. I also remember reading somewhere that the repair bays on an aircraft carrier can swap an engine in an F/A-18 in just a few hours.
    - hga 10y ago
      Well, the Navy's been there fairly recently, the single engined A-4 Skyhawk, the F-8 Crusader, and the A-7 Corsair which was based on the latter all saw heavy service in Vietnam. And per Wikipedia, the latter replaced the A-1 Skyraider (to the extent a jet like that could) and the F-100. But for the obvious reasons they vastly prefer two engined planes, plus I've read the F-35's single engine is so big their current logistics system will have trouble getting new ones to a fleet at see, I assume this means it can't fit in a C-2 or maybe V-22.
mozumder 10y ago
Isn't the F-35's high price due to it already being 3 very different attack aircraft? 1. CAS with STOVL capability (Marine) 2. Light attack fighter (Air Force) 3. Carrier attack plane with bigger wings (Navy) Creating 3 separate programs isn't going to change that. And, if not that, then the software they want is going raise the prices of the 3 different aircraft anyways. The Marines are probably going to want to develop the expensive Augmented Reality helmet anyways, for example. If you create 3 separate programs, where will you save money?
- engi_nerd 10y ago
  They don't have the kind of assembly commonality that the program aimed for initially, but I think it's a stretch to call the three variants "very different" aircraft. There's a pretty high amount of systems similarity. And pilots don't have to go through completely separate training programs for the three variants, just separate qualifications for things like STOVL or CV operations. If you can aviate in an F-35A, you can aviate in the other two variants. Not sure why you single out the USMC for developing the helmet mounted display, because the HMD is common to all variants and is already a working system.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  Because in real world costs tend to grow exponentially with complexity.
- johngalt 10y ago
  Max, Amy, and Ned are driving old cars and want new ones. Rather than buying three cars, they decide to go in together and buy one car to share. Max wants to replace his offroading jeep, Amy wants to replace her fast sports car, and Ned drives an amphicar because he lives on an island. So Max Amy and Ned go to GM and say "Design us a floating, offroading, sports car please we are trying to save money." By the end of the day GM has to convince them to take three variants of the same car, but the cost, time and design tradeoffs needed to reach that point were never worth it. When you could have designed three (possibly four) vehicles separately that each excel in their focus area. Saying that 'well all three would need gauges and windshields anyway' isn't a compelling reason to combine them.
neurotech1 10y ago
Dr Michael Gilmore, who wrote that report, apparently had not actually seen the aircraft up close until less than a year ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9re9tJckTlk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9re9tJckTlk The pilot in this video, LtCol Christine Mau is a F-15E combat veteran is now flying the F-35. The video description incorrectly states the director of the JSF is "General Michael Gilmore". LTG Chris Bogdan is the JSF Executive Officer and has seen the F-35 up close and flown chased flights from an F-16. For the OT&E Office at the Pentagon, they do not actually fly the jet, or operate the jet, or even touch the jet. There are a handful of DoD "civilian" pilots who evaluate the aircraft for the Office of Secretary of Defense. None of the DoD pilots have made public statements regarding the F-35 airframe having any major issues.
thearn4 10y ago
That scene from Pentagon Wars should be mandatory viewing for every student in systems engineering and project management.
stcredzero 10y ago
> A. C. Clarke _Superiority_ This fits the Tiger Tank vs. T-33 in WWII. The T-33 had very good firepower and armor. The Tiger was superior in both those regards. However, the T-33 could be more easily produced, dealt better with Russia's muddy seasons and winters, and was far cheaper to maintain.
- sneal 10y ago
  I think you meant the T34, the second most produced tank in history.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Doh. Off by one! Yes. T-34. There was a recent analysis by the DoD, finding that the logistic costs of modern MBTs scale by the fifth power of their weight. This is a big problem with state of the art modern tanks. Right now, reactive armor is good enough to stymie 105mm and 120mm guns in battle conditions. However, making tanks heavy enough to support 140mm and larger guns looks like it will make them prohibitively expensive.
bane 10y ago
It's the worst case of both scope creep and putting your eggs in one basket.
smitherfield 10y ago
>Carrier based attack drone Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started. Even today they can't even come close to outperforming a skilled human pilot in a combat scenario. (Although perhaps if it were Google working on the hardware and software it'd be doable).
- wavefunction 10y ago
  What if that skilled human pilot was flying a "drone"/unmanned craft rather than sitting in the cockpit? I imagine there are benefits to being "in-person" but the unmanned craft could theoretically endure far more extreme maneuvers that would leave a human pilot unconscious or dead.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    Most of that benefit is that you still have something capable of mission decisions when an enemy engages in jamming or other information distortion tactics. On the positive side for 'drones': they can be viewed as both expendable (with costs/limits) and capable of performing maneuvers that would kill a human. I can see narrow beam transmissions on multiple carriers and extremely fault resistant communication protocols combining with remotely manned vehicles. The pilots might best be closer for speed of light delay reduction, but realistically you could have a relay in some kind of helicopter type vehicle a short distance from the actual fight, and the expert pilots stationed somewhere even more safe. While you're at it, that helicopter/blimp/etc could also be your primary communication platform for a local region; it's already a high value target so there's little reason not to use it as an additional uplink.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started. AFAICT, the first armed drones deployed by the US military were ASW drone helicopters in the 1960s. Ground attack jet drones were successfully tested in the 1970s, and some preliminary and positive testing on air-to-air combat drones also happened in the 1970s. Drones certainly weren't science-fiction in the early 1990s, even if the military hadn't gotten around to actually fielding armed drones (despite the tests) beyond those old Navy ASW drones.
CamperBob2 10y ago
True. At this point they might as well build a Space Shuttle with guns.
tmaly 10y ago
Just making some small improvements in this process would save the country a ton of money. I cannot believe the cost of the F-35 program has exceeded 1 trillion.

dexterdog 10y ago

Plus if it's three different ones when the world changes and you need 85% carrier drones, 10% stealth bombers and 5% close air support you can build accordingly. Not to mention the fact that one of those can be available when it's done instead of not getting anything until they are all done.

incongruity 10y ago
Seriously – this is project management and design 101 stuff here. The points you make highlight the HUGE cost savings that could be accomplished by breaking it up into 3 different aircraft, at different price points, tailored to the different roles.
Spooky23 10y ago
Sounds like a great idea. It's not like an adversary could shoot down satellites, jam controller transmissions or hack a drones control plane. We'd be better off buying aircraft from the French.

hga 10y ago

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project Or an example of how we don't learn from history, for the same exact thing happened with the '60s TFX, except the F-35 substitutes S/VTOL for air superiority. 5 models of it were planned, two for the Navy, all but what ended up as the F-111 were canceled, and we resumed building focused planes like the F-14 through F-16, and the A-10 I think. Read the relevant section in Possony, Pournelle, and Kane's classic The Strategy of Technology https://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html for lots more details. ADDED: And I've now recalled that there was stiff criticism of the F-111 as it starting flying and was fielded in the hot war of Vietnam. By and large the bugs were worked out, and e.g. surviving pilots were convinced that they should not turn off the terrain following radar and auto pilot system so they wouldn't follow their predecessors in immediately flying it into a hill. Which didn't happen with the following similar in that way B-1, come to think of it. That I remember mostly from contemporaneous reports, the frequently poor prosecution of the Vietnam war was a big issue in the heartland.

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>Or an example of how we don't learn from history Of course we learn from history. The thing you have to understand is that everything is working as intended. F-35, and programs like it, are a way to use public money to create private sector jobs. They aren't meant to be efficient or even effective means to develop and manufacture military hardware. You can see a direct analogy of this in the space sector, where SpaceX came along and severely disrupted the incumbents by doing things efficiently.
- projectileboy 10y ago
  I agree, except the problem is that it's sold to the public as defense, not as a jobs program. Part of the sales job is involves having American pilots fly those airplanes into combat.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  You beat me to it. I was going to add something along lines of expanding existing corruption where military people authorizing it get cushy jobs in return over time. The "revolving door." So consistent that it should be our first hypothesis for every program like this.
- popmystack 10y ago
  The thing you have to understand is that your initial statement has literally no foundation to it. There isn't any solid proof that program failures like this are direct means to keeping workers employed (where it is implied that they otherwise wouldn't be). I am also not really sure how some crazy guy (I am being hyperbolic) betting hundreds of millions of dollars (some of it his own funds) somehow becomes analogous with a purposefully obtuse military industrial complex scheme to keep people employed. There are certainly cases where the government soaks up funding, gives it to a company, for absolutely no other reason that we can tell other than to just funnel money along into their little corner of the country (and thus their constituents). But I have a really hard time believing that is the case here.
  - 10y ago

LoSboccacc 10y ago

It is a respunding success according to the amount of porking it generated. Is the f-22 exported? Edit: to clarify: they're not exporting the good one which could change an actual war.

jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
No exports of the F-22. It's apparently got some technology they're not willing to transfer, even to allies.
- mrweasel 10y ago
  I'm half-way suspecting that the F-22 isn't available for export, because it would hurt the sales of the F-35.
  - vanattab 10y ago
    The F-22 is not for export because we want to make sure we can shoot down the f35s we do export.
    - ino 10y ago
      a software kill switch could be a solution to that problem
      - matt_wulfeck 10y ago
        Good thing we have such competent developers on the project.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - secfirstmd 10y ago
        The French are known for doing that. I'm sure most militaries do in some way http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/the-hunt-for-the-kill-switch http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/the-hunt-for-...

jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago

RAND published a writeup of joint acquisition programs recently: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1225/RAND_MG1225.pdf http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/... Spoiler: they're a bad idea.

neurotech1 10y ago
RAND didn't mention the commonality between the F/A-18A and the F-117A aircraft. McDonnell-Douglas significantly upgraded the YF-17 mission systems and cockpit avionics for the F/A-18A/B and it was more advanced than the F-16A version at the time. The F-117A basically used the same mission avionics and engines as the F/A-18 which was a few years ahead in development. Having inter-service commonality in major systems and components sometimes a better option than a joint aircraft program. The USAF is upgrading the F-15C (& some export customers) with AN/APG-82 radar, which is basically a larger AESA "antenna" on a AN/APG-79 radar from a Super Hornet.
- johngalt 10y ago
  When designing for complex functions think orchestra not one man band. Lots of standard interchangeable parts that can be individually replaced rather than one "do-it-all" pile of dependencies.
- coredog64 10y ago
  F-117 commonality was due to the "Skunk Works" model. Lockheed didn't have the time to pursue a custom set of avionics. IIRC, Lockheed also used existing forgings for landing gear for a similar reason.
  - hga 10y ago
    There's great coverage of all that in: http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/d... In particularly, they patched together their prototype in a way which all hackers will appreciate.
- 10y ago

Someone1234 10y ago

It is also worth considering that the reason given for merging three aircrafts into one was to save money. I know the F-35 has a lot of defenders, but even they have to admit it is unlikely that the F-35 will ever be seen as a cost saving measure.

coredog64 10y ago
I'd defend that statement even though I'm not an F-35 fan. For cost savings, think of what it would have cost to field two different designs (F-35 as F-16 replacement and F-XX as Harrier replacement). VTOL has added cost to F-35, but it's unlikely that it has been so much that you could fund an entirely different airframe as well. Then you get into the situation where the second aircraft is delayed by one FY because nobody wants to put two of these programs into one budget. Then there's pressure to diverge on engines, avionics, etc. which winds up adding to the cost of the second program.

gaius 10y ago

You could start a brand new Harrier programme right now, same basic design but new build airframes, avionics and engines using modern materials, and you would still beat the F35 not only into-service, but in a stand-up fight if it ever came to that.

icegreentea 10y ago
Harrier design concept is limited by the massive frontal cross section that Pegasus type engines imposes on the craft - this limits aero efficiency, and especially the ability to go supersonic. Harrier design is also completely not low observable. An F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar, and could probably beat out an Harrier in anything but the lowest altitude, lowest speed confrontations. F-35 is full of problems, but there's no sense in bringing up ridiculous arguments. Harriers might be able to perform some CAS roles better than a F-35, but it would get completely demolished in any 'stand-up fight'. Any attempt to turn something based on a Harrier airframe into something as LO and as fast as the F-35 runs most of the same design risks and problems as the F-35.
- braythwayt 10y ago
  "Hunh, ComplicatedX is expensive and 20% of the project is causing 80% of the overruns. We should just do SimpleY, we get 80% of the value for 20% of the price!" ...Ten years later... "SimpleY is no longer Simple, it turns out that although we got 80% of what we wanted for 20% of the price, the last 20% of what we wanted were responsible for 80% of the overruns!"
- gaius 10y ago
  F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar And an X-wing could take out an F-35, I mean, if we're talking complete hypotheticals. The Harrier is battle-proven everywhere from the Falklands to Afghanistan. Marry it up with modern radar and air-to-air missiles and you will have a very capable platform - one that the F-35 - if it ever flies in combat - which it won't because no-one will risk those mind-bogglingly expensive airframes in a shooting war - won't see coming because its radar has rebooted again.

prodmerc 10y ago

Unsurprisingly, it's already divided into three different aircraft - F-35A, F-35B, F-35C. They were supposed to be 70% common, but that's simply not achievable so the differences are quite a bit larger.

GVIrish 10y ago
By some estimates the parts commonality is now about 25%.
sharpy 10y ago
I always felt that F-35B at least should have been its own design. As for A & C, there have been successful examples of naval aircraft being used by air forces too - such as F-4, and F/A-18. But trying to have a design that is also STOVL capable?
- bdowling 10y ago
  It is my understanding that the biggest problem with the naval version is that it has only one engine. The F-4 and F/A-18 were both twin engine planes and if one engine failed or was damaged, the plane could still fly and the pilot could land on the aircraft carrier and save the plane. With the F-35C, if the engine is damaged far from the carrier, the pilot will probably have to eject and be rescued. In that case, even if cost is no object there is the inconvenience of going to rescue the pilot and being short one airframe. I also remember reading somewhere that the repair bays on an aircraft carrier can swap an engine in an F/A-18 in just a few hours.
  - hga 10y ago
    Well, the Navy's been there fairly recently, the single engined A-4 Skyhawk, the F-8 Crusader, and the A-7 Corsair which was based on the latter all saw heavy service in Vietnam. And per Wikipedia, the latter replaced the A-1 Skyraider (to the extent a jet like that could) and the F-100. But for the obvious reasons they vastly prefer two engined planes, plus I've read the F-35's single engine is so big their current logistics system will have trouble getting new ones to a fleet at see, I assume this means it can't fit in a C-2 or maybe V-22.

mozumder 10y ago

Isn't the F-35's high price due to it already being 3 very different attack aircraft? 1. CAS with STOVL capability (Marine) 2. Light attack fighter (Air Force) 3. Carrier attack plane with bigger wings (Navy) Creating 3 separate programs isn't going to change that. And, if not that, then the software they want is going raise the prices of the 3 different aircraft anyways. The Marines are probably going to want to develop the expensive Augmented Reality helmet anyways, for example. If you create 3 separate programs, where will you save money?

engi_nerd 10y ago
They don't have the kind of assembly commonality that the program aimed for initially, but I think it's a stretch to call the three variants "very different" aircraft. There's a pretty high amount of systems similarity. And pilots don't have to go through completely separate training programs for the three variants, just separate qualifications for things like STOVL or CV operations. If you can aviate in an F-35A, you can aviate in the other two variants. Not sure why you single out the USMC for developing the helmet mounted display, because the HMD is common to all variants and is already a working system.
venomsnake 10y ago
Because in real world costs tend to grow exponentially with complexity.
johngalt 10y ago
Max, Amy, and Ned are driving old cars and want new ones. Rather than buying three cars, they decide to go in together and buy one car to share. Max wants to replace his offroading jeep, Amy wants to replace her fast sports car, and Ned drives an amphicar because he lives on an island. So Max Amy and Ned go to GM and say "Design us a floating, offroading, sports car please we are trying to save money." By the end of the day GM has to convince them to take three variants of the same car, but the cost, time and design tradeoffs needed to reach that point were never worth it. When you could have designed three (possibly four) vehicles separately that each excel in their focus area. Saying that 'well all three would need gauges and windshields anyway' isn't a compelling reason to combine them.

neurotech1 10y ago

Dr Michael Gilmore, who wrote that report, apparently had not actually seen the aircraft up close until less than a year ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9re9tJckTlk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9re9tJckTlk The pilot in this video, LtCol Christine Mau is a F-15E combat veteran is now flying the F-35. The video description incorrectly states the director of the JSF is "General Michael Gilmore". LTG Chris Bogdan is the JSF Executive Officer and has seen the F-35 up close and flown chased flights from an F-16. For the OT&E Office at the Pentagon, they do not actually fly the jet, or operate the jet, or even touch the jet. There are a handful of DoD "civilian" pilots who evaluate the aircraft for the Office of Secretary of Defense. None of the DoD pilots have made public statements regarding the F-35 airframe having any major issues.

thearn4 10y ago

That scene from Pentagon Wars should be mandatory viewing for every student in systems engineering and project management.

stcredzero 10y ago

> A. C. Clarke _Superiority_ This fits the Tiger Tank vs. T-33 in WWII. The T-33 had very good firepower and armor. The Tiger was superior in both those regards. However, the T-33 could be more easily produced, dealt better with Russia's muddy seasons and winters, and was far cheaper to maintain.

sneal 10y ago
I think you meant the T34, the second most produced tank in history.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Doh. Off by one! Yes. T-34. There was a recent analysis by the DoD, finding that the logistic costs of modern MBTs scale by the fifth power of their weight. This is a big problem with state of the art modern tanks. Right now, reactive armor is good enough to stymie 105mm and 120mm guns in battle conditions. However, making tanks heavy enough to support 140mm and larger guns looks like it will make them prohibitively expensive.

bane 10y ago

It's the worst case of both scope creep and putting your eggs in one basket.

smitherfield 10y ago

>Carrier based attack drone Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started. Even today they can't even come close to outperforming a skilled human pilot in a combat scenario. (Although perhaps if it were Google working on the hardware and software it'd be doable).

wavefunction 10y ago
What if that skilled human pilot was flying a "drone"/unmanned craft rather than sitting in the cockpit? I imagine there are benefits to being "in-person" but the unmanned craft could theoretically endure far more extreme maneuvers that would leave a human pilot unconscious or dead.
- mjevans 10y ago
  Most of that benefit is that you still have something capable of mission decisions when an enemy engages in jamming or other information distortion tactics. On the positive side for 'drones': they can be viewed as both expendable (with costs/limits) and capable of performing maneuvers that would kill a human. I can see narrow beam transmissions on multiple carriers and extremely fault resistant communication protocols combining with remotely manned vehicles. The pilots might best be closer for speed of light delay reduction, but realistically you could have a relay in some kind of helicopter type vehicle a short distance from the actual fight, and the expert pilots stationed somewhere even more safe. While you're at it, that helicopter/blimp/etc could also be your primary communication platform for a local region; it's already a high value target so there's little reason not to use it as an additional uplink.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started. AFAICT, the first armed drones deployed by the US military were ASW drone helicopters in the 1960s. Ground attack jet drones were successfully tested in the 1970s, and some preliminary and positive testing on air-to-air combat drones also happened in the 1970s. Drones certainly weren't science-fiction in the early 1990s, even if the military hadn't gotten around to actually fielding armed drones (despite the tests) beyond those old Navy ASW drones.

CamperBob2 10y ago

True. At this point they might as well build a Space Shuttle with guns.

tmaly 10y ago

Just making some small improvements in this process would save the country a ton of money. I cannot believe the cost of the F-35 program has exceeded 1 trillion.