3 ms·

Someone should apply to YC with an air-to-ground fighter startup. They've funded a Concord startup, and an electric 737 startup. Why not an "F35 that works" s

Someone should apply to YC with an air-to-ground fighter startup. They've funded a Concord startup, and an electric 737 startup. Why not an "F35 that works" startup?

pooper 10y ago
Sorry to be a party pooper but the problem I think is there might be restrictions on who we can sell such a thing to (given we can create something that is as good as the 35, which isn't a given either). I mean outside of NATO and Israel, I can't imagine who I'd be comfortable selling to... Maybe Japan and South Korea? I don't like the idea of being dependent on a few large customers. Not saying you should listen to me. I have a horrible track record in speculation. I was clearly overly skeptical of the Y Combinator darling, Dropbox. I bet Y Combinator is glad they didn't listen to people like me. It just makes me feel uneasy.
- CalChris 10y ago
  No one is going to buy this piece of junk if they don't have a finger in the manufacturing pie. And at $100M per, nor should they. We sell the F16 ($18.8M) to a ton of countries who'd never buy an F35. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html
thrill 10y ago
Well, I could certainly do that - I've already blown $40MM trying it once several years ago :) - actually it was for an aircraft with a different focus, but still ... Making predictions is hard, especially about the future. Building a complex system is rife with complex risks. There's the initial sticker shock, and that's even if costs can be reasonably estimated years in advance for technology which is not only unproven, but undemonstrated. Then there's the quite significant nonrecurring engineering costs. Want to divide those costs over 200 aircraft instead of 300 - bam - 50% cost increase, thank you madam taxpayer. Still need those 200 aircraft by a given date - discover it costs more because manufacturing facilities come in "chunks" of price-to-capability - under-build and miss the target - over-build and per-unit is higher. Discover your estimates of deliverability, even if made with honest efforts, are off by a few years, and the price only goes in one direction. Try to keep certain components really (relatively) inexpensive to meet price requirements, and discover, like every aircraft manufacturer in history, that adding lightness is difficult after you had to add strengthening material in certain problematic areas, like, oh, the wings. And of course, politicians change their minds - keeping 10,000 engineers engaged during a lean period so that you can re-engage them when political winds change is a nontrivial task too. And with all that, to be a successful long term project, there's some future events that have to be estimated - tell me what the threat will be in 20 years? What will the political will to engage those threats be? What munitions will there be? What survivability is desired? What's the desired lifetime? Will AI be good enough to dump pilots entirely? As much as I'd love to build the next generation manned fighter-bomber, it's not a palatable risk for anyone not ready to lose their entire investment. Even Paul Allen has got to feel a little sensitive at the billion dollars he lost with his effort at Eclipse (during the time I was losing far less). I recently went through (most of) a technical incubator in the area I live in. There were several investors involved that were quite knowledgeable about aviation. I couldn't get any of them interested enough to engage in my autonomous air ambulance idea (the Marine's have said in advance they want such a thing - but it has to be good, fast, and cheap) - and the translation to a future civilian capability is pretty obvious. That's one reason I'm cheering for the effort by Boom to build a new civilian supersonic aircraft. Yeah, it's going to be hard to meet price targets, and it's refreshing to see someone willing to take a $30MM chance on a complex project, and that's just to get a demo built and flown. Building a future capable fighter is a whole other ballgame.
dgudkov 10y ago
Maybe not exactly an F-35 replacement but there are quite a few things to disrupt in defense. Especially, given the recent shift into electronic warfare and autonomous systems.

Someone should apply to YC with an air-to-ground fighter startup. They've funded a Concord startup, and an electric 737 startup. Why not an "F35 that works" startup?

pooper 10y ago

Sorry to be a party pooper but the problem I think is there might be restrictions on who we can sell such a thing to (given we can create something that is as good as the 35, which isn't a given either). I mean outside of NATO and Israel, I can't imagine who I'd be comfortable selling to... Maybe Japan and South Korea? I don't like the idea of being dependent on a few large customers. Not saying you should listen to me. I have a horrible track record in speculation. I was clearly overly skeptical of the Y Combinator darling, Dropbox. I bet Y Combinator is glad they didn't listen to people like me. It just makes me feel uneasy.

CalChris 10y ago
No one is going to buy this piece of junk if they don't have a finger in the manufacturing pie. And at $100M per, nor should they. We sell the F16 ($18.8M) to a ton of countries who'd never buy an F35. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html

thrill 10y ago

Well, I could certainly do that - I've already blown $40MM trying it once several years ago :) - actually it was for an aircraft with a different focus, but still ... Making predictions is hard, especially about the future. Building a complex system is rife with complex risks. There's the initial sticker shock, and that's even if costs can be reasonably estimated years in advance for technology which is not only unproven, but undemonstrated. Then there's the quite significant nonrecurring engineering costs. Want to divide those costs over 200 aircraft instead of 300 - bam - 50% cost increase, thank you madam taxpayer. Still need those 200 aircraft by a given date - discover it costs more because manufacturing facilities come in "chunks" of price-to-capability - under-build and miss the target - over-build and per-unit is higher. Discover your estimates of deliverability, even if made with honest efforts, are off by a few years, and the price only goes in one direction. Try to keep certain components really (relatively) inexpensive to meet price requirements, and discover, like every aircraft manufacturer in history, that adding lightness is difficult after you had to add strengthening material in certain problematic areas, like, oh, the wings. And of course, politicians change their minds - keeping 10,000 engineers engaged during a lean period so that you can re-engage them when political winds change is a nontrivial task too. And with all that, to be a successful long term project, there's some future events that have to be estimated - tell me what the threat will be in 20 years? What will the political will to engage those threats be? What munitions will there be? What survivability is desired? What's the desired lifetime? Will AI be good enough to dump pilots entirely? As much as I'd love to build the next generation manned fighter-bomber, it's not a palatable risk for anyone not ready to lose their entire investment. Even Paul Allen has got to feel a little sensitive at the billion dollars he lost with his effort at Eclipse (during the time I was losing far less). I recently went through (most of) a technical incubator in the area I live in. There were several investors involved that were quite knowledgeable about aviation. I couldn't get any of them interested enough to engage in my autonomous air ambulance idea (the Marine's have said in advance they want such a thing - but it has to be good, fast, and cheap) - and the translation to a future civilian capability is pretty obvious. That's one reason I'm cheering for the effort by Boom to build a new civilian supersonic aircraft. Yeah, it's going to be hard to meet price targets, and it's refreshing to see someone willing to take a $30MM chance on a complex project, and that's just to get a demo built and flown. Building a future capable fighter is a whole other ballgame.

dgudkov 10y ago

Maybe not exactly an F-35 replacement but there are quite a few things to disrupt in defense. Especially, given the recent shift into electronic warfare and autonomous systems.