4 ms·

I don’t see why this is such a big deal. It’s like saying Intel spent $3B to make development boards for their next gen chip but instead of replacing the chips

I don’t see why this is such a big deal. It’s like saying Intel spent $3B to make development boards for their next gen chip but instead of replacing the chips on those dev boards they just bought new production boards. I can easily see how that’s less costly than upgrading the dev boards, or the aircraft in this case. I mean they’ll still have the planes for training and such.

slededit 9y ago
The real change here is that the government is bearing more of the development risk than in the past. The argument is this is necessary as companies can no longer afford to speculatively design modern advanced combat aircraft.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  I happily cede the point for developing an F-35. Would it be true for developing a plane that is less ambitious? Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Advanced_Super_Hornet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#...
  - memracom 9y ago
    A great real-world example is the Russian Federation's program of new and improved military aircraft produced by several suppliers. Westerners constantly vastly underestimate the capabilities of Russia. Probably because Russians are smart enough to encourage this kind of thinking. But when you look at the history of Russia who went from an agricultural peasant nation in 1917 to the WWII powerhouse that beat the Nazis in 1944, followed by an encore in rebuilding their country to the point where they had the first TV network in 1950, first space satellite, first man in space, detonated a hydrogen bomb only 10 months after the USA, you can see that these people are not dummies. After decades of studying the Russians, I think the clearest way to explain who they are, is they are a nation of builders. Of course they are human and not perfect, but overall they know how to build all kinds of things and they fearlessly push forward with project after project all over their vast expanse of territory. 99% of what people say about Russia is wrong and rooted in ignorance because too few Westerners will learn Russian and get their info direct from the source. This means that Russia has not had to worry about keeping secrets from the USA because the USA does it for them. Electronic warfare capabilities are a case in point. And when you learn how the Soviets defeated American stealth aircraft capabilities even before they were deployed, you wonder why the USA spent the money to develop it.
    - UncleEntity 9y ago
      Hmmm, isn't even worth the time arguing against this revisionist history lesson...
    - Bendingo 9y ago
      > they are a nation of builders I agree. After studying and travelling through Russia, I'm in awe at the skill of their engineers and scientists.
  - cvwright 9y ago
    Or the Textron Scorpion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion Unfortunately they seem to be having a hard time selling the plane. Just shows that going against a broken system doesn't always pay off.
nradov 9y ago
It's a huge problem. The Air Force didn't need anywhere near 108 aircraft for flight testing and initial training. Unlike electronics development boards which are relatively cheap to manufacture, aircraft cost millions. Concurrency has been an abject failure.
- icegreentea2 9y ago
  Well, if they're only used for initial training, then ya. But worth pointing out that right now, there are ~13 active duty USAF F16 squadrons, something like 17 ANG squadrons, and ~5 training squadrons. That's roughly 6:1. The USAF was planning (who knows...) to get something like 1500+ F-35s. Even at 12 active airframes per training airframe, you'd still be able to absorb 108 airframes. If these airframes can be made into sufficiently good trainer airframes, then it could be okay. That's a big if though, looks like Block 2B have lower G limits than the Block 3s - don't know if that's a real structural thing, or just software qualification stuff.

slededit 9y ago

The real change here is that the government is bearing more of the development risk than in the past. The argument is this is necessary as companies can no longer afford to speculatively design modern advanced combat aircraft.

maxerickson 9y ago
I happily cede the point for developing an F-35. Would it be true for developing a plane that is less ambitious? Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Advanced_Super_Hornet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#...
- memracom 9y ago
  A great real-world example is the Russian Federation's program of new and improved military aircraft produced by several suppliers. Westerners constantly vastly underestimate the capabilities of Russia. Probably because Russians are smart enough to encourage this kind of thinking. But when you look at the history of Russia who went from an agricultural peasant nation in 1917 to the WWII powerhouse that beat the Nazis in 1944, followed by an encore in rebuilding their country to the point where they had the first TV network in 1950, first space satellite, first man in space, detonated a hydrogen bomb only 10 months after the USA, you can see that these people are not dummies. After decades of studying the Russians, I think the clearest way to explain who they are, is they are a nation of builders. Of course they are human and not perfect, but overall they know how to build all kinds of things and they fearlessly push forward with project after project all over their vast expanse of territory. 99% of what people say about Russia is wrong and rooted in ignorance because too few Westerners will learn Russian and get their info direct from the source. This means that Russia has not had to worry about keeping secrets from the USA because the USA does it for them. Electronic warfare capabilities are a case in point. And when you learn how the Soviets defeated American stealth aircraft capabilities even before they were deployed, you wonder why the USA spent the money to develop it.
  - UncleEntity 9y ago
    Hmmm, isn't even worth the time arguing against this revisionist history lesson...
  - Bendingo 9y ago
    > they are a nation of builders I agree. After studying and travelling through Russia, I'm in awe at the skill of their engineers and scientists.
- cvwright 9y ago
  Or the Textron Scorpion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion Unfortunately they seem to be having a hard time selling the plane. Just shows that going against a broken system doesn't always pay off.

nradov 9y ago

It's a huge problem. The Air Force didn't need anywhere near 108 aircraft for flight testing and initial training. Unlike electronics development boards which are relatively cheap to manufacture, aircraft cost millions. Concurrency has been an abject failure.

icegreentea2 9y ago
Well, if they're only used for initial training, then ya. But worth pointing out that right now, there are ~13 active duty USAF F16 squadrons, something like 17 ANG squadrons, and ~5 training squadrons. That's roughly 6:1. The USAF was planning (who knows...) to get something like 1500+ F-35s. Even at 12 active airframes per training airframe, you'd still be able to absorb 108 airframes. If these airframes can be made into sufficiently good trainer airframes, then it could be okay. That's a big if though, looks like Block 2B have lower G limits than the Block 3s - don't know if that's a real structural thing, or just software qualification stuff.