3 ms·

It doesn't take 20 years to design and build a fighter. You put tighter restrictions and timelines on the process and shit will get done faster. Especially sinc

It doesn't take 20 years to design and build a fighter. You put tighter restrictions and timelines on the process and shit will get done faster. Especially since now this sort of technology isn't as bleeding edge as it used to be, and 3 separate fighters are easier to build than one fighter that is magically able to do 3 separate roles with "slight modifications" (which over time slipped into a realm of only 30% commonality between the versions). You go back and look at programs like the F-14, which grew out of the failure of the F-111B program to see how things can be achieved. The F-111B was cancelled in 1968, the F-14 was flying in 1970 and entered service in 1974. Things might be more complicated today but the idea that it takes 20 years to bring an aircraft into service is insanity. SpaceX hasn't even been around for 20 full years and they've already gone from literally square one to building several generations of orbital launch vehicles, pioneering the landing and reuse of first stages, built a space capsule for cargo delivery to the ISS, and is nearing completion on building a manned spacecraft. The way to ensure that it does take 20 years (or infinity) to procure an aircraft is to carefully avoid any consequences for failure to achieve the stated goals of a program in terms of schedule, cost, or capabilities. And we're certainly doing that quite wondrously with the F-35.

greedo 9y ago
The F-14 dev actually started in late '66, and the F-14 didn't enter IOC until 74, so 8 years. F-15 had a 9 year development process, as did the F-16. F-22 took 24 years. The F-14 was also very rushed, and a lot of it's capabilities languished until new engines replace the TF-30 (which it inherited from the TFX project). I'm not saying that is has to take 20 years for a new fighter, I'm saying it will. The aerospace community has consolidated incredibly since Grumman was cranking out the Tomcat. You have basically two US firms capable of building fighters now, compared to the 7-8 that existed in 1970. Add in the screwed up Pentagon procurement process, and 20 years looks optimistic. It's not really fair to compare SpaceX since they don't have the Pentagon and Congress breathing down their necks to create jobs in 50 states.
- InclinedPlane 9y ago
  Of course there was prior work, going back to 1903 at least, if not much further. The point is that the lag between the start of official F-14 procurement and planes flying was not terribly long. Just as today you don't have to start with a clean sheet design, there are already systems, engines, guidelines, missiles, etc. that you can borrow from other designs (including the F-35) to produce something better. The only reason F-35 isn't cancellable currently is political, not technical.
  - greedo 9y ago
    What would you have the AF/Navy/Marines fly instead? The Harrier is so far gone we've had to buy the entire remaining fleet from the Brits. The original Hornet the Marines use is on its last legs, and the Super Hornet is nowhere near good enough for near peer competitors. F15/F16 can soldier on for a decade or more as long as they're out of range of S-300 and above SAMs. There aren't enough F-22s in our inventory, and no prospects of re-opening that production line. The AF and USN are investigating a 6th-gen fighter, but that will be a long ways off since money is being spent like crazy on the B-21. And back to the development process; modern aircraft are more complex, and do take longer. You can't just go back to a design/devel project from the '60s anymore than game developers can crank out a AAA game like Dave Theurer Atari did with Tempest. And if you look at aircraft projects around the world, they all take forever. Look at Rafale, or Eurofighter, or Su-57. Developing aircraft has to include political considerations, (look at the TFX proj) as much as technical.

greedo 9y ago

The F-14 dev actually started in late '66, and the F-14 didn't enter IOC until 74, so 8 years. F-15 had a 9 year development process, as did the F-16. F-22 took 24 years. The F-14 was also very rushed, and a lot of it's capabilities languished until new engines replace the TF-30 (which it inherited from the TFX project). I'm not saying that is has to take 20 years for a new fighter, I'm saying it will. The aerospace community has consolidated incredibly since Grumman was cranking out the Tomcat. You have basically two US firms capable of building fighters now, compared to the 7-8 that existed in 1970. Add in the screwed up Pentagon procurement process, and 20 years looks optimistic. It's not really fair to compare SpaceX since they don't have the Pentagon and Congress breathing down their necks to create jobs in 50 states.

InclinedPlane 9y ago
Of course there was prior work, going back to 1903 at least, if not much further. The point is that the lag between the start of official F-14 procurement and planes flying was not terribly long. Just as today you don't have to start with a clean sheet design, there are already systems, engines, guidelines, missiles, etc. that you can borrow from other designs (including the F-35) to produce something better. The only reason F-35 isn't cancellable currently is political, not technical.
- greedo 9y ago
  What would you have the AF/Navy/Marines fly instead? The Harrier is so far gone we've had to buy the entire remaining fleet from the Brits. The original Hornet the Marines use is on its last legs, and the Super Hornet is nowhere near good enough for near peer competitors. F15/F16 can soldier on for a decade or more as long as they're out of range of S-300 and above SAMs. There aren't enough F-22s in our inventory, and no prospects of re-opening that production line. The AF and USN are investigating a 6th-gen fighter, but that will be a long ways off since money is being spent like crazy on the B-21. And back to the development process; modern aircraft are more complex, and do take longer. You can't just go back to a design/devel project from the '60s anymore than game developers can crank out a AAA game like Dave Theurer Atari did with Tempest. And if you look at aircraft projects around the world, they all take forever. Look at Rafale, or Eurofighter, or Su-57. Developing aircraft has to include political considerations, (look at the TFX proj) as much as technical.