12 ms·

The biggest design problem is a failure of conception: > The Pentagon sold Congress on the F-35 in part with the idea of creating a common aircraft for three s

The biggest design problem is a failure of conception: > The Pentagon sold Congress on the F-35 in part with the idea of creating a common aircraft for three services, alleging it would save money—despite the well-documented and glaring failure of the tri-service F-111 program 25 years before Congress signed off on the very same plan with the F-35 in 2001 The idea that the STOVL variant would have significant parts commonality with the others despite having a giant fan in the middle was pretty laughable right from the start. In general, three aircraft with three very different design mission profiles were not going to be able to share much without making bad compromises.

Someone1234 8y ago
Absolutely. And the depressing part is that SOME parts still could have been shared between the different aircraft even in a more modest proposal (e.g. warfare systems). They just decided to go that extra mile, and wind up with an aircraft that likely won't ever save money and is too complex for its own good. I hope we're done with manned aircraft after the F-35, and it is all drone swarms from here on out.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  My gut feeling is the US got lucky, with a high chance of drones after the F-35. France (Rafaele) and Germany (Eurofigher) might not be so lucky and need another manned fighter in between. UK with a F-35 / Eurofighter mix not clear to me.
  - robin_reala 8y ago
    BAE’s building the Tempest for the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Tempest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Tempest
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - r00fus 8y ago
      From das Wiki: "Tempest will be able to fly unmanned, and use swarming technology to control drones. It will incorporate artificial intelligence deep learning and possess directed-energy weapons.[7][8]" Really? We can't even get self driving cars right and BAE thinks we can have a fighter with lasers that controls a swarm of drones? Going to be an epic letdown when it first rolls off the line.
      - Skunkleton 8y ago
        Unmanned does not mean self-flying. And even if it did, self driving is a much harder problem than self flying. You have rent a swarm of drones today if you wanted to.
        r00fus 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure they mean like Predator drones not your COTS hoverbots. Doing all that in a tactical/adversarial situation means the likely of catastrophic failure is high.
        Skunkleton 8y ago
        What do you mean? Are you saying we lack the technology to fly drones in formations?
        r00fus 8y ago
        Do you think formation is all that's required in battle? That sounds like a very sunny-day scenario.
      - hinkley 8y ago
        First demo: two drones will fly into the laser beam, roast themselves, and crash land on something embarrassing.
        noir_lord 8y ago
        > crash land on something embarrassing. These days that's the whole of the UK (and I say that as someone from England).
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  > SOME parts still could have been shared between the different aircraft Maybe it's just too much time with software talking, but this feels like the intuitive approach. If you have one task with three cases, use a standard frame and customize the part that changes. But if you have three distinct tasks, plan for three approaches and pull out common requirements into a shared pool - whether that's a utility class or a parts depot. Doing requirements-first designs for each role and then looking for opportunities to standardize some parts might get you an unpredictable amount of savings, but it'll save some money and get you three working planes. Doing standardization-first design and hoping you can customize for each role after gets you... about half a plane and a broken budget, apparently.
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  >I hope we're done with manned aircraft after the F-35, and it is all drone swarms from here on out That's just going to result in a "multi-purpose" drone that simultaneously carries comm systems for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Civilian Corps, CIA, FBI, and that one experimental group established in the 90s to test communication by aurora borealis. Never underestimate the power of the boondoggle.
- bertjk 8y ago
  I've thought that drone swarms are an "obviously" good idea, but that assumed that the communications/navigation were not easily spoofed. Then Iran captured one of the US's most advanced drone, pretty much intact. Now I'm not so sure.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Air superiority basically means being able to deny airspace to your enemy's forces while ensuring the safety of your own air assets. What if we developed swarms of drones to the point where both sides could ensure the destruction of anything flying in contested airspace, but not ensure the safety of anything flying? Maybe warfare will return to a static mode, like WWI, but with much deadlier weapons, including automated AI area denial tanks and swarms of suicidal aerial drones.
    - sitkack 8y ago
      At the same time it will shoot sub-prime mortgages directly into the Wells Fargo accounts of the enemy. Interesting times indeed. If WW1 was facilitated by the telegraph, WW3 will be lubricated by Twitter.
      - m1573rp34130dy 8y ago
        if you are joking this is humorous... but this is also serious reality that you have commented about, it is a feasible thing with sufficient sophisocation... ...the economic system is a vital leverage point...
    - rch 8y ago
      That pretty much sums up the endgame with Anti-access Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy: https://www.sto.nato.int/SitePages/newsitem.aspx?ID=3546 https://www.sto.nato.int/SitePages/newsitem.aspx?ID=3546
    - hindsightbias 8y ago
      The capabilites to deny airspace to something like an F-22 would be pretty high/expensive. AA missiles are expensive to buy, deploy and maintain and they probably haven't gotten cheaper over time. Their true effectiveness in a peer-to-peer contest is unknown or only known to a select few with access. Drones would likely not be cheaper than AAM. But swarms could change the whole anti-personnel/troop exposure calculation, so it might make mute using super-platforms for air support. Flying IEDs is a lot easier to imagine than an F-22/35 killer (that are in the air, at least).
- m1573rp34130dy 8y ago
  What does that future look like? According to Northrop engineers, it is tailless, stealthy, and packs a laser cannon. http://fortune.com/2015/12/15/northrops-fighter-jet-laser/ http://fortune.com/2015/12/15/northrops-fighter-jet-laser/ also has AI capabilities for interfacing with the pilot... [Re:] sharing of parts, there could be a series of "shells" and an AI drone core that can eject, so as to let the shell burn in to the ground when it is "kacked" said AI core should be autonomous and plug and play with other shell types such as boats tanks and android mechbots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drevil_million_dollars.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drevil_million_dollars.jp...
  - tabtab 8y ago
    Re: What does that future look like?...it is tailless, stealthy, and packs a laser cannon. And the pilots are sharks.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > I hope we're done with manned aircraft after the F-35, and it is all drone swarms from here on out. I hope we will be done with such devices entirely.
  - m1573rp34130dy 8y ago
    ...i think this will be the new mutually assured destruction[m.a.d.]... we have nukes because the other guys have nukes, thus niether side actually uses them... AI war drones are a step sideways into a new flavour of m.a.d.
    - kjeetgill 8y ago
      They're not. Mad worked because any single use was substantial and unforgivable. For better or for worse, this does not apply to "AI war drones". We've already seen them drop bombs on caravans of civilians and miss their targets in asymmetric war zones, and they can only get more precise. Any outrage we wanted to see hasn't just been there and can only decrease.
      - m1573rp34130dy 8y ago
        the AI F-35 would be a different type of war drone than the predator the predator drone is a pigeon carrying a firecracker compared to what is coming...
sandworm101 8y ago
There is a flip side to the "common aircraft" pitch. Looking to the F-15 and F-22 development costs, it was known that any next-gen aircraft would be massively expensive to design. Funds for the development of three/four/five different aircraft would not be forthcoming. Everyone knew there was only room for two: another crack at replacing the B-52, and a light fighter-bomber program to compliment the F-22. Setting aside the B-52 thing, everyone wanted in on the fighter program. So the one-for-all concept wasn't pitched as a cheap option, but the only viable option to get anything. It avoided infighting between the various branches. This is a uniquely American issue. The US has four or five different air forces. They all fight amongst each other for research and new toys. Other countries operate on the principal that "if it flies, it is airforce", which moots most all of this debate,
- ourmandave 8y ago
  The US has four or five different air forces. Don't forget the 6th one, Space Force.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    I'm all for the space force, but imho it should be called the "federation". And I cannot wait to see the pentagon expand into a hexagon. In all seriousness, the various US armed forces all step over each other. The Navy has it's own air force, but the USAF also has its own navy (Google "Tyndall AFB"). The Coast guard has plenty of helicopters and the national guard has a bit of everything. They all operate different recruiters, different training schools, and maintain unique relations with foreign forces. It's a total mess compared to countries like Canada where all the forces train and fight together from day one at basic training.
    - ourmandave 8y ago
      Not to argue, but under what branch would you put the carrier fleet?
      - 8y ago

Someone1234 8y ago

Absolutely. And the depressing part is that SOME parts still could have been shared between the different aircraft even in a more modest proposal (e.g. warfare systems). They just decided to go that extra mile, and wind up with an aircraft that likely won't ever save money and is too complex for its own good. I hope we're done with manned aircraft after the F-35, and it is all drone swarms from here on out.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
My gut feeling is the US got lucky, with a high chance of drones after the F-35. France (Rafaele) and Germany (Eurofigher) might not be so lucky and need another manned fighter in between. UK with a F-35 / Eurofighter mix not clear to me.
- robin_reala 8y ago
  BAE’s building the Tempest for the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Tempest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Tempest
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - r00fus 8y ago
    From das Wiki: "Tempest will be able to fly unmanned, and use swarming technology to control drones. It will incorporate artificial intelligence deep learning and possess directed-energy weapons.[7][8]" Really? We can't even get self driving cars right and BAE thinks we can have a fighter with lasers that controls a swarm of drones? Going to be an epic letdown when it first rolls off the line.
    - Skunkleton 8y ago
      Unmanned does not mean self-flying. And even if it did, self driving is a much harder problem than self flying. You have rent a swarm of drones today if you wanted to.
      - r00fus 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure they mean like Predator drones not your COTS hoverbots. Doing all that in a tactical/adversarial situation means the likely of catastrophic failure is high.
        Skunkleton 8y ago
        What do you mean? Are you saying we lack the technology to fly drones in formations?
        r00fus 8y ago
        Do you think formation is all that's required in battle? That sounds like a very sunny-day scenario.
    - hinkley 8y ago
      First demo: two drones will fly into the laser beam, roast themselves, and crash land on something embarrassing.
      - noir_lord 8y ago
        > crash land on something embarrassing. These days that's the whole of the UK (and I say that as someone from England).
Bartweiss 8y ago
> SOME parts still could have been shared between the different aircraft Maybe it's just too much time with software talking, but this feels like the intuitive approach. If you have one task with three cases, use a standard frame and customize the part that changes. But if you have three distinct tasks, plan for three approaches and pull out common requirements into a shared pool - whether that's a utility class or a parts depot. Doing requirements-first designs for each role and then looking for opportunities to standardize some parts might get you an unpredictable amount of savings, but it'll save some money and get you three working planes. Doing standardization-first design and hoping you can customize for each role after gets you... about half a plane and a broken budget, apparently.
tomatotomato37 8y ago
>I hope we're done with manned aircraft after the F-35, and it is all drone swarms from here on out That's just going to result in a "multi-purpose" drone that simultaneously carries comm systems for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Civilian Corps, CIA, FBI, and that one experimental group established in the 90s to test communication by aurora borealis. Never underestimate the power of the boondoggle.
bertjk 8y ago
I've thought that drone swarms are an "obviously" good idea, but that assumed that the communications/navigation were not easily spoofed. Then Iran captured one of the US's most advanced drone, pretty much intact. Now I'm not so sure.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Air superiority basically means being able to deny airspace to your enemy's forces while ensuring the safety of your own air assets. What if we developed swarms of drones to the point where both sides could ensure the destruction of anything flying in contested airspace, but not ensure the safety of anything flying? Maybe warfare will return to a static mode, like WWI, but with much deadlier weapons, including automated AI area denial tanks and swarms of suicidal aerial drones.
  - sitkack 8y ago
    At the same time it will shoot sub-prime mortgages directly into the Wells Fargo accounts of the enemy. Interesting times indeed. If WW1 was facilitated by the telegraph, WW3 will be lubricated by Twitter.
    - m1573rp34130dy 8y ago
      if you are joking this is humorous... but this is also serious reality that you have commented about, it is a feasible thing with sufficient sophisocation... ...the economic system is a vital leverage point...
  - rch 8y ago
    That pretty much sums up the endgame with Anti-access Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy: https://www.sto.nato.int/SitePages/newsitem.aspx?ID=3546 https://www.sto.nato.int/SitePages/newsitem.aspx?ID=3546
  - hindsightbias 8y ago
    The capabilites to deny airspace to something like an F-22 would be pretty high/expensive. AA missiles are expensive to buy, deploy and maintain and they probably haven't gotten cheaper over time. Their true effectiveness in a peer-to-peer contest is unknown or only known to a select few with access. Drones would likely not be cheaper than AAM. But swarms could change the whole anti-personnel/troop exposure calculation, so it might make mute using super-platforms for air support. Flying IEDs is a lot easier to imagine than an F-22/35 killer (that are in the air, at least).
m1573rp34130dy 8y ago
What does that future look like? According to Northrop engineers, it is tailless, stealthy, and packs a laser cannon. http://fortune.com/2015/12/15/northrops-fighter-jet-laser/ http://fortune.com/2015/12/15/northrops-fighter-jet-laser/ also has AI capabilities for interfacing with the pilot... [Re:] sharing of parts, there could be a series of "shells" and an AI drone core that can eject, so as to let the shell burn in to the ground when it is "kacked" said AI core should be autonomous and plug and play with other shell types such as boats tanks and android mechbots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drevil_million_dollars.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drevil_million_dollars.jp...
- tabtab 8y ago
  Re: What does that future look like?...it is tailless, stealthy, and packs a laser cannon. And the pilots are sharks.
jacquesm 8y ago
> I hope we're done with manned aircraft after the F-35, and it is all drone swarms from here on out. I hope we will be done with such devices entirely.
- m1573rp34130dy 8y ago
  ...i think this will be the new mutually assured destruction[m.a.d.]... we have nukes because the other guys have nukes, thus niether side actually uses them... AI war drones are a step sideways into a new flavour of m.a.d.
  - kjeetgill 8y ago
    They're not. Mad worked because any single use was substantial and unforgivable. For better or for worse, this does not apply to "AI war drones". We've already seen them drop bombs on caravans of civilians and miss their targets in asymmetric war zones, and they can only get more precise. Any outrage we wanted to see hasn't just been there and can only decrease.
    - m1573rp34130dy 8y ago
      the AI F-35 would be a different type of war drone than the predator the predator drone is a pigeon carrying a firecracker compared to what is coming...

sandworm101 8y ago

There is a flip side to the "common aircraft" pitch. Looking to the F-15 and F-22 development costs, it was known that any next-gen aircraft would be massively expensive to design. Funds for the development of three/four/five different aircraft would not be forthcoming. Everyone knew there was only room for two: another crack at replacing the B-52, and a light fighter-bomber program to compliment the F-22. Setting aside the B-52 thing, everyone wanted in on the fighter program. So the one-for-all concept wasn't pitched as a cheap option, but the only viable option to get anything. It avoided infighting between the various branches. This is a uniquely American issue. The US has four or five different air forces. They all fight amongst each other for research and new toys. Other countries operate on the principal that "if it flies, it is airforce", which moots most all of this debate,

ourmandave 8y ago
The US has four or five different air forces. Don't forget the 6th one, Space Force.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  I'm all for the space force, but imho it should be called the "federation". And I cannot wait to see the pentagon expand into a hexagon. In all seriousness, the various US armed forces all step over each other. The Navy has it's own air force, but the USAF also has its own navy (Google "Tyndall AFB"). The Coast guard has plenty of helicopters and the national guard has a bit of everything. They all operate different recruiters, different training schools, and maintain unique relations with foreign forces. It's a total mess compared to countries like Canada where all the forces train and fight together from day one at basic training.
  - ourmandave 8y ago
    Not to argue, but under what branch would you put the carrier fleet?
    - 8y ago