5 ms·

Why is the F-35 program such a disaster then? Honest question though I am sure the answer is feature creep and poor management

by borkt 8y ago

ljf 8y ago
IMHO - because it wasn't built with a goal or a reason. The amazing tech builds of the 60s were each made to fill a need or meet a goal. The F-35, how many goals it that supposed to meet? Easily more than 10. And it isn't great at any of them, in its quest to be OK for all of them...
- ghaff 8y ago
  And before that people complained about the various services having too many different projects dedicated to their own missions. The F-35 seems to my non-expert eye to have been poorly conceived but creating a more versatile aircraft instead of a bunch of more specialized ones is not inherently a stupid idea.
  - ljf 8y ago
    Yes, but any multi use tool will never be as good as a separate specialised one, so the question is really 'how good do we want to be'. And for a military aircraft I guess the answer will always be 'really good'.
  - eptcyka 8y ago
    When it comes to the military, top gun wins. A specialized gun will top a non-specialized one in a given combat situation, all else being equal. Of course, the F-35 will be a great general purpose weapon against far less advanced targets, but if they are pitted against their Russian and Chinese counterparts, I don't believe they will fare all that great.
    - gandhium 8y ago
      F-35 don't have any Russian and Chinese counterparts. They're all in design stage. China may get to the mass-produced stage, but that's stil debatable, since they have issues with their engines.
      - eptcyka 8y ago
        Yes, but is the F-35 a better interceptor than any of the contemporary fast jets that are in use by China or Russia?
        gandhium 8y ago
        It's not interceptor, it's a multi-role stealth fighter. And still I'd say - yes, it's better.
- cco 8y ago
  That's a major component and harbinger of a Dark Age, the loss of a functioning bureaucracy.
  - tk75x 8y ago
    > functioning bureaucracy Isn't that an oxymoron?
    - cco 8y ago
      In case you aren't joking, it isn't at all. A highly functional bureaucracy allows a state to leverage scale in a way that less sophisticated governments just can't do. Infrastructure, military, R&D, and trade are all things that are hugely dependent upon a functioning bureaucratic state and crumble in the face of a non-functioning state.
bjelkeman-again 8y ago
It is a requirements clusterf*ck
jasonparallel 8y ago
Watch the movie pentagon wars
mcpherrinm 8y ago
I think this scene from the movie "Pentagon Wars" (1998) captures the idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
- ajmurmann 8y ago
  Unfortunately the movie is based on real events. If you haven't read it, I recommend "Boyd - The future pilot who changed the art of war". It's entertaining and valuable and full of stories like this we something simple and practical though feature creep was turned into a mess. Of course the design of the APC in your clip is only the opening of the disaster. Once it got to testing before the actual acquisition things got even more ridiculous to the point that I think people should have clearly been prosecuted for reason. But as Boyd said: You can either do something or be someone.
rangibaby 8y ago
it's actually a great success when you consider the true goal of the program, which is to spend taxpayer money
simonh 8y ago
Survivorship bias. Did no technology programmes in the 60s fail or have limited success? All of them were complete triumphs?

Why is the F-35 program such a disaster then? Honest question though I am sure the answer is feature creep and poor management

by borkt 8y ago

Why is the F-35 program such a disaster then? Honest question though I am sure the answer is feature creep and poor management

ljf 8y ago

IMHO - because it wasn't built with a goal or a reason. The amazing tech builds of the 60s were each made to fill a need or meet a goal. The F-35, how many goals it that supposed to meet? Easily more than 10. And it isn't great at any of them, in its quest to be OK for all of them...

ghaff 8y ago
And before that people complained about the various services having too many different projects dedicated to their own missions. The F-35 seems to my non-expert eye to have been poorly conceived but creating a more versatile aircraft instead of a bunch of more specialized ones is not inherently a stupid idea.
- ljf 8y ago
  Yes, but any multi use tool will never be as good as a separate specialised one, so the question is really 'how good do we want to be'. And for a military aircraft I guess the answer will always be 'really good'.
- eptcyka 8y ago
  When it comes to the military, top gun wins. A specialized gun will top a non-specialized one in a given combat situation, all else being equal. Of course, the F-35 will be a great general purpose weapon against far less advanced targets, but if they are pitted against their Russian and Chinese counterparts, I don't believe they will fare all that great.
  - gandhium 8y ago
    F-35 don't have any Russian and Chinese counterparts. They're all in design stage. China may get to the mass-produced stage, but that's stil debatable, since they have issues with their engines.
    - eptcyka 8y ago
      Yes, but is the F-35 a better interceptor than any of the contemporary fast jets that are in use by China or Russia?
      - gandhium 8y ago
        It's not interceptor, it's a multi-role stealth fighter. And still I'd say - yes, it's better.
cco 8y ago
That's a major component and harbinger of a Dark Age, the loss of a functioning bureaucracy.
- tk75x 8y ago
  > functioning bureaucracy Isn't that an oxymoron?
  - cco 8y ago
    In case you aren't joking, it isn't at all. A highly functional bureaucracy allows a state to leverage scale in a way that less sophisticated governments just can't do. Infrastructure, military, R&D, and trade are all things that are hugely dependent upon a functioning bureaucratic state and crumble in the face of a non-functioning state.

bjelkeman-again 8y ago

It is a requirements clusterf*ck

jasonparallel 8y ago

Watch the movie pentagon wars

mcpherrinm 8y ago

I think this scene from the movie "Pentagon Wars" (1998) captures the idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

ajmurmann 8y ago
Unfortunately the movie is based on real events. If you haven't read it, I recommend "Boyd - The future pilot who changed the art of war". It's entertaining and valuable and full of stories like this we something simple and practical though feature creep was turned into a mess. Of course the design of the APC in your clip is only the opening of the disaster. Once it got to testing before the actual acquisition things got even more ridiculous to the point that I think people should have clearly been prosecuted for reason. But as Boyd said: You can either do something or be someone.

rangibaby 8y ago

it's actually a great success when you consider the true goal of the program, which is to spend taxpayer money

simonh 8y ago

Survivorship bias. Did no technology programmes in the 60s fail or have limited success? All of them were complete triumphs?