4 ms·

The F-117 had very limited requirements compared to the F-35. What's killing the F-35 is the extreme complexity of the program. The requirements for the F-117

The F-117 had very limited requirements compared to the F-35. What's killing the F-35 is the extreme complexity of the program. The requirements for the F-117 were basically that it had to be stealthy, and had to be able to carry a minimal payload a reasonable range. There was no radar, no vertical takeoff, no carrier landings, no air-to-air, no sensor fusion, no datalinks, no cooperative engagement, etc etc etc. It's poorly understood how the combination of high performance requirements, complexity, and flexibility mix. Optimizing a system for performance generally requires cutting across domains. Subsystems need to be designed jointly to wring out performance. This means there are many dependencies between the subsystems, so if one thing changes on one subsystem, it may affect a number of other subsystems. If you then add flexibility to the mix -- you want a modular system like the F-35, all of this optimization work has to be done on every combination of parts. Now combine this with a complex set of mission requirements -- every change has to be optimized for multiple missions and multiple aircraft variants. Due to the optimized and complex nature of the aircraft, each change will also affect many subsystems. Because the system is so complex, no person or even a small group of people can have the entire system in their head, so it's hard to know exactly what will be affected with a subsystem change. Subsystems affected by a change will furthermore not even be built by the same company. This all means that each change has to go through very slow formal processes to make sure it keeps working. All of this is to say that layering on all of these categories of requirements has an exponential effect. If the F-35 didn't have to be high performance, or if it didn't have three variants, or if it didn't have to perform multiple missions, the project would have been much easier.

tempestn 7y ago
So does it follow from that that the entire concept is flawed, and what should have been designed instead are multiple different aircraft?
- GVIrish 7y ago
  Exactly this. The DoD basically took the mistakes of the F-111 program, doubled down on them, and added on some reckless new mistakes. The result is the most expensive weapons program in history.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    And congress went along with it (or encouraged it) because theoretically it would be cheaper... (And the Marines liked it because no one was going to spend the money to build a stealthy V/STOL strike fighter for them unless it was part of someone else's development budget) (And the Navy IIRC just wanted their fucking A-12 [0] already) 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger...
    - Already__Taken 7y ago
      It's mental the v22 osprey platform isn't further explored.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        What do you mean? Bell's working on a followup right now, as an entry in the US army's Future Vertical Lift program [0]. And the osprey itself is still getting adopted in more places - I think carrier onboard delivery is its latest role. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor
    - Already__Taken 7y ago
      > 2009 ... required the two contractors to repay the U.S. government US$1.35 billion, plus interest charges of US$1.45 billion ... > January 2014, the case was settled with Boeing and General Dynamics agreeing to pay $200 million each. Quite the settlement
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    The old "sports car/dump truck" problem: you can make a good sports car, you can make a good dump truck, but what you can't make is a good sports car that is also a good dump truck.
    - cameldrv 7y ago
      You can almost though. Make it out of titanium, give it gas turbine engines with an electric drive, put the thing on hydraulics so it can get lower to the ground, add electronic stability control to get artificial sports car feel, and some rocket thrusters on the top to keep it from tipping over in tight turns. Maybe you could make the tires out of some metamaterial so it can have slick tires for racing and deep treads for the construction site. All of that is to say it can be done, but you're going to pay, and it might not be delivered on time.
- cameldrv 7y ago
  Yes, it should have been multiple aircraft, or the scope should have been reduced. It's hard enough to make an aircraft that's good on an aircraft carrier and on land. Adding the vertical landing (B model) version compromised the whole program. VTOL is a very specialized capability, and there's never been another airplane that has VTOL as an optional feature. You have to design the plane and its engine around this capability, and you compromise on many other things to get it. The A and C models then have to live with many of these design compromises. Even the basic shape of the aircraft, with such a wide front fuselage reduces the performance of the F-35, even though on the A and C models there's no need to be so wide since there's no lift fan. Meanwhile, it's not even clear that the Marines need a VTOL airplane. The B model has the ability to operate off Navy helicopter carriers, which gives them significantly more punch, but there's basically no real scenario where a helicopter carrier would need it. In a real war, there will always be full deck carriers anywhere a helicopter carrier is. In theory the helicopter carriers would offer additional capacity, but carrier air wings have been scaled back, and full deck carriers only go to sea with 60-65 aircraft even though they have the capacity for 90. If the Marines wanted more of their own air assets they could have just bought C models and operated them off the big carriers like they already do with the F-18. The B model is also significantly lower performance. It has to takeoff at lower weights, and it has the huge extra weight of the lift fan. This means it has a much shorter range and carries less weapons. If they had simply bought C models and put them on the big carriers, the overall capability would be greater.
  - wahern 7y ago
    Maybe someone more knowledgable about the history can chime in, but the first thought that entered my mind when you were discussing full deck carriers is that the F-35 was designed from the very beginning for international sales. Only a few nations have full deck carriers, while many more have helicopter carriers. It's not surprising then that there are 2 allies with F-35Bs, 3 allies with plans for the F-35B, and none for the F-35C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
    - cameldrv 7y ago
kjs3 7y ago
Well...maybe the right answer is to limit scope and not try and pack every requirement into one package.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>The F-117 had very limited requirements compared to the F-35. What's killing the F-35 is the extreme complexity of the program. This. The only thing the F35 doesn't do it blow the pilot and hand him a beer. Since nobody is willing to settle for a plane that can do everything and sucks at it (and rightfully so) it's turned into this massive project where there's a billion dollars in man hours spent arguing over each little nut and bolt in order to find the compromises needed to create something that satisfies all the stake holders well enough to get sign off. I think a lot of this is driven by the fact that we have no real enemy at present. It's much easier to say "no we need a system that can do X and Y and we need it now, Z can wait" when you're worried about the USSR having the jump on you. There is no such pressure for competency at present.
mcv 7y ago
That's pretty much my take too. The F-35 had to be able to do absolutely everything, and that generally means it's not going to any of those particularly well. For a small airforce, a jack-of-all-trades fighter makes a lot of sense (hence the popularity of the F-16 among small airforces), but for the US, it makes no sense to abandon all specialised fighters in favour of a single compromise.

tempestn 7y ago

So does it follow from that that the entire concept is flawed, and what should have been designed instead are multiple different aircraft?

GVIrish 7y ago
Exactly this. The DoD basically took the mistakes of the F-111 program, doubled down on them, and added on some reckless new mistakes. The result is the most expensive weapons program in history.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  And congress went along with it (or encouraged it) because theoretically it would be cheaper... (And the Marines liked it because no one was going to spend the money to build a stealthy V/STOL strike fighter for them unless it was part of someone else's development budget) (And the Navy IIRC just wanted their fucking A-12 [0] already) 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger...
  - Already__Taken 7y ago
    It's mental the v22 osprey platform isn't further explored.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      What do you mean? Bell's working on a followup right now, as an entry in the US army's Future Vertical Lift program [0]. And the osprey itself is still getting adopted in more places - I think carrier onboard delivery is its latest role. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor
  - Already__Taken 7y ago
    > 2009 ... required the two contractors to repay the U.S. government US$1.35 billion, plus interest charges of US$1.45 billion ... > January 2014, the case was settled with Boeing and General Dynamics agreeing to pay $200 million each. Quite the settlement
- smacktoward 7y ago
  The old "sports car/dump truck" problem: you can make a good sports car, you can make a good dump truck, but what you can't make is a good sports car that is also a good dump truck.
  - cameldrv 7y ago
    You can almost though. Make it out of titanium, give it gas turbine engines with an electric drive, put the thing on hydraulics so it can get lower to the ground, add electronic stability control to get artificial sports car feel, and some rocket thrusters on the top to keep it from tipping over in tight turns. Maybe you could make the tires out of some metamaterial so it can have slick tires for racing and deep treads for the construction site. All of that is to say it can be done, but you're going to pay, and it might not be delivered on time.
cameldrv 7y ago
Yes, it should have been multiple aircraft, or the scope should have been reduced. It's hard enough to make an aircraft that's good on an aircraft carrier and on land. Adding the vertical landing (B model) version compromised the whole program. VTOL is a very specialized capability, and there's never been another airplane that has VTOL as an optional feature. You have to design the plane and its engine around this capability, and you compromise on many other things to get it. The A and C models then have to live with many of these design compromises. Even the basic shape of the aircraft, with such a wide front fuselage reduces the performance of the F-35, even though on the A and C models there's no need to be so wide since there's no lift fan. Meanwhile, it's not even clear that the Marines need a VTOL airplane. The B model has the ability to operate off Navy helicopter carriers, which gives them significantly more punch, but there's basically no real scenario where a helicopter carrier would need it. In a real war, there will always be full deck carriers anywhere a helicopter carrier is. In theory the helicopter carriers would offer additional capacity, but carrier air wings have been scaled back, and full deck carriers only go to sea with 60-65 aircraft even though they have the capacity for 90. If the Marines wanted more of their own air assets they could have just bought C models and operated them off the big carriers like they already do with the F-18. The B model is also significantly lower performance. It has to takeoff at lower weights, and it has the huge extra weight of the lift fan. This means it has a much shorter range and carries less weapons. If they had simply bought C models and put them on the big carriers, the overall capability would be greater.
- wahern 7y ago
  Maybe someone more knowledgable about the history can chime in, but the first thought that entered my mind when you were discussing full deck carriers is that the F-35 was designed from the very beginning for international sales. Only a few nations have full deck carriers, while many more have helicopter carriers. It's not surprising then that there are 2 allies with F-35Bs, 3 allies with plans for the F-35B, and none for the F-35C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
  - cameldrv 7y ago

kjs3 7y ago

Well...maybe the right answer is to limit scope and not try and pack every requirement into one package.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>The F-117 had very limited requirements compared to the F-35. What's killing the F-35 is the extreme complexity of the program. This. The only thing the F35 doesn't do it blow the pilot and hand him a beer. Since nobody is willing to settle for a plane that can do everything and sucks at it (and rightfully so) it's turned into this massive project where there's a billion dollars in man hours spent arguing over each little nut and bolt in order to find the compromises needed to create something that satisfies all the stake holders well enough to get sign off. I think a lot of this is driven by the fact that we have no real enemy at present. It's much easier to say "no we need a system that can do X and Y and we need it now, Z can wait" when you're worried about the USSR having the jump on you. There is no such pressure for competency at present.

mcv 7y ago

That's pretty much my take too. The F-35 had to be able to do absolutely everything, and that generally means it's not going to any of those particularly well. For a small airforce, a jack-of-all-trades fighter makes a lot of sense (hence the popularity of the F-16 among small airforces), but for the US, it makes no sense to abandon all specialised fighters in favour of a single compromise.