4 ms·

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.
    - tempestn 7y ago
      Nice extension of the metaphor. Makes building the sports dump truck sound very much like the F35 project.
  - natmaka 7y ago
    Things are more and more complicated (interacting, and also wide, dense, fast-moving...), and therefore unpredictability grows. This is true for nearly everythoing, and war reflects it, as up to the Industrial Revolution things (strategy, tactics, weaponry...) evolved gradually. Nowadays nobody knows anymore how all this really works, therefore there is less and less way to predict (how/what/why/when/...) sufficiently accurately in order to prepare/act adequately (for example to equip soldiers). Hence the need for "something which can cope with any situation". Fun fact: this 'something' has to be complicated, adding up complication to the complicated global state of affairs, nurturing the very cause of the underlying challenge.
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

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.
  - tempestn 7y ago
    Nice extension of the metaphor. Makes building the sports dump truck sound very much like the F35 project.
- natmaka 7y ago
  Things are more and more complicated (interacting, and also wide, dense, fast-moving...), and therefore unpredictability grows. This is true for nearly everythoing, and war reflects it, as up to the Industrial Revolution things (strategy, tactics, weaponry...) evolved gradually. Nowadays nobody knows anymore how all this really works, therefore there is less and less way to predict (how/what/why/when/...) sufficiently accurately in order to prepare/act adequately (for example to equip soldiers). Hence the need for "something which can cope with any situation". Fun fact: this 'something' has to be complicated, adding up complication to the complicated global state of affairs, nurturing the very cause of the underlying challenge.

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