7 ms·

It is one thing to build a complex piece of technology, it is quite another to deploy it and expect it to work 24-7. $1.7 Billion was spent on this program.

rbanffy 6y ago
The major issue of the F-35 is trying to be too many things to too many people at once. It has to fly fast, yet be able to be slow enough to offer ground support. It has to be maneuverable to dogfight, but have short wings to land on carriers. It has to be light, but needs a complex nozzle and a fan to do STOL/VTOL. That's very hard to do.
- typon 6y ago
  Sounds a classic example of design by committee
  - mbreese 6y ago
    And that was the take home message from the article: > The design by committee, Swiss-army knife approach has been a resounding failure.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  Well to be fair it never aspired to do all of those things within the same model. They did split it in three different ones. Also, maneuverability and short wings go together really well. Slow flying and short wings doesn't though. Still, it was clearly a mistake, three totally different designs would have been cheaper and better.
  - yellow_postit 6y ago
    Shared platforms seem to work well in the automotive industry, why does it seem to be such a failure in this application? My assumption is high performance constraints requires deep customization and the shared platform hampers that.
    - selectodude 6y ago
      Some platforms just can't be shared. You're not going to be able to turn a Lamborghini into a body-on-frame truck without changing basically everything.
    - oetnxkdrlgcexu 6y ago
      Consumer automobile manufacturers can use shared platforms because the biggest difference between their vehicles is the body, which are metal boxes of different volumes. This is sometimes seen in aircraft: look at how many models of 777 Boeing produced. Automobile manufacturers couldn't, for example, have a shared platform between a vehicle designed for racing, an armored limousine, and a golf cart, as these vehicles have different performance requirements. That's a better comparison to to what they're trying to achieve with the F35. The needs of the branches of service are very different.
    - bewo001 6y ago
      I guess that in the automotive industry different models are often only done to achieve price differentiation or to serve local markets. The technical differences are superficial.
    - GekkePrutser 6y ago
      I think the VTOL in particular was too much of a stretch. If you see the complicated drive bar setup with that big fan, it really makes me wonder how this thing could possibly get airborne :)
    - jabl 6y ago
      My understanding is that in the aerospace industry, particularly at the cutting edge, margins are so low that common platforms don't really work out. In the car industry, say, a 10% penalty in, say, weight might be worth it if it enables the manufacturer to share the platform among many different products. In aerospace, not so much.
- bewo001 6y ago
  The arguments for and against general purpose planes sound eerily familiar for someone in the telco space. You either have The Converged Fixed/Mobile Retail/Business platform that is complex, inflexible, and expensive or several smaller platforms where some parts have to be developed several times. The usual argument for the converged platform is drastically reduced operating cost. The price is drastically reduced flexibility, as each new feature has to be checked against all existing requirements and dependencies.
Someone 6y ago
“$1.7 Billion was spent on this program.” If only. FTA: “Total acquisition costs now exceed $428 billion, nearly double the initial estimate of $233 billion, with projected lifetime operations and maintenance costs of $1.727 trillion.” Also, https://www.airforcemag.com/massive-34-billion-f-35-contract-includes-price-drop-as-readiness-improves/ https://www.airforcemag.com/massive-34-billion-f-35-contract... talks about a $34 billion contract for 478 aircraft. At that price, $1.7 billion buys you about 24 of these planes.
- omgJustTest 6y ago
  Does anyone sue the us govt for recouping taxes due to such catastrophic results?
- mschuster91 6y ago
  Holy. That's about 5x what's needed to eliminate world hunger (330B $, per https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/oct/13/ending-world-hunger-by-2030-would-cost-330bn-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/oct/13/e...), which would probably have a lot more positive effect in achieving / maintaining peace and mass migration than that fleet of airplanes.
  - omgJustTest 6y ago
    but not for managing climate change.
  - dencodev 6y ago
    And this is the problem with the world. We easily have the resources to home, feed, educate, and provide medicine to everyone. But we don't due to greed
FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
It gets worse. From the article: "Total acquisition costs now exceed $428 billion, nearly double the initial estimate of $233 billion, with projected lifetime operations and maintenance costs of $1.727 trillion." Much like the SLS, it seems that it is more a jobs program to dump money into select congressional districts than a project actually focused on deliverables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_hi...
- woofie11 6y ago
  I think it's helpful to focus on dollars per citizen. $428 billion means I spent a bit over $1000 on this failure. My family spend a few thousand dollars. Adjusted for income (I pay above-average taxes), it probably cost my family a minimalist car. The 1.7 billion price tag is around $5k per citizen. That could mean a lot to a lot of families.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    You could even get more than $5k per citizen out of it if you had put it into something that nets a return either directly or indirectly. Infrastructure projects like renewables, road upgrades, internet upgrades and so on. If you need busy work there is a lot of useful work to be done.

rbanffy 6y ago

The major issue of the F-35 is trying to be too many things to too many people at once. It has to fly fast, yet be able to be slow enough to offer ground support. It has to be maneuverable to dogfight, but have short wings to land on carriers. It has to be light, but needs a complex nozzle and a fan to do STOL/VTOL. That's very hard to do.

typon 6y ago
Sounds a classic example of design by committee
- mbreese 6y ago
  And that was the take home message from the article: > The design by committee, Swiss-army knife approach has been a resounding failure.
GekkePrutser 6y ago
Well to be fair it never aspired to do all of those things within the same model. They did split it in three different ones. Also, maneuverability and short wings go together really well. Slow flying and short wings doesn't though. Still, it was clearly a mistake, three totally different designs would have been cheaper and better.
- yellow_postit 6y ago
  Shared platforms seem to work well in the automotive industry, why does it seem to be such a failure in this application? My assumption is high performance constraints requires deep customization and the shared platform hampers that.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    Some platforms just can't be shared. You're not going to be able to turn a Lamborghini into a body-on-frame truck without changing basically everything.
  - oetnxkdrlgcexu 6y ago
    Consumer automobile manufacturers can use shared platforms because the biggest difference between their vehicles is the body, which are metal boxes of different volumes. This is sometimes seen in aircraft: look at how many models of 777 Boeing produced. Automobile manufacturers couldn't, for example, have a shared platform between a vehicle designed for racing, an armored limousine, and a golf cart, as these vehicles have different performance requirements. That's a better comparison to to what they're trying to achieve with the F35. The needs of the branches of service are very different.
  - bewo001 6y ago
    I guess that in the automotive industry different models are often only done to achieve price differentiation or to serve local markets. The technical differences are superficial.
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    I think the VTOL in particular was too much of a stretch. If you see the complicated drive bar setup with that big fan, it really makes me wonder how this thing could possibly get airborne :)
  - jabl 6y ago
    My understanding is that in the aerospace industry, particularly at the cutting edge, margins are so low that common platforms don't really work out. In the car industry, say, a 10% penalty in, say, weight might be worth it if it enables the manufacturer to share the platform among many different products. In aerospace, not so much.
bewo001 6y ago
The arguments for and against general purpose planes sound eerily familiar for someone in the telco space. You either have The Converged Fixed/Mobile Retail/Business platform that is complex, inflexible, and expensive or several smaller platforms where some parts have to be developed several times. The usual argument for the converged platform is drastically reduced operating cost. The price is drastically reduced flexibility, as each new feature has to be checked against all existing requirements and dependencies.

Someone 6y ago

“$1.7 Billion was spent on this program.” If only. FTA: “Total acquisition costs now exceed $428 billion, nearly double the initial estimate of $233 billion, with projected lifetime operations and maintenance costs of $1.727 trillion.” Also, https://www.airforcemag.com/massive-34-billion-f-35-contract-includes-price-drop-as-readiness-improves/ https://www.airforcemag.com/massive-34-billion-f-35-contract... talks about a $34 billion contract for 478 aircraft. At that price, $1.7 billion buys you about 24 of these planes.

omgJustTest 6y ago
Does anyone sue the us govt for recouping taxes due to such catastrophic results?
mschuster91 6y ago
Holy. That's about 5x what's needed to eliminate world hunger (330B $, per https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/oct/13/ending-world-hunger-by-2030-would-cost-330bn-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/oct/13/e...), which would probably have a lot more positive effect in achieving / maintaining peace and mass migration than that fleet of airplanes.
- omgJustTest 6y ago
  but not for managing climate change.
- dencodev 6y ago
  And this is the problem with the world. We easily have the resources to home, feed, educate, and provide medicine to everyone. But we don't due to greed

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago

It gets worse. From the article: "Total acquisition costs now exceed $428 billion, nearly double the initial estimate of $233 billion, with projected lifetime operations and maintenance costs of $1.727 trillion." Much like the SLS, it seems that it is more a jobs program to dump money into select congressional districts than a project actually focused on deliverables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_hi...

woofie11 6y ago
I think it's helpful to focus on dollars per citizen. $428 billion means I spent a bit over $1000 on this failure. My family spend a few thousand dollars. Adjusted for income (I pay above-average taxes), it probably cost my family a minimalist car. The 1.7 billion price tag is around $5k per citizen. That could mean a lot to a lot of families.
- imtringued 6y ago
  You could even get more than $5k per citizen out of it if you had put it into something that nets a return either directly or indirectly. Infrastructure projects like renewables, road upgrades, internet upgrades and so on. If you need busy work there is a lot of useful work to be done.