3 ms·
> It is always the way with military projects. Well, not quite always. There were a few generations of military projects that, while very expensive and subject
by mjn 13y ago
> It is always the way with military projects. Well, not quite always.
There were a few generations of military projects that, while very expensive and subject to many of the same distributed-construction politics, did seem to turn out well in the end. More recent ones (meaning the last 10-20 years) seem not to be doing as well. The F-16 program, for example, was led by the U.S. but pulled in several NATO allies from Europe as part of the program, and as part of that deal the construction was also split up between the partners. But all the partners were generally happy with the end result, and the F-16 is well regarded. Something vaguely similar was tried with the Joint Strike Fighter, but that one doesn't seem to be going as well, and a lot of the non-U.S. partners are now starting to regret having signed up for it. I don't know enough to explain why the F-16 process worked, though.
- nknighthb 13y agoI'm nowhere near old enough to remember the F-16's development, but it sure looks like recent programs have suffered a great deal from bikeshedding and trying to be everything to everyone. Look at some of the F-16's rough contemporaries: The F-14, F-15, F/A-18, A-6, and A-10. Despite a fair bit of flexibility and overlap in mission capabilities, especially after post-debut tweaking, these are all different planes designed with different goals in mind. Now think about the F-35/JSF. It's one program that's basically trying to replace everything leftover from the cold war. That seems like a big red flag. It seems like something similar is going on in the LCS program. They're explicitly supposed to be "flexible" and "modular" -- aka "be ALL THE THINGS!" -- and "replace" a variety of more special-purpose ships. Swiss army knives are handy, but I'm not going to try building a house with one.