5 ms·

The Joint Strike Fighter program is a prime example of the military not learning anything from its failures in the past (like the F-111). Hell, they're not eve

by GVIrish 13y ago

The Joint Strike Fighter program is a prime example of the military not learning anything from its failures in the past (like the F-111). Hell, they're not even learning from the failures they've had in the history of the JSF. If you've got 50 percent or less of the software capabilities in a system with 8 million lines of code, and it's supposed to be deployed in 18 months you're in deep shit. Yet, the program's backers blithely proclaim they're going to make their dates, ignoring the fact that the program is years overdue and 70% over budget. Not only has an enormous amount of good money been thrown after bad, the military has staked the future of air power on this one aircraft so no one wants to admit that it should be cancelled.

pekk 13y ago
That sounds great and all, but cancelling doesn't exactly speed things up either...
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  What? Everyone knows that throwing everything out and starting all over from scratch (several times, if need be) is the fastest way to get done!
- TrainedMonkey 13y ago
  From what I understand main issue is that they are trying to build "transformer". Basically they want Navy, Marines, and Airforce to use same software/chassis. Obviously Navy, Marines, and Airforce all want different features, and requirement to the chassis renders it extremely frail (they had to cut a lot of weight for VTOL capability). So considering that, it actually might be good idea to stop completely, fire all top airforce/navy/marine brass involved and restart as 3 separate projects from scratch, albeit using all the technology already developed. Morale is already super low and it is hard to see bright future for something so overpriced, over budget, over engineered (in a bad way), and over politicized.
  - GVIrish 13y ago
    Some say this is the most politically-engineered weapons system in history (along with being the most expensive). Production for the parts of this aircraft is spread over 45 states. So you can only imagine how difficult it would be to scrap or reduce the size of this project.
    - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
      The lesson from the Space Shuttle is that contractors lose big time from an unflyable abortion with a low operational tempo. If Morton Thiokol had sacrificed short-term profits to rethink the boosters, they'd have sold them 10 times faster and still be selling them today
      - monkeyspaw 13y ago
        I am unfamiliar with this history, but it sounds fascinating. Can you elaborate a little more, or point me to an article discussing this?
        Daniel_Newby 13y ago
        The Air Force hijacked the Space Shuttle design process and forced it to deliver gigantic loads to polar orbit (a very tricky task). Then they abandoned the Shuttle, leaving it misdesigned for a nonexistent mission. Morton Thiokol is a solid rocket company in the northwestern U.S. The Shuttle launched from the southwest U.S. The solid rockets, with tubes of propellant inside, had to be cut into sections to make the long journey. The joints were heavy (very bad for rockets), and a leaky joint destroyed the Challenger. The horrible Air Force requirements made refurbishing very expensive and slow. Everything had been stripped of so much weight that it was too fragile and needed detailed inspection and repairs for each launch. Morton Thiokol was crammed into the program to get Shuttle votes from their state's senators. The catch is that the crammin-crap-in process doomed the program. But if Morton Thiokol had threatened to cancel the program unless it was reinvented, they could have come out as a real rocket company supporting a fleet that launched every month. Honestly, the innovations SpaceX is coming out with could and should have been done by the Shuttle program, instead of the idiot business "leaders" chaining themselves to the worst possible ideas
- GVIrish 13y ago
  I totally understand where you're coming from, typically with software projects canceling the whole thing is not the answer. However, military aircraft are a fundamentally different proposition. If the military goes forward with the JSF, they are going to be stuck with a fundamentally poor platform for at least 20 to 30 years. This thing is wildly over budget, and will be wildy more expensive to operate than projected. This plane is supposed to be the backbone of US air power for decades. If you scrap this program and start over, maybe it'll take 7-10 years to come up with 3 new aircraft for the 3 different roles. You sacrifice a decade to get something that will be far better for decades. The military basically did exactly that when the F-111 program got off the rails in basically the same manner. It was supposed to be a fighter bomber for the Air Force and fleet air defense aircraft for the Navy but the Navy version ended up being too heavy and poor performing so they scrapped it, and ended up developing the F-14. Honestly I would scrap the Marine Corps variant altogether. The USMC never goes where the Navy is not going to be so they could rely on close air support from the Naval variant. Sure a VSTOL aircraft could take off from a field somewhere but that capability simply doesn't provide enough benefit to offset the cost.
  - TheCondor 13y ago
    Isn't "going all in" how you get these things in the first place? They had to base everything on it. If they could get by with improved f15 and f16 types programs then they wouldn't get the JSF. They are "pot committed" and can't kill the project. They made it kill proof...
a3n 13y ago
> If you've got 50 percent or less of the software capabilities in a system with 8 million lines of code, and it's supposed to be deployed in 18 months you're in deep shit. Well, at least it's not also tasked with managing health insurance accounts.

by GVIrish 13y ago

pekk 13y ago

That sounds great and all, but cancelling doesn't exactly speed things up either...

sliverstorm 13y ago
What? Everyone knows that throwing everything out and starting all over from scratch (several times, if need be) is the fastest way to get done!
TrainedMonkey 13y ago
From what I understand main issue is that they are trying to build "transformer". Basically they want Navy, Marines, and Airforce to use same software/chassis. Obviously Navy, Marines, and Airforce all want different features, and requirement to the chassis renders it extremely frail (they had to cut a lot of weight for VTOL capability). So considering that, it actually might be good idea to stop completely, fire all top airforce/navy/marine brass involved and restart as 3 separate projects from scratch, albeit using all the technology already developed. Morale is already super low and it is hard to see bright future for something so overpriced, over budget, over engineered (in a bad way), and over politicized.
- GVIrish 13y ago
  Some say this is the most politically-engineered weapons system in history (along with being the most expensive). Production for the parts of this aircraft is spread over 45 states. So you can only imagine how difficult it would be to scrap or reduce the size of this project.
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    The lesson from the Space Shuttle is that contractors lose big time from an unflyable abortion with a low operational tempo. If Morton Thiokol had sacrificed short-term profits to rethink the boosters, they'd have sold them 10 times faster and still be selling them today
    - monkeyspaw 13y ago
      I am unfamiliar with this history, but it sounds fascinating. Can you elaborate a little more, or point me to an article discussing this?
      - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
        The Air Force hijacked the Space Shuttle design process and forced it to deliver gigantic loads to polar orbit (a very tricky task). Then they abandoned the Shuttle, leaving it misdesigned for a nonexistent mission. Morton Thiokol is a solid rocket company in the northwestern U.S. The Shuttle launched from the southwest U.S. The solid rockets, with tubes of propellant inside, had to be cut into sections to make the long journey. The joints were heavy (very bad for rockets), and a leaky joint destroyed the Challenger. The horrible Air Force requirements made refurbishing very expensive and slow. Everything had been stripped of so much weight that it was too fragile and needed detailed inspection and repairs for each launch. Morton Thiokol was crammed into the program to get Shuttle votes from their state's senators. The catch is that the crammin-crap-in process doomed the program. But if Morton Thiokol had threatened to cancel the program unless it was reinvented, they could have come out as a real rocket company supporting a fleet that launched every month. Honestly, the innovations SpaceX is coming out with could and should have been done by the Shuttle program, instead of the idiot business "leaders" chaining themselves to the worst possible ideas
GVIrish 13y ago
I totally understand where you're coming from, typically with software projects canceling the whole thing is not the answer. However, military aircraft are a fundamentally different proposition. If the military goes forward with the JSF, they are going to be stuck with a fundamentally poor platform for at least 20 to 30 years. This thing is wildly over budget, and will be wildy more expensive to operate than projected. This plane is supposed to be the backbone of US air power for decades. If you scrap this program and start over, maybe it'll take 7-10 years to come up with 3 new aircraft for the 3 different roles. You sacrifice a decade to get something that will be far better for decades. The military basically did exactly that when the F-111 program got off the rails in basically the same manner. It was supposed to be a fighter bomber for the Air Force and fleet air defense aircraft for the Navy but the Navy version ended up being too heavy and poor performing so they scrapped it, and ended up developing the F-14. Honestly I would scrap the Marine Corps variant altogether. The USMC never goes where the Navy is not going to be so they could rely on close air support from the Naval variant. Sure a VSTOL aircraft could take off from a field somewhere but that capability simply doesn't provide enough benefit to offset the cost.
- TheCondor 13y ago
  Isn't "going all in" how you get these things in the first place? They had to base everything on it. If they could get by with improved f15 and f16 types programs then they wouldn't get the JSF. They are "pot committed" and can't kill the project. They made it kill proof...

a3n 13y ago

> If you've got 50 percent or less of the software capabilities in a system with 8 million lines of code, and it's supposed to be deployed in 18 months you're in deep shit. Well, at least it's not also tasked with managing health insurance accounts.