4 ms·

Well, you would have to prioritize how you wanted to kill targets, as you say. The program has chosen to delay focus on the gun until later. Was that a wise dec

Well, you would have to prioritize how you wanted to kill targets, as you say. The program has chosen to delay focus on the gun until later. Was that a wise decision? I honestly don't know. And also, history nerd that I am...most of the high profile defense programs that I can think of were off the rails at one point or another. This is not to excuse anything (boy, people love that argument, that other programs had issues but turned out fine, so this will, too...I don't like that one), but to point out the fact that we as a society really don't understand how to do this kind of thing well. F-15 and F-16 were both lampooned in their day as being bloated and late and ineffective (I can anticipate the objection now -- not to this same degree -- and cannot argue against it). The Bradley's problems were so famous that HBO made "The Pentagon Wars" (which is a movie that I would actually highly recommend). The A-10 was not paid much attention to publicly but the Air Force of the 1970s hated it and wanted it to die before it ever left a drafting board (they were wrong, of course).

nickpsecurity 11y ago
I was saying the program has had many delays and overruns in general with the gun issue maybe being part of that trend rather than pure design decision. Each possibility paints it in a different light. Regardless, I agree that many programs have had issues despite making it. I did watch Pentagon Wars and was amazed that some issues even existed. I think the main concern, outside the original link, is that this plane is one of the most expensive we've ever done while not delivering the value or effectiveness a few different, focused planes would. They still could've consolidated on radar, comms, weapon/missile systems, and so on while making the plane physically ideal for its missions. In process, they could leverage proven approaches in other best of breed fights. That is what I meant by upgrading our current best stuff. You can straight-up improve their existing configuration. Or you can create new planes with their best qualities with vastly improved capabilities. As illustrated above, there's still plenty of consolidation allowed and would probably be cheaper (in development) due to less troubles.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Well, from my experience, the low-hanging fruit with improving existing configurations has mostly been done. The Navy has taken the Hornet to its logical full development potential by orchestrating the creation of the Super Hornet, which is more than a simple 15% scale up, it's a whole new airplane. The Super should serve for the next 25 years or so. Although the Navy is beginning to do the initial studies for its replacement... One thing that constrains a lot of the older aircraft is electrical power. They don't have the big generators and high voltage DC power systems that the newer jets have. Those newer systems provide a lot more power budget for running all the advanced sensors. Now, I suppose you could add this capacity to older aircraft, but that's expensive because all this is really tied into the engine and would require some extensive mods. That means time out of service, and tying up depot maintenance. Maybe this is worth it in some cost/benefit comparisons -- I haven't really done the math. Just trying to point out a big gotcha in upgrading that most people don't often think about.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    See, now you're getting to the kind of stuff I'm talking about. They need more power budget. Other things about them are pretty good or easy to update. So, do a clean slate design following the other plane's strengths as much as possible while adding the new stuff. The result is not the same plane. Yet, it should deliver more value than a basic upgrade of old plane while having way less risk than a program requiring tons of R&D (eg F-35). Now, my proposal doesn't negate the possibility of investing in next-gen tech. The F-22 program didn't bother me because we have to push ourselves as far as possible in any specific area. The results usually trickle down into other, affordable tech. F-35, far as I can tell, benefited a bit from that program. The U-2, SR-71, B-2, and F-117 all offered unique capabilities. Just prefer that the majority of our fleet is cost-effective and value-driven. Leads to build on what's proven. U-2 is probably one of better investments given it's apparently still paying off (see below). Could probably use that F-35 sensor system & some control assistance for pilots. However, it could all just be an excuse for local Majors to jump in GTO's and tear up the tarmac. ;) http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a7818/chasing-the-u-2-spy-plane-in-a-pontiac-gto-11000804/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a7818/chasing-the-u...

nickpsecurity 11y ago

I was saying the program has had many delays and overruns in general with the gun issue maybe being part of that trend rather than pure design decision. Each possibility paints it in a different light. Regardless, I agree that many programs have had issues despite making it. I did watch Pentagon Wars and was amazed that some issues even existed. I think the main concern, outside the original link, is that this plane is one of the most expensive we've ever done while not delivering the value or effectiveness a few different, focused planes would. They still could've consolidated on radar, comms, weapon/missile systems, and so on while making the plane physically ideal for its missions. In process, they could leverage proven approaches in other best of breed fights. That is what I meant by upgrading our current best stuff. You can straight-up improve their existing configuration. Or you can create new planes with their best qualities with vastly improved capabilities. As illustrated above, there's still plenty of consolidation allowed and would probably be cheaper (in development) due to less troubles.

engi_nerd 11y ago
Well, from my experience, the low-hanging fruit with improving existing configurations has mostly been done. The Navy has taken the Hornet to its logical full development potential by orchestrating the creation of the Super Hornet, which is more than a simple 15% scale up, it's a whole new airplane. The Super should serve for the next 25 years or so. Although the Navy is beginning to do the initial studies for its replacement... One thing that constrains a lot of the older aircraft is electrical power. They don't have the big generators and high voltage DC power systems that the newer jets have. Those newer systems provide a lot more power budget for running all the advanced sensors. Now, I suppose you could add this capacity to older aircraft, but that's expensive because all this is really tied into the engine and would require some extensive mods. That means time out of service, and tying up depot maintenance. Maybe this is worth it in some cost/benefit comparisons -- I haven't really done the math. Just trying to point out a big gotcha in upgrading that most people don't often think about.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  See, now you're getting to the kind of stuff I'm talking about. They need more power budget. Other things about them are pretty good or easy to update. So, do a clean slate design following the other plane's strengths as much as possible while adding the new stuff. The result is not the same plane. Yet, it should deliver more value than a basic upgrade of old plane while having way less risk than a program requiring tons of R&D (eg F-35). Now, my proposal doesn't negate the possibility of investing in next-gen tech. The F-22 program didn't bother me because we have to push ourselves as far as possible in any specific area. The results usually trickle down into other, affordable tech. F-35, far as I can tell, benefited a bit from that program. The U-2, SR-71, B-2, and F-117 all offered unique capabilities. Just prefer that the majority of our fleet is cost-effective and value-driven. Leads to build on what's proven. U-2 is probably one of better investments given it's apparently still paying off (see below). Could probably use that F-35 sensor system & some control assistance for pilots. However, it could all just be an excuse for local Majors to jump in GTO's and tear up the tarmac. ;) http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a7818/chasing-the-u-2-spy-plane-in-a-pontiac-gto-11000804/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a7818/chasing-the-u...