F-35B declared operational with USMC

[Lawman]

Can we upgrade our fleet though?

NO! Have you been ignoring that part of the last few pages. Our fleet is dead or on it's last few years. The computing power, avionics cooling capacity, and space in the old legacy airframes are gone. The airframes themselves are breaking due to fatigue. You can't just keep slapping band aids on them and rolling with it.

Again we have to buy something.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

No it's the fact that all a person in your position can do is parrot. And unfortunately because there is so much white noise out there on this specific topic a ton of what your parroting is bad info. That's why you get the "shut up and color" treatment. When your writing about military hardware if your only access to info is google, it's like writing a research paper using Wikipedia

Look at the STFU article written by the Viper test pilot on the whole "dogfight" debacle article. He flat comes out and says the argument is garbage but people still scream "Pierre Sprey! Blah! Can't fly upside down" or some other garbage because that's what is out there to parrot for an argument. If you don't have experience or the ability to access non open source info you should know better than to stand up and tell those of us who do your on even footing.

Is the Government Accountability Office "parroting" too? Or should we just accept, prima facie what the military says when they say "We want X units of Y weapons system that cost $Z per unit to acquire and then $T per operating hour etc (plus the inevitable overrun of anywhere between 0.1 to 2.0Z)."? Because the GAO is very concerned about the affordability of the aircraft as well, mostly due to the ongoing design changes that keep popping up.

 

[Boris Badenov]

When your writing about military hardware if your only access to info is google, it's like writing a research paper using Wikipedia

Do you have me confused with Seggy? I don't believe I wrote about military hardware at all. I asked some questions about military hardware, which were neatly ignored or scorned, then expressed some opinions about whether or not you are somehow the final arbiter of what can and can't be said or asked based on the fact that you imagine yourself to have more germane knowledge than anyone else.

Also, for your next research paper: "You're" means "you are", "your" is a possessive pronoun.

 

[Lawman]

Is the Government Accountability Office "parroting" too? Or should we just accept, prima facie what the military says when they say "We want X units of Y weapons system that cost $Z per unit to acquire and then $T per operating hour etc (plus the inevitable overrun of anywhere between 0.1 to 2.0Z)."? Because the GAO is very concerned about the affordability of the aircraft as well, mostly due to the ongoing design changes that keep popping up.

For 1. The GAO is trying it's best to handle the fact that there has never been a program of this scope or complexity. So gotta keep in mind they are inventing a standard to go with the program.

2. Take GAO with a heavy grain of salt. These are the same people yelling how much of a failure the 18E/Fs were 15 years ago. Went so far as to call the chief test pilot and Boeing on the stand (sound familiar) to defend the program and why we should keep funding it. Turned into the extremely successful strike fighter it is today despite that.

 

[ryan1234]

Fair enough, but I still think we as tax payers are being fleeced by the military industrial complex of our nation.

I agree that between the macro acquisition system and other things, there is a lot of waste in defense spending as there is in any bureaucratic branch of the government. Personally, I think you're perfectly right to criticize spending, question the purpose and validity of what the government is doing with your money. Unfortunately, there's this huge picture with pieces and strategy that aren't seen by everyone in the free press. I would have to agree that our defense spending is excessive and not quite in the right places. However, my opinion simply comes from a lowly officer in an operational fighter squadron (in a fairly forward location). I have some perspective, because we receive real time intel and always prepare to act against x threat at the drop of a hat...but, there are a lot of things that no person on this board is privy to, despite their previous experience.

I say all that to say that you're right to ask questions about the tax payer money, however there are answers... those answers are shrouded by perspective. In most cases, we have to trust the people that have more perspective to make the right decisions (with certain checks and balances). So if you were elected to Congress, etc... you may have a different feeling about the cost vs benefit.

 

[jskibo]

For 1. The GAO is trying it's best to handle the fact that there has never been a program of this scope or complexity. So gotta keep in mind they are inventing a standard to go with the program.

2. Take GAO with a heavy grain of salt. These are the same people yelling how much of a failure the 18E/Fs were 15 years ago. Went so far as to call the chief test pilot and Boeing on the stand (sound familiar) to defend the program and why we should keep funding it. Turned into the extremely successful strike fighter it is today despite that.

Don't forget the "40 and no more" when the C17 first came out........

200+ in the fleet.

Every program I have ever run, been on, in the last 25 years has experienced Scope Creep of some sorts......

 

[Lawman]

Do you have me confused with Seggy? I don't believe I wrote about military hardware at all. I asked some questions about military hardware, which were neatly ignored or scorned, then expressed some opinions about whether or not you are somehow the final arbiter of what can and can't be said or asked based on the fact that you imagine yourself to have more germane knowledge than anyone else.

Also, for your next research paper: "You're" means "you are", "your" is a possessive pronoun.

For F sake I'm typing on a phone. I always love the grammar talking points in arguments, it's an Internet forum not my thesis.

No you asked why didn't we just buy flankers or some other thing because it would be cheaper. I and others tried pointing out that's a bad idea due to mx cost, capabilities lacking, etc. again as Ryan said it's about perspective. A lot of us have perspective you guys just can't access outside the circle. Above that what do you want. Fighting past that what are you bringing to the discussion besides "well I think."

 

[Lawman]

Don't forget the "40 and no more" when the C17 first came out........

200+ in the fleet.

Every program I have ever run, been on, in the last 25 years has experienced Scope Creep of some sorts......

Comanche the 12 billion dollar pile of shame... At least we got some good R&D on FLIR out of it...

 

[Autothrust Blue]

For 1. The GAO is trying it's best to handle the fact that there has never been a program of this scope or complexity. So gotta keep in mind they are inventing a standard to go with the program.

I don't know, I think most of the scope/complexity have been self-created by trying to create another joint airplane. And I think that the government HAS actually done things that closely match the scope and complexity of the F-35 program too - the massive effort that was Apollo comes to mind, and they did it without the benefit of PowerPoint and e-mail. (Perhaps that was a blessing in disguise.)

If I could have ONE thing happen between the services as the taxpayer, it would be to make all the branches "play nice," and to reduce or eliminate redundancies between the services, reducing the total overall divisional wedge. Actually, I think I would do that on the massive scope of the Federal government (does everyone really need their own IT departments?).

2. Take GAO with a heavy grain of salt. These are the same people yelling how much of a failure the 18E/Fs were 15 years ago. Went so far as to call the chief test pilot and Boeing on the stand (sound familiar) to defend the program and why we should keep funding it. Turned into the extremely successful strike fighter it is today despite that.

GAO's job is to make sure that the public money is spent properly, and in accordance with the Congressional authorization for that expenditure. This isn't necessarily about flying to me: the airplane is important for national security reasons, but how the airplane is produced and how much it costs you and I are ALSO very important questions.

 

[MikeD]

The problem with just trying to revamp what we have is many. Besides just airframe fatigue and rebuild issues there, you'd need to go completely through the aircraft, to where just buying a new one would've been better. Some aircraft out there still have pounds and pounds of unused wiring bundles onboard as dead weight, leftover from old systems that were removed, and not used by newer systems that replaced them. There comes a point where it just isn't cost effective (or even safe) in the long run to keep rebuilding/extending the same airframes, and in the short run you bankrupt yourself financially. There's only so much new you can stuff into an airframe that was designed long before the current tech.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

The problem with just trying to revamp what we have is many. Besides just airframe fatigue and rebuild issues there, you'd need to go completely through the aircraft, to where just buying a new one would've been better. Some aircraft out there still have pounds and pounds of unused wiring bundles onboard as dead weight, leftover from old systems that were removed, and not used by newer systems that replaced them. There comes a point where it just isn't cost effective in the long run to keep rebuilding/extending the same airframes, and in the short run you bankrupt yourself financially. There's only so much new you can stuff into an airframe that was designed long before the current tech.

tl;dr: fighters are not like airliners.

 

[MikeD]

tl;dr: fighters are not like airliners.

Exactly. They're run ragged and a much higher rate, and can be rebuilt at depot only so much.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Exactly. They're run ragged and a much higher rate, and can be rebuilt at depot only so much.

Oh yeah. We beat the snot out of our equipment, but I would imagine that our margin for wear, tear, and rebuild-ability is way higher than on (especially) tactical fighter aircraft.

 

[MikeD]

tl;dr: fighters are not like airliners.

A good example is the F-16N that the USN purchased in the late '80s to replace A-4 and F-5 aircraft as an aggressor simulator at TopGun to replicate newer gen MiG-29-style aircraft (the A-4 simulated the MiG-17, and the F-5 the MiG-21). These 20-some jets that were purchased were already purchased with reinforcements to the airframe installed, and they flew relatively clean with few external stores. Within 10 years, all the fleet of these planes were retired due to severe airframe cracks. 10 years, and the fleet is done. And these were new Block 30 jets at the time.

 

[jskibo]

The problem with just trying to revamp what we have is many. Besides just airframe fatigue and rebuild issues there, you'd need to go completely through the aircraft, to where just buying a new one would've been better. Some aircraft out there still have pounds and pounds of unused wiring bundles onboard as dead weight, leftover from old systems that were removed, and not used by newer systems that replaced them. There comes a point where it just isn't cost effective (or even safe) in the long run to keep rebuilding/extending the same airframes, and in the short run you bankrupt yourself financially. There's only so much new you can stuff into an airframe that was designed long before the current tech.

Yep, and even new programs (P8 and F35 for example) already have lots of obsolescence issues in the avionics that require board respins or redesign.......

Now imagine a box that's been in an E/F Superhornet, or even a C/D Legacy and what issues it has.

And redesign isn't cheap. Beyond the engineering for the actual design there is Safety and software re-writes. Then some head scratching as the Safety or other specs were written two or three decades ago, during the EMD or LRIP phase and make no sense now, but are part of the Prime and can't / won't be modified.

Mil Grade Components are required, yet Industrial are cheap and surpass temp specs in some cases, but trying to convince folks to change the spec is nearly impossible..... This in a Non-hardened box.....go figure

Or god help you the test (ATP software) is written in assembly or COBAL and requires a complete new package.

Redesign on a simple Avionics box can be tens of millions easy.....

 

[Lawman]

If I could have ONE thing happen between the services as the taxpayer, it would be to make all the branches

GAO's job is to make sure that the public money is spent properly, and in accordance with the Congressional authorization for that expenditure. This isn't necessarily about flying to me: the airplane is important for national security reasons, but how the airplane is produced and how much it costs you and I are ALSO very important questions.

I'm all for streamlining. Example I don't know why medical can't just be it's own entity.

But there are a lot of things with F35 that have never been done before. For instance it's the most automated fighter assembly process ever. How much will that cost, well nobody could really tell you till we build it. But about any engineer involved in something like that would yell you the end cost for something like that will pay off well past the initial cost. There are tons of instances like that in this massive program which all added together come up to very large cost holes. That's where the concerns are.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

A good example is the F-16N that the USN purchased in the late '80s to replace A-4 and F-5 aircraft as an aggressor simulator at TopGun to replicate newer gen MiG-29-style aircraft (the A-4 simulated the MiG-17, and the F-5 the MiG-21). These 20-some jets that were purchased were already purchased with reinforcements to the airframe installed, and they flew relatively clean with few external stores. Within 10 years, all the fleet of these planes were retired due to severe airframe cracks. 10 years, and the fleet is done. And these were new Block 30 jets at the time.

I always thought that was a really cool airplane. I forget where, but I got to walk around either the aggressor airplane you speak of, or the proposed navalized F-16. 'Course, if the one engine quits it's a LONG way to float.

Those aircraft, in particular, were probably run VERY hard; I would imagine anything that happens at the Fighter Weapons School is in the "Tall Doug Would Pass Out" range as far as aerobatics.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I'm all for streamlining. Example I don't know why medical can't just be it's own entity.

But there are a lot of things with F35 that have never been done before. For instance it's the most automated fighter assembly process ever. How much will that cost, well nobody could really tell you till we build it. But about any engineer involved in something like that would yell you the end cost for something like that will pay off well past the initial cost. There are tons of instances like that in this massive program which all added together come up to very large cost holes. That's where the concerns are.

What was wrong with building the things by hand? IT CREATES JERBS!

Newer and more complicated are not ipso facto better.

 

[ryan1234]

Can we upgrade our fleet though?

Again, not a bad question... and one that has been seriously asked within DOD circles. I fly one of the most awesome true multi-role fighters out there. We have some eye-watering capabilities, however we're pretty much maxed out on upgrades. We have awesome integration, relatively speaking, for a 4th gen fighter. But...we're essentially taking a 1990s Apple computer and trying add RAM and other accessories to make it better. It works to a point, but sooner or later the upgrade cost and hassle outweighs the benefit... and at the end of the day you still have a 1990s Apple Computer.

For example, if you've been to various defense trade shows, you can see that there is no shortage of people willing to put laser beams on your jet and all kinds of cool stuff. However, the cost of integrating weapons, counter measure suites, and electronic attack into an older fighter is staggering. It is actually an unbelievable cost. You need such an internal upgrade to handle certain things. On top of that you need the systems to talk to each other to be effective in a tactical environment. Many jets for sale now on the foreign market are not good at all with integrated avionics. The French Rafale is an awesome fighter, however it lacks decisive integration... they are running into a lot of the same things we ran into quite a few years ago. The SU-27s are even worse.

 

[MikeD]

Oh yeah. We beat the snot out of our equipment, but I would imagine that our margin for wear, tear, and rebuild-ability is way higher than on (especially) tactical fighter aircraft.

This is why the H-model B-52 has lasted so long. It's flown high altitude almost like an airliner mostly, and spent most of its life sitting ground nuclear alert, not having participated in Vietnam or Desert Storm.