https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pi...db9d11a875
The plane was outperformed and was defeated by the F-16 in a mock dogfight in January according to War is Boring. The pilot complained of numerous technical difficulties with the aircraft, and said that it lacked many basic fundamentals in maneuvering and target evasion. He also said that there was no point in trying to get in a sustained, close turning battle with another aircraft.
10 years, $138 million dollar price tag for each jet, $339 billion in total development costs, and the darn thing can't beat an older jet.
Hasn't the JSF program been little more than an utter debacle for a decade now? I mean, Lockheed doesn't care. They just say, "Oops, found another problem. It'll cost an extra $100M to fix," and Uncle Sam hands them a check.
Such is life when you try to try to fill three completely different missions with one aircraft that isn't optimized for any of them.
Quote:Hasn't the JSF program been little more than an utter debacle for a decade now? I mean, Lockheed doesn't care. They just say, "Oops, found another problem. It'll cost an extra $100M to fix," and Uncle Sam hands them a check.
Such is life when you try to try to fill three completely different missions with one aircraft that isn't optimized for any of them.
I don't claim to be an expert in any field necessary to understand this but, I do wonder how hard it has to be to develop a jet that can maneuver, fire rockets, fire bombs and land on a carrier.... Those are the requirements right? Or is there another function I am missing? I am truly interested in this.
In addition, couldn't they just fully upgrade all the tech and roll out new F-16's if they are still the top dogs?
Quote:Hasn't the JSF program been little more than an utter debacle for a decade now? I mean, Lockheed doesn't care. They just say, "Oops, found another problem. It'll cost an extra $100M to fix," and Uncle Sam hands them a check.
Such is life when you try to try to fill three completely different missions with one aircraft that isn't optimized for any of them.
As someone very familiar with the program, allow me to give my thoughts regarding this program.
First, my background regarding this project. For many years I have been involved in military aviation. I was involved with building a trainer that is utilized for this particular aircraft. I can't go into much detail or get into specifics, but let's just say that I am very familiar with it.
I believe that the program is flawed and was destined to fail from the beginning. The initial idea was a "cross branch" platform that could be utilized by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. However, each branch of service has different needs/requirements in order to do their duties. What happens is that an aircraft say for instance "works well" for the Navy doesn't necessarily do what the Marine Corps needs. So "features" are added to accommodate the Marine Corp's requirements, but it doesn't meet the Air Force's requirements. So even more "features" are added to it. The aircraft itself is highly specialized and depends on computer software in order for it to do what it needs to do. Whenever a new "feature" is introduced, it requires several lines of code to be written and tested. It's a never-ending cycle.
I don't fault Lockheed (though they will take the brunt of the "blame" for this). I blame (surprise, surprise) our government for this.
Quote:I don't claim to be an expert in any field necessary to understand this but, I do wonder how hard it has to be to develop a jet that can maneuver, fire rockets, fire bombs and land on a carrier.... Those are the requirements right? Or is there another function I am missing? I am truly interested in this.
In addition, couldn't they just fully upgrade all the tech and roll out new F-16's if they are still the top dogs?
The argument against F-16s is that they're a 40-year-old platform. Never mind that they're a 40-year-old platform that can still kick the crap out of anything today, but, you know...
The JSF's problem, imo, is that it's designed to do too much. It's supposed to replace the USAF's F-16s (meaning it needs to be an air superiority fighter with ground attack capability), the Marines' AV-8B Harriers (meaning it needs strong ground attack capability with vertical takeoff and landing) and to help replace several Navy aircraft with varying missions (meaning it needs to take off and land from carriers).
You can make minor tweaks here and there, for example, a weaker landing gear on the USAF version since it won't be slamming into moving target runways at 160 kts. or an auxiliary lift jet in the Marines' version, but at the end of the day, you're trying to build a single airframe that can be the best air superiority fighter in the world, one of the best light bombers in the world, and one of the best forward air support aircraft in the world. If you're keeping track at home, that means that the same aircraft has to be able to do the jobs of the F-14 Tomcat
and the A-10 Warthog. Find me two more dissimilar combat aircraft in the world. I triple-dog-dare you.
Optimization for multiple roles means superiority in none. It's the same reason that you don't ask one player to be your starting running back, your kicker and your free safety, no matter how good that player is in all three roles. If you have a running back that can play some safety and be an emergency fill-in, cool, but you don't sign a running back expecting him to be your top safety as well.
The F-35 is a story of compromises (and going back and reading about its history is actually someplace between funny and sad), and when you make too many compromises, mediocrity is the result. I wouldn't be shocked if, ultimately, one or more of the F-35 variants ends up on the scrap heap as a result. No one person or party is to blame. Trying to fill three completely different jobs with one airframe was a terrible idea from the start, and now we're seeing what happens when a bean-counter walks into the room and asks if we could save some money by designing one aircraft instead of three.
The F35 is too heavy, too light, too armored, not armored enough, too fast, too slow, can't loiter, can't climb, can't dive, carries too many weapons platforms, doesn't carry enough of a specific weapon, and uses too much fuel for too little time over target, isn't stealthy enough, and costs too much.
Quote:The argument against F-16s is that they're a 40-year-old platform. Never mind that they're a 40-year-old platform that can still kick the crap out of anything today, but, you know...
The JSF's problem, imo, is that it's designed to do too much. It's supposed to replace the USAF's F-16s (meaning it needs to be an air superiority fighter with ground attack capability), the Marines' AV-8B Harriers (meaning it needs strong ground attack capability with vertical takeoff and landing) and to help replace several Navy aircraft with varying missions (meaning it needs to take off and land from carriers).
You can make minor tweaks here and there, for example, a weaker landing gear on the USAF version since it won't be slamming into moving target runways at 160 kts. or an auxiliary lift jet in the Marines' version, but at the end of the day, you're trying to build a single airframe that can be the best air superiority fighter in the world, one of the best light bombers in the world, and one of the best forward air support aircraft in the world. If you're keeping track at home, that means that the same aircraft has to be able to do the jobs of the F-14 Tomcat and the A-10 Warthog. Find me two more dissimilar combat aircraft in the world. I triple-dog-dare you.
Optimization for multiple roles means superiority in none. It's the same reason that you don't ask one player to be your starting running back, your kicker and your free safety, no matter how good that player is in all three roles. If you have a running back that can play some safety and be an emergency fill-in, cool, but you don't sign a running back expecting him to be your top safety as well.
The F-35 is a story of compromises (and going back and reading about its history is actually someplace between funny and sad), and when you make too many compromises, mediocrity is the result. I wouldn't be shocked if, ultimately, one or more of the F-35 variants ends up on the scrap heap as a result. No one person or party is to blame. Trying to fill three completely different jobs with one airframe was a terrible idea from the start, and now we're seeing what happens when a bean-counter walks into the room and asks if we could save some money by designing one aircraft instead of three.
Hmmm.... I guess I still just don't understand why superior tech and weaponry in a superior air frame is not enough or doable? I will take your word for it.
Quote:Hmmm.... I guess I still just don't understand why superior tech and weaponry in a superior air frame is not enough or doable? I will take your word for it.
If you want to chop down a tree, you get an axe, right? What if you need to hammer in a nail? You'd get yourself a hammer. Of course, if you're a government contractor, you could spend $300 billion to design a tool that's an axe on one end of the handle and a hammer on the other. Is it going to do either job particularly well? No, but in theory, it's cheaper to buy an axehammer than it is to buy an axe and a hammer. See what I'm getting at?
The same concept applies to the JSF. Google "F-14 Tomcat" and "A-10 Warthog". Take a look at those two planes, maybe spend a couple of minutes reading up on what they were designed to do. The F-35 is supposed to play a part in replacing both of them. You can throw all the money and technology you want at an aircraft (and the government certainly has), but the mission requirements are just too divergent for it to ever be a solution that satisfies everyone. Right now, I think it'd be a stretch to say that it's satisfying
anyone.
Quote:If you want to chop down a tree, you get an axe, right? What if you need to hammer in a nail? You'd get yourself a hammer. Of course, if you're a government contractor, you could spend $300 billion to design a tool that's an axe on one end of the handle and a hammer on the other. Is it going to do either job particularly well? No, but in theory, it's cheaper to buy an axehammer than it is to buy an axe and a hammer. See what I'm getting at?
The same concept applies to the JSF. Google "F-14 Tomcat" and "A-10 Warthog". Take a look at those two planes, maybe spend a couple of minutes reading up on what they were designed to do. The F-35 is supposed to play a part in replacing both of them. You can throw all the money and technology you want at an aircraft (and the government certainly has), but the mission requirements are just too divergent for it to ever be a solution that satisfies everyone. Right now, I think it'd be a stretch to say that it's satisfying anyone.
I am aware of the Warthog. I built model planes as a kid and had 4 of them. I suppose my confusion lies in the idea that I I thought the attempt was to replace three jets of similar style to the F-14, F-16 etc.. and just add enough utility that all branches would could use it. I mean what kind of fighter can house the cannon in the front of the warthog or the amount of armament it can carry on the wings?
Quote:I am aware of the Warthog. I built model planes as a kid and had 4 of them. I suppose my confusion lies in the idea that I I thought the attempt was to replace three jets of similar style to the F-14, F-16 etc.. and just add enough utility that all branches would could use it. I mean what kind of fighter can house the cannon in the front of the warthog or the amount of armament it can carry on the wings?
And therein lies the problem.
Quote:And therein lies the problem.
So again I ask, why not just upgrade the F-16 with all the new avionics and tech if it is still superior in it's field?
Also could the JSF be salvaged for just air force and navy?
Quote:So again I ask, why not just upgrade the F-16 with all the new avionics and tech if it is still superior in it's field?
Also could the JSF be salvaged for just air force and navy?
Is there more money to be made developing a new aircraft or upgrading an old one?
Quote:So again I ask, why not just upgrade the F-16 with all the new avionics and tech if it is still superior in it's field?
Also could the JSF be salvaged for just air force and navy?
Upgrading an older aircraft is more involved than just updating the avionics package. Air frames have a finite lifespan and would eventually require replacement.
Quote:Is there more money to be made developing a new aircraft or upgrading an old one?
It's more about "money to be spent" rather than "money to be made". The government approaches the aircraft manufacturers with design requirements and puts out a bid. It's not like the aircraft manufacturers decide that they want to make gobs of money and come up with new designs on their own.
Quote:The F-22 is a far better air-to-air fighter than the any other plane in the world, and is a stealth aircraft. It replaces both the F-16 and the F-15. It's big problem was that it was WAY expensive. The government cancelled the F-22 production to push on with the cheaper, more versatile F-35. Yet, as TJBender says, a plane designed to do everything does nothing well. And the F-35 is getting more and more expensive as time goes on, so it's not really a cheaper option.
I agree 100%. I was amazed when I saw what the F-22 could do at an air show.
Quote:Upgrading an older aircraft is more involved than just updating the avionics package. Air frames have a finite lifespan and would eventually require replacement.
It's more about "money to be spent" rather than "money to be made". The government approaches the aircraft manufacturers with design requirements and puts out a bid. It's not like the aircraft manufacturers decide that they want to make gobs of money and come up with new designs on their own.
C'Mon now, the military-industrial lobby is one of the most powerful ever. The salesmen whispering "you really need a toy that can do X" into the ears of our Generals is why we spend like we do. I'm not opposed to always having the most powerful military, but let's be real, it's a huge cash cow for American manufacturers.
Quote:C'Mon now, the military-industrial lobby is one of the most powerful ever. The salesmen whispering "you really need a toy that can do X" into the ears of our Generals is why we spend like we do. I'm not opposed to always having the most powerful military, but let's be real, it's a huge cash cow for American manufacturers.
I don't deny that it's a huge cash cow for not only American manufacturers, but contractors as well. However, several manufacturers come up with prototypes of equipment based on the government's needs. It was government that decided that the F-35 was a good idea, not the other way around.
Quote:Citation for that one?
Look up the Joint Strike Fighter program. That's a good place to start, and it's result is the F-35.
Then look up the the CALF program. Now by all means the CALF program was a suggestion from Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas. However, CALF was a part of the DARPA program (still following along?). It didn't include plans to make it aircraft carrier capable (though the VSTOL capability would meet that requirement). The initial thought was that it was to be a fighter jet (different than a ground attack aircraft).
The CALF program was merged with the JAST program which would eventually become the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The JAST program was started as a result of a recommendation by the DoD.
Now aside from all of these different acronyms and programs, my point of view, having worked in and around DoD for many years is that the overall idea came from what the government wanted. If I was a betting man, I would bet that Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas did not come up with the initial idea. The idea came from somewhere within DoD.