Knowing what we know now about the difficulties encountered in the development of the JSF/F-35 program, should the U.S. have pursued two fighter programs instead? One to develop a single-engine, stealth, multirole fighter with two variants - one each for the USAF and USN, and a second stand-alone program to develop a STOVL fighter replace the Harrier for the USMC and RAF.
Possibly. The Marine Cooters would be all yeasty about it.
>>30645077
I think its entirely correct to say that the economy of scale and standardization make it entirely worth it, and any real comprimises to add VTOL capability are in the B model.
I've yet to see any elements that are worse in the A/C models because of the B model.
>>30645077
Why? I mean almost none of the technology risk, delays or added cost have had anything to do with building -As and -Cs with the same basic airframe as -Bs. All the risk has been in lower-cost RAM production/installation, VLO properties, sensor upgrades and fusion (including DAS and EOTS), LPI comms, HMD/DAS/EOTS integration, processing hardware and software coding to get everything playing nice, internal weapons carriage and next-gen engine technology, along with general airframe upgrading.
There is little to nothing which adding -B design removed or subtracted from -A and -C capabilities.
>>30645149
Not to mention a lot of that technology/production risk is just paid for twice if we separate the project into two different airframes.
Also, the simple fact that the -Bs would have simply been cancelled once budget pissing matches were fully underway halfway through the project.
>>30645077
>single-engine
>USN
>pic related when FOD ingestion or any other cause of engine failure on takeoff
>>30645188
>pic related when longstanding and perfectly reliable single engine warhorse flies for USN
>>30645188
>>30645213
>and
>>30645188
>>30645213
>>30645220
>and
>>30645188
>>30645213
>>30645220
>>30645228
>and
>>30645188
>>30645213
>>30645220
>>30645228
>>30645240
>and
>>30645228
Yep.
>>30645188
>>30645213
>>30645220
>>30645228
>>30645240
>>30645247
plus at least a half dozen more.
Twin engine USN fighters/attack aircraft are the exception to the historical rule, not the norm. For the F-4, F-18, F-14, A-6 and A-5, there are two times as many single engine tactical jet fighters and attack aircraft.
Also, feel free to cite a single incident where an engine failing on cat launch in a twin engine fighter resulted in a clean recovery.
How long until we get a super lightning?
>>30645188
>>30645213
Oh, and pic related, another great example of single-engine naval aircraft effectiveness and long-standing reliability in spite of massive mechanical complexity.
The drawbacks of the B don't really apply at all to the other two, so not really.
>>30645188
That's from a fucking twin-engine F-4 off the Saratoga, dipshit.
>>30645300
The delays involved producing the B might have caused delays in A/C along with costs but whatever.
I highly doubt 2 seperate programs would have turned out better, and the marines have shown they have ZERO ability to run procurement programs on their own, so better to have a joint program.
>>30645324
>The delays involved producing the B might have caused delays in A/C along with costs but whatever.
What specific delays in the -B also affected the -A and -C? I can't think of a single one.
>>30645213
>>30645220
>>30645228
>>30645240
>>30645247
>>30645250
Wow, it's almost like the US made good planes in the past but can't make good new planes
Really makes you think
>>30645324
Possibly, but yeah it sounds like you agree that the alternative would have probably been worse overall, particularly with such a complex network of construction.
>>30645343
>Really makes you think
Only if you're a complete retard trying to build a strawman and distract from the point of the discussion.
>>30645343
>can't make good new planes
>teen series is not good
>F-117 is not good
>B-2 is not good
>F-22 is not good
ok
Really they probably should have gone with this goofy looking fucker.
>>30645399
No. They most certainly should not have. Compared to the X-35, that psychotically happy little fat fuck had more issues than a Special Olympics tryout.
>>30645077
>>30645188
>>30645324
>>30645343
>>30645399
26 posts in and we might already have a bingo...
>>30645513
>>30645399
Fuck no.
X-32 was awful.
>Navy sucks at putting historical engine-related Class A mishap data on the internet
>Fuck it, let's use the Chair Force
>>30645077
The real problem is that the military needs reorganization. Anything that flies should be Air Force. And watercraft should be Navy. Any land asset or infantry should be Army.
>>30645077
I have a question:
why does it suck so much and when will the problems be fixed and it be implemented?
>>30645601
>>30645591
>Engine-Related Class As/100K EFH
I'm assuming EFH is _______ Flight Hours?
>>30645608
It doesn't, and in the next 5 years
>>30645608
Weak bait, faggot.
>>30645625
Engine Flight Hours yeah
>>30645608
>when will the problems be fixed
>>30645591
>>30645601
Those are either total mishap rates or bullshit. For instance:
Engine-related Class A mishap rates:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/aviationsafetydivision/enginestatistics.asp
>F-16 w/ F110-GE-100 is 1.06, not 1.12
>F-22 w/ F-119-PW-100 is .46, not .32
>>30645644
>>30645644
Actually I take that back, it might be Equivalent Flight Hours. I can't be sure, although Engine Flight Hours seems more likely.
>>30645591
>>30645601
Why are these completely inaccurate?
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-160524-029.pdf
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-160524-030.pdf
>>30645605
>let's make all helicopters and naval aviation the Air Force's job to take care of
>Marines should be split up between army and navy
>>30645625
>To receive a true meaning of the impact on the airframe, one needs to calculate using equivalent flight hours. Equivalent flight hours are the actual accounting of structural degradation that is determined from damage index data stored in the individual aircraft-tracking database, which is part of the aircraft structural integrity program.
An hour of low-intensity ferry flight between bases is not comparable to an hour of high-g missile evasion. Air Force tries to normalize it by tweaking based on how stressed the parts get.
>>30645657
>>30645671
>As of 31 Mar 2016
>As of 31 Mar 2014
Gee, I wonder why
>>30645678
Oh okay.
That kind of opens it up for some fudging.
>>30645678
The Marines should be a specialized subdivision of the Army.
There's nothing wrong with the way I've broken it down. Because spoiler: the branches are interoperable. Dividing up responsibility based on what domain the branch is actually meant for would vastly simplify procurement.
>>30645657
>>30645671
Despite the marines being shit, I don't think we should remove them as they remain the whitest branch with the least amount of useless POG affirmative action hires
>>30645657
>>30645671
And single engine.
>>30645703
People do not fundamentally understand how game changing the MAGTF was, and statements like this prove it.
>>30645678
>>30645703
Having them as separate branches is okay.
Whats not okay is the cultural division between them. Banter is fine and that occurs in most countries, but you guys seem to actively go out of your way to shit on each other and waste money
>>30645742
Make that dual engine, mixed up my files. Mea culpa.
>>30645188
>bitches about single-engine reliability
>posts the aftermath of a single engine flameout on a twin-engine jet
I'm being ironed to death over here.
>>30645744
That has nothing to do with procurement.
>>30645754
>you guys seem to actively go out of your way to shit on each other and waste money
That would happen even if the entire military were a single branch. It's cultural, not political.
>>30645771
What I mean by that is things like making it impossible for the Army to field fixed wing attack aircraft.
It just adds another chain of command to fuck about with to get CAS for troops.
>>30645771
If it were a single branch, there would be multiple branches having their own requirements for the same desired capability.
>>30645804
wouldn't*
>>30645804
>>30645816
No, you'd just have multiple factions within the same branch fighting and agitating for their own baby projects while doing their best to sabotage the rivals for their funding. It already happens often within each branch (just in USAF, see: SAC vs TAC up to the late 70's, high tech/high capability VS low tech/high numbers procurement in the 70's, etc.).
>>30645280
FUCKING RUINED
>>30645077
>should the U.S. have pursued two fighter programs instead?
Yes.
An incremental approach bringing new sensors into F-16, one at a time would have been cheaper, safer and faster. F-16 is after all a well tested platform. The air frame design is good but getting old electronics is hard so an upgrade would be useful in any case.
It has room and capacity for better radar and sensors and also better rearward view. After the MLU the new electronics accepted for the project was significantly lighter so they had to add lead ballast in places to maintain balance.
Getting the sensor suite debugged in parallel with getting the F-35 platform going would have been safer. Presently the main tasks is shooting camels and supercruise is not needed for sub sonic camels.
The only real problem is that L-M would not have gotten a fat payout.
>>30645608
Never.
It is makework. Projects placed in each and every state. It cannot be killed. Ever.
>>30647240
>An incremental approach bringing new sensors into F-16, one at a time would have been cheaper, safer and faster. F-16 is after all a well tested platform. The air frame design is good but getting old electronics is hard so an upgrade would be useful in any case.
So... what? We replace our entire F-16 fleet with incrementally improved F-16Gs? What the fuck do we do in ten years when we're sitting on 2,500 fighters with low airframe hours which are completely obsolete and our 5th gen replacement is another 5 years out for LRIP? You actually think this would be fucking cheaper? Did your tiny mind forget just how many airframe hours are left on the current F-16 fleet? Did you also forget that there is ZERO ROOM in the F-16 airframe for even half of the kind of sensors and processing the F-35 represents?
>After the MLU the new electronics accepted for the project was significantly lighter
But even more volume. There is literally NO ROOM.
>Presently the main tasks is shooting camels and supercruise is not needed for sub sonic camels.
Because we totally don't need to keep developing to stay ahead of the curve. Because we can just crash develop a 5th gen fighter in 6 months like we did with WWII fighters, amirite? Because there are no other threats on this earth that current overwhelming US conventional superiority isn't holding in check, and there will never be another conventional threat again, amirite?
It's amazing to me how many times in history that argument has been made, gained traction and then completely buttfucked a country or civilization. Yet people still insist that this time it totally doesn't apply. Fucking morons never learn.
>The only real problem is that L-M would not have gotten a fat payout.
muh MIC evel meme.
>>30647260
>Projects placed in each and every state.
Can't blame LM for that when the people we elect to state and federal office make this kind of bullshit practically required just to get a necessary project from concept to FRP without getting clubbed like a baby seal because Jerome needs a bigger welfare check.
>>30645800
Why would the army need attack aircraft? They have plenty of artillery
>>30647392
US destroyed the tools for SR-71, I didn't think they did that for F-16. Anyways, you didn't read what I wrote: I was talking about parallel work. As it is F-35 has to develop frame and sensor suite in parallel. Splitting it would have reduced risk, as anyone who has done serious system development would know.
>There is literally NO ROOM.
Funny. My former employer delivered electronics for F-16. A lot of room was left available after the upgrade. Shocking news, dude: modern electronics is compact. Radio valves are out.
>Because we totally don't need to keep developing to stay ahead of the curve.
More failure in reading comprehension. I cannot believe the garbage here.
> Because we can just crash develop a 5th gen fighter in 6 months like we did with WWII fighters, amirite?
More garbage. Read news lately? Hint: it is not so.
>Yet people still insist that this time it totally doesn't apply.
I never wrote reading comprehension had improved.
>>30645545
where's the "American shills thinking their planes are the best thing ever"?
>>30647479
>used to work for a company that delivered electronics for the F-16 among other things
>is qualified to discuss heat load, volume constraints and sensor aperture limits/placement on the F-16 airframe in addition to extremely complex procurement programs at the heart of national security
this is /k/, ladies and gentlemen.
>>30647479
>Splitting it would have reduced risk, as anyone who has done serious system development would know.
No, it would have almost doubled cost and due to the nature of systems like DAS and EOTS tied into the HMD, it would not have sped up coding work as only 20% or so would have been common between the two projects. Just one of the many issues are the unique airframe/sensor placement geometries which have to be hard coded into the system to produce a seamless HMD display.
>Funny. My former employer delivered electronics for F-16. A lot of room was left available after the upgrade. Shocking news, dude: modern electronics is compact. Radio valves are out.
Funny. Where does the F-16 put the massive processing needed to integrate and fuse all those sensors plus LPI comms, what does it do with the over order of magnitude increased heat load of the sensors and processors, how does it find room for all the DAS apertures on the airframe plus manage to get an EOTS housing that doesn't disrupt inlet airflow? But you're an expert, because you're basically the UPS delivery man, right?
>More failure in reading comprehension.
You said, "why bother when we're just bombing camels". I'd say that's an argument for a Darwin-award level of complacency.
>More garbage. Read news lately? Hint: it is not so.
So... You're saying we could develop a 5th gen fighter in 6 months? Really?
>>30645760
>>30645315
inb4 he returns with I was just pretending to be retarded
>>30647601
>ave to be hard coded into the system
The garbage. It is endless. Have you programmed anything more complex than Tetris?
>order of magnitude increased heat load of the sensors and processors
More claims pulled out from where the sun does not shine. Sensor power load? Ooookay.
>because you're basically the UPS delivery man, right?
It didn't take you much time to run out of arguments.
>You said, "why bother when we're just bombing camels".
You see, this is your problem. Words appear on your screen but you fail to comprehend. The funny little word "presently" slipped under the radar like the stealth fighter you adore. And complacency? Which part of risk reduction did you fail to understand? As in still making a F-35 like craft? In your excitement of bashing in open doors you failed to see the door was never there in the first place.
>So... You're saying we could develop a 5th gen fighter in 6 months? Really?
Again I did not. You see you just cannot get this into your brain. Why not just log out?
>>30647532
>this is /k/, ladies and gentlemen.
Your words, not mine.
>>30647869
>The garbage. It is endless. Have you programmed anything more complex than Tetris?
Look out, folks. We've got an internet badass here. Why don't you explain to us why all the coding would be common to both airframes, then? Specifically, if you please. Instead of making vague handwaving motions.
>More claims pulled out from where the sun does not shine. Sensor power load? Ooookay.
So are you now claiming that there's no heat load, power draw or even t/r array size difference between the AN/APG-68 and AN/APG-81? Because that would be hilarious. We haven't even talked about additional required processing for LPI frequency agile sensor and comms modes yet.
>It didn't take you much time to run out of arguments.
Seems to me I'm the only one here providing specific examples and reasons. You're just throwing out ad hominem and "my dad works at nintendo" bullshit.
>The funny little word "presently" slipped under the radar like the stealth fighter you adore.
What were we doing in 1993 when the JSF project was initiated again? Oh, right. Long term planning is apparently not on your list of strong suits. Better stick to delivering packages door to door.
>Which part of risk reduction did you fail to understand?
The part where you'd spend a fuckton MORE money dropping resources on new-build F-16s and trying to shoehorn technologies well beyond anything ever intended for it into the airframe while delaying the advent of the F-35. Reducing risk is about balancing required sunk investment against gain, and "updating" the F-16 with F-35 avionics and sensors is both extremely risky and of very little benefit.
>In your excitement of bashing in open doors you failed to see the door was never there in the first place.
Because I never thought you'd be dumb enough to suggest that we bury that many resources in a dead end project like a new-build F-16 update and buy and still somehow expect the F-35 not to have been cancelled by Congress some time back in 2007.
>>30647240
>>30647479
>>30647869
I can't tell if his goalposts are on wheels or if he's really this incapable of logical analysis.
Anyone else?
>>30648141
>Why don't you explain to us why all the coding would be common to both airframes, then?
Hardcoding is a specific term in software development. It is considered seriously bad practice.
>So are you now claiming that there's no heat load, power draw or even t/r array size difference
No. I didn't. Reading comprehension is still at low.
> You're just throwing out ad hominem and "my dad works at nintendo" bullshit.
Illustrating ad hominem? The irony.
>Long term planning is apparently not on your list of strong suits.
More claims pulled out from unlit places.
>trying to shoehorn technologies well beyond anything ever intended for it into the airframe while delaying the advent of the F-35.
Again more failure in reading comprehension.
>Better stick to delivering packages door to door.
Is this really all you can muster of arguments? There is nothing you write that can persuade I am mistaken.
>Because I never thought you'd be dumb enough to suggest that we bury that many resources in a dead end project like a new-build F-16 update and buy and still somehow expect the F-35 not to have been cancelled by Congress some time back in 2007.
This does not even parse.
>>30648226
>Illustrating ad hominem? The irony.
Is that ad hominem? Pretty sure he was just pointing out what a bag full of shitpost your entire argument has been.
The f-16 is old as fuck why would you endlessly upgrade it?
How would the F-16 be turned into an actual stealth fighter?
>>30648226
I'm either being baited or this is next level autism. Either way, I'm out.
>>30648261
>The f-16 is old
Tell L-M. They want to sell F-16V.
>>30648261
>The f-16 is old as fuck why would you endlessly upgrade it?
cheaper than making an entirely new aircraft
>>30648424
>cheaper than making an entirely new aircraft
Well, fuck, why aren't we just flying F-86Ws around right now? They'd totally be cheaper, right?
>>30648424
>cheaper than making an entirely new aircraft
Definitely not in the long run.
>>30648447
Fuck it, we probably should have just kept all the P-51's and Spitfires from ww2, would have been less expensive than making those overcomplicated shiny jets.
>>30648424
It isn't though.
>>30647442
Most asinine question in the thread.
>>30648424
The F-35 program and replacement of F-16s, F-18s and AV-8s is literally cheaper than continuing to maintain them all, let alone with upgrades to those old ass airframes.
>>30645339
LM had to do a special weight reduction program just for the B, so you can argue that's valuable engineer hours not spent improving the A/C.
And IMO they shouldn't have made an "A", the "C" seems to have better maneuverability due to the bigger wing. That would improve parts commonality and possibly reduce prices.
>>30648311
Yeah, to curry niggers it'd be a fine aircraft.
Not for us.
>>30648986
>And IMO they shouldn't have made an "A", the "C" seems to have better maneuverability due to the bigger wing.
Other way around actually. At operational speed and altitude, the A performs better than the C in both instantaneous and sustained turn rate, and has a higher G limit. The C is only more controllable and has a lower stall limit at low speed and altitude for carrier landing.
>>30648986
Bigger wing area but much more heavy. Lower T/W.
>>30648986
The weight reduction program applied to all 3 aircraft; the T:W ratio of the A and C models improved thanks to it.
>>30645077
Having a single "base" aircraft is amazing in terms of logistics, training and maintenance.
Economically speaking it's a whole set of zeros cheaper too.
You only need to train people to fly and repair a single airplane.
You only need to get infrastructure to serve one airplane and etc.
The real reason why 'Murrica is getting it's ass kicked by all these problems is that being the pioneer in anything, specially high tech stuff, is always extremely difficult.
The burgers are going full "let's do it ALL" and having to innovate in almost every aspect of the project.
In the end, the know-how and experience from all this will keep them ahead of the curve for decades.
And no, China will miss out on A LOT of knowledge and experience even if they copy everything,
>>30650333
I know that, but the SWAT program was specifically for the B.
They made the bomb bays smaller so it can't carry 2000 lb internally, but that straightened out the air flow to the roll posts and made the plane considerably lighter.
>>30645754
>but you guys seem to actively go out of your way to shit on each other and waste money
Eh, that's mostly been restricted to stupid little stuff like uniforms. Modern ops require too much joint operations for the big, heavy-duty stuff to not be interoperable and compatible like in the '70s.
>>30647510
We have evidence to back it up. And evidence that the Russians are full of shit about theirs.
>>30647510
Produce a modern plane with more than 10 kills with a positive kill to loss ratio and maybe you can start thinking the same. As it stands in the record books, however, the greatest A2A jet fighters have all been US built planes.
