Ways the USAF can save money on the 6th gen fighter according to the USAF Cost Analysis Agency

After looking at the source of cost overruns in the B-2, F-22 and F-35 programs, the Aircraft and Weapons division chief in the cost analysis agency came out with a report stating what the USAF needs to do to significantly reduce the costs of a sixth gen fighter. A lot of this is NO FSCKING KIDDING. Others are a bit...retrograde. Even controversial. It ought to be said, the B-21 program is guiding a lot of thought on procurements, fwiw. The RCO is in the driver's seat.

Here are the summarized suggestions. I hope I don't miss any:

1. Focus on one major change and then add more capability over time through incremental upgrades.

2. The prototype ought to reflect what will be in production, like the F-16.

3. Don't move the goal posts: pick the requirements and don't add to them during development.

4. No concurrency.

Getting more controversial...

5. reduce the requirement for stealthiness.

6. use less software, rather use more hardware to do a job rather than software.

www.flightglobal.com...

I have worked on both the B2 and F35 and there is deffo a ton of waste. For the F35, senators were demanding a second engine be made....I think it was Rolls Royce, but cant recall. Anyway, that added to the costs a lot. Also, I totally agree with the goal post deal. That is probably number one IMO, because it causes a lot of re-engineering.

Stop the politicians getting involved in procurement be one thing...

a reply to: Blackfinger

Hmm. You must not live in the US. Procurements have been wildly political since the 1780s.

Pork-barrel politics. The senators (and politicians in any country) will only approve funding for a project if it brings revenue to the companies in their states.

a reply to: stormcell

Or if the senator who is approving gets a backscratch from the senator whose state is getting the work.

It has ALWAYS been this way.

I can go on a rant, but is not aircraft related and therefore, OT.

a reply to: lakenheath24
That was the F-136 engine by GE as lead although from memory RR had a stake in it too. In the scheme of things though it was a drop in the bucket and not really the problem, in fact it probably would have saved money in the long run by creating competition between the two engine makers to drop costs and increase both reliability and performance. By some accounts the F-136 was the better engine as well and had the benefit of being started later, it also seemed to suffer less problems in development. The Senate/Congress specifically asked for the second engine not so much as a pork project (although there is always some of that), but because second sourcing of engines in the 1980's for the F-16 and F-15 program created benefits on cost grounds as well as de-risking having all your eggs in one basket if or when major design flaws rear their heads. And that is exactly what happened in the early days with the P&W F-100 for the Falcon and Eagle, especially the F-16. Once GE was brought onboard things got better and cheaper from both suppliers, although admittedly by that stage Pratt had managed to solve some of the major problems anyway like the stagnation stall issue. This became known as the "great engine wars" in the 80's and 90's. In fact Saudi Arabia used that to its advantage when they decided they were not happy with the engines supplied for their F-15 fleet and changed out their engines for the competitor motor. I would wager that it would make sense for a concurrent development of a second engine for the 6th Gen as it can also be applied to other airframes as well , like retrofitting legacy 5th or even 4th+ airfames as well as aircraft yet to be thought of. it also guarantees you create a broad and strong development and production base to counter Chinese gains.

a reply to: anzha
Ways the USAF can save money - i'd probably start with abolishing this *USAF Cost Analysis Agency*. Seriously ###.
A bunch of bureaucrats weighing in on how to design an aircraft. Less emphasis on RCS to make it more upgradable in the future. But use more hardware instead of software because you have so much excess weight to play around with apparently.

a reply to: anzha
Oh no mate we are much much worse here in Australia...

I can see that. Most engine guys....and crew chiefs i know seemed to like the GE motors better.....for what reasons I couldnt say. I do have an engine badge off the b2 somewhere though. I figured the af didnt want it and made a good case.
to: thebozeian

I'm still waiting to hear what definitively constitutes a 6th gen. The British plans seem to be the directed energy weapons and swarm of drone wingmen and possibly hypersonic route but that's not to say that will be what a 6th gen ends up as.

a reply to: Blackfinger
Yes at least they didnt shut down a very competent submarine overhaul centre that could have built the Collins, then go and create a submarine build centre in another state with no real naval facilities prior in a marginal seat, that the PM of the day had family links too. And who knew it could turn into a disaster! And dont get me started on why so much stuff went to QLD and WA...

Bit like the CAC to GA merger then the really bad way they ran the Nomad.