More F-35 "fun" - Latest service life assessments are bleak

a reply to: scrounger

Kelly Johnson was asked about whether he could build the SR-72 today, and his response was something to the effect of "I couldn't even build a U-2 today". Most of the problem is in the completely broken acquisition system. There is room to spread around plenty of blame between LockMart (and subs) and the customer as the F-35 goes.

None of it really matters anymore because the only relevant question today is "is there any hope of getting another similarly capable or better design in any reasonable timeframe for less money than we have to spend on the F-35 moving forward?" And the answer is unequivocally no.
Ten years ago, the answer was maybe, and that would've been a decent time to cancel JSF and reevaluate.

I so love the prevailing bad is truth, good is propaganda attitude about the F-35.

a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr

For what, an aircraft that even with the existing issues outperforms other aircraft and does things no other aircraft can do, or will be able to do for years?

a reply to: scrounger

There's no comparison between the two. When the SR-71 was built, Johnson was able to walk into the Pentagon and tell them what they needed and show them designs he had to do the mission.

The F-35 is far more advanced than any other aircraft in existence. Yes, they tried to do too much with it from the start and that hurt. But you can't go from even the F-22 to the F-35 in terms of capability without serious spending and issues.

Uuumm you do know Kelly Johnson died in 1990.

a reply to: Blackfinger

"Was asked" denotes past tense...

True dat...Things have moved on since he said that and I doubt Lockheed have the same systems in place now.When tech moves forward they usually upgrade the supply chain and business/supply models as well.

a reply to: Blackfinger

The problem is the acquisition system. It's the same reason Musk can design, build, test, and field a reusable launch vehicle and liquid rocket engine combo in less time than it has taken NASA to build jackall with the SLS program (which was chosen for quicker development, existing components, and lower risk). Falcon 1 took four years and ~$100m. SLS is already over ~$7B or ~$7,000m.
It's severe risk aversion and bad program management. There is monumental institutional inertia. Noone is brave enough to make hard decisions because the system discourages decision making until the answer is incredibly clear. If NASA ran a Falcon program, it would still be in development because the first crash (nevermind the several it took) would have ended the program. They'd never take a chance on building hardware; it'd never get a first launch until they looked at every conceivable option to find the safest route. No matter how much it cost.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: scrounger

There's no comparison between the two. When the SR-71 was built, Johnson was able to walk into the Pentagon and tell them what they needed and show them designs he had to do the mission.

well yes and no. Yes at the time it was more direct who you went to and could authorize military projects. But as exibited by gen lemay torpedoing the sr71 fighter and bomber version kelly could not make the pentagon buy what he wanted. He still had to have a plane they needed/wanted and WORKED.

The F-35 is far more advanced than any other aircraft in existence.

So was the sr71 at its time and if your honest even more than the f 35 given most of the materials and aviation technology was experimental at best, created on the fly in reality

Yes, they tried to do too much with it from the start and that hurt.

On this we agree... but to be honest they STILL ARE making this same mistake as way to keep selling it to the military

But you can't go from even the F-22 to the F-35 in terms of capability without serious spending and issues.

ARE YOU FLIPPING KIDDING ME? "Serious spending issues"? The sr 71 (psst to remind you again had a fighter and bomber version that would have blown the doors off anything in the skies at that time, even maybe today) from start to finish was a custom cutting edge everything (including even cuttng fluid for the drill bits and training and welding tech) having to be done litterally as you go. but unlike the f-35 (with EVERY ADVANTAGE like computers, advance material knowlege, ect that kelly only dreamed he could have) DID IT IN 7 YEARS AND WITHIN BUDGET. whats your excuse now.


Look the REALITY is this is an overpriced, under performing, now not even gonna have the service life PAID FOR spruce goose (look it up) .

we have fighters at half the cost (or more if you dont let them play games) that may not be as "advanced" but will do the job.

we as taxpayers cant be paying for this abomination under guise "its too big to fail", "it will cost too many jobs" and/or "we have nothing as advanced"

because if (God forbid) we have to go to war having a limited number of fault ridden planes isnt gonna win us anything.

enough already... the pentagon and politicians screwed the pooch on this... so like the sgt york anti aircraft system (ironically who those supporting it were using the same arguments) END IT.

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

Yes, he still had to have a design, but try walking into the Pentagon today, and saying "You have a hole here, and I have this design to fill it". You'll get laughed out of the building, and lucky to ever see another contract.

I get that you think that the SR-71 was the greatest program ever designed, run and built. They ran into quite a few issues doing that program too, and while it was by far the most advanced aircraft designed AT THE TIME, it's still a pocket watch compared to what we're trying to do today. It had very little computing power in the aircraft, and ran an all analog cockpit. Compare that to 18 MILLION lines of code, and a digital aircraft in the F-35.

It was actually MacNamara that killed the YF-12 though, not LeMay. There was actually an order placed for 93 F-12Bs by the Air Force, but he wouldn't release funding.

The point is though, that we're not in the 1960s anymore. You can't buy an aircraft for $34M anymore(if you convert the $34M into 2019 dollars, the SR-71 would actually be closer to $250M each). It costs billions of dollars to develop even a relatively simple aircraft, let alone something as complex as the F-35. Short of a fixed price contract, which is happening more now, overruns are buying to happen. Companies are going to lowball their bids to get the contract. We saw it with the KC-46 and we'll see it with future programs. As for the F-35, it's not going anywhere, no matter how much bad publicity it gets.

originally posted by: ApacheHelicopetr
a reply to: scrounger

Lockheed should be forced now to fix all the issues for FREE and supply all future F-35 at half price.

There incompetence amounts to treason.

I agree.

what I never understood is this whole "over budget" and taxpayers paying to fix faults in military projects.

Look say I want a custom mustang (picking first car to cross my mind for discussion) .

I go to the dealer, pick out what I want in options, have them do whatever modifications I want and we agree on a price.
then we agree on a delivery date (within a few days).
If for some reason what they quoted me was wrong or goes up... On them not me.
if they screw it up somehow mechanically or cosmetically.... On them to fix and make right.
if they dont deliver it on time.. the penalty on them and if I dont want it later... they eat it (depending on contract of course).

now if I change something in mid stride yes price on me.
but other than that all on them

but somehow the F 35 (for current issue) is costing more to make, it has MASSIVE mechanical screw ups , and late as hell... the US taxpayer has to pay for all of it.. WTF.

IMO if they agree on a price then the maker is on the hook... it then moves them to MAKE SURE what they put out is on budget, on time and WORKS

Maybe need to stop treating military projects as open checkbook and as a consumer / provider relationship

scrounger

Wonder how much it would cost to custom order a unique car design to your state of the art specifications instead of just ordering a product from Ford's already completed assembly line. Any guesses on how far over budget and late to delivery the world's lightest, fastest, long-ranged hydrogen powered SUV from Ford with all the bells and whistles is going to run you? How about when you want a fleet of them and the means to support them? What does having to design, buy, assemble, and man the machining and tooling for an assembly line do to your costs and timeline? What if you head over there and demand a detailed report everytime they change a washer from 1/4 to 5/24ths in the design? Etc, etc. Then you turn around and blame Ford when you're overbudget because you could buy a Ford escape for a few grand.
The customer is the problem. Or the major part of it, anyway. Noone is saying it hasn't been a great picture of what not to do in a program. Because it has. But the acquisition system is completely broken.

Back in the Skunk Works glory days they were pretty much given open slather to begin with as what they were doing was cutting edge at the time and the Government/Air Force was paying them good money to produce it.Kelly Johnson was a man about getting his own way in doing things and it irked a lot of people.When Ben Rich took over he pretty much had to deal with the repercussions of all the bad blood that accumulated between Lockheed and customers.As a division back then Skunk Works up till they delivered and supported the F117 they were world leaders in Stealth applications.
Now days Cost oversight committees run programs and software programs which run Project Management are the in thing.Its all about cost effectiveness as big name projects are run and cut on the bottom dollar.
Affordable Risk is the key word today in new ventures.We can stretch ourselves to do new things buuuut it cant cost us any money.Projects run by bean counters never do any well.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Wonder how much it would cost to custom order a unique car design to your state of the art specifications instead of just ordering a product from Ford's already completed assembly line. Any guesses on how far over budget and late to delivery the world's lightest, fastest, long-ranged hydrogen powered SUV from Ford with all the bells and whistles is going to run you? How about when you want a fleet of them and the means to support them? What does having to design, buy, assemble, and man the machining and tooling for an assembly line do to your costs and timeline? What if you head over there and demand a detailed report everytime they change a washer from 1/4 to 5/24ths in the design? Etc, etc. Then you turn around and blame Ford when you're overbudget because you could buy a Ford escape for a few grand.
The customer is the problem. Or the major part of it, anyway. Noone is saying it hasn't been a great picture of what not to do in a program. Because it has. But the acquisition system is completely broken.

ok I think your mixing apples and motor oil

your talk is how the government system would look applied to a custom auto.
to which your example is correct.

but what you are missing is how ordering a custom vehicle as a non government (aka normal) way alot of your comments dont apply.

for example if you order your custom ford hydrogen power car you agree on a price for EVERYTHING and a delivery date.
yes if you want a cost breakdown (ex a radio, the fuzzy pink fuel tank, the paint scheme, ect) of individual parts then they can provide it to you. in fact if you dont like the price of say a radio system they will go over other options, prices, deals ect.
but your COST is out the door. there is no changing (unless change something you want mid stride ) costs on EITHER SIDE.

your example of blaming ford for the cheaper "off the line" vehicle is a silly irrelevant argument .
because your buying the ford hydo thunder not ford focus. if your feeling buyers remorse that is an irrational customer and in all honesty you have a contract that the buyer is responsible for and cant demand a cheaper car now.

I agree under federal system the acquisition program is based overall how much money to get to the maker, politician and "friends", not consumer aka taxpayer.

hence why I question and maybe advocate using the consumer model of buying vs government BS.

Scrounger

a reply to: Blackfinger

I agree with most of what you said and appreciate someone else knows of the skunkworks history.

but I differ on bean counters.
the concept is good idea IF their doing their job of watching for waste, fraud and corruption.

sadly the REALITY is they (except for maybe a few people) do nothing of the sort.
they are first more concerned with protecting their jobs , then protecting whatever person/entity that gave them their job, then maybe doing their job.

because if they were we would not be paying for errors done by the makers and be GASP saving money.

scrounger

Actually a nonfactory custom build is generally not fixed price. If you didn't know that, you do now.

I don't think the main problem is funneling money (though pork projects like the F-15X and many others have certainly given that impression). The problem is they have built a system that discourages risk. Any failure is used as a cudglel against the program. Smaller budgets mean more projects face the chopping block. So they draw out development which ironically costs more money. Meanwhile, they have a seemingly insatiable desire for things bleeding edge at the same time which always costs inordinate amounts of money. And because money is tight, they demand draconian oversight measures, which results in more man hours/costs. When they finally get a working product everyone is in such angst over cost overruns and delays (that they caused), they cancel the program (like you are advocating here), so instead of amortizing the development costs over a large production run, you end up with scary procurement + dev costs number for a limited run that look scary and justify the cancellation. Then they start over with an even bigger hole to fill for the next program. Rinse and repeat. They also have to support a small boutique fleet of aircraft that are no longer in production, which further raises operations costs.

originally posted by: scrounger

we have fighters at half the cost (or more if you dont let them play games) that may not be as "advanced" but will do the job.

I’d be interested in examples as to what these half price fighters are and how they’re going to do the job?

a reply to: scrounger
Amen

a reply to: scrounger

Exactly. Cost over runs needs to stop NOW.

If the company underestimates or cocks something up THEY not the taxpayer should be liable to cover the costs to fix it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr

For what, an aircraft that even with the existing issues outperforms other aircraft and does things no other aircraft can do, or will be able to do for years?

I get the F-35 is cutting edge.

But defense contractors are not giving value for money.

They should not be given a blank cheque to charge whatever they like.

They should be held to the original price, if they underestimate or screw something up in their design, THEY not the taxpayer should cover the cost to fix it like any other business. Next time they should be more honest with their price projections.