Originally posted by RichardPrice
Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by FredT
Given the length of time modern war planes take to develop if this project gets off the ground I will have grey hairs by the time the aircraft enters
service . Really its another high tech expensive design that can't be mass produced . By the time elected leaders and other people wake up to this
fact if they ever do it will be far to late .
Cheers xpert11.
I'm sorry, but the Spitfire or the P-51 doesn't cut it in this day and age. The times of producing 10,000 units of a 'it will do' design are well
and truly over when each aircraft of your oppositions airforce can engage 6 - 8 targets at 100 miles and run away from your superior numbers without
ever coming anywhere near your engagement range.
That said - if I have 12 aircraft to every one of your high-tech aircraft.... I don't have to worry about engaging you in the air. With high-yield
ordnance becoming rather prolific these days, it's not like I can't completely dismantle your war machine with 30% of my force. With unmanned and
autonomous designs - it's not really an issue to find pilots when they come factory certified.
Quantity has a quality all of its own. There's a balance to be had between the two. Air superiority designs - like the F-15 and F-22 need to be
both dependable and disposable. It's always good not to lose forces - but it's part of war. You can't fight a 'perfect' war - particularly not
against an opponent of similar capability. If you rely too heavily on survivability of costly designs, you will either have too few uber-craft to
address the threat, or too much area to deploy effectively. Either case renders you impotent if there are more enemies than you have
sortie-hardpoints, or enemies where you have no sortie-hardpoints.
Aircraft have gotten more and more complex, and development times have grown and grown over the years because they need to.
This is not exactly true. The objectives of design have shifted. Take, for example, the JSF - which has been put-together in far shorter of a time
span than the ATF. I'm no fan of the JSF, and I believe the project has suffered from development-creep (as did the ATF) - but one must remember
that the threats in the world have shifted considerably over the past twenty years. When the ATF project was commissioned - the USSR was still
around, as was the need to protect Europe and NATO powers against an offensive strike by the USSR. The Berlin Wall came down around the same time the
fly-off between the YF-22 and YF-23 took place and the competition was finally decided. Before development of the F-22 production model could hardly
begin, the very purpose of the aircraft's commissioning had come into question.
Who/what is it going to fly against? Why can't the F-15 do it - we didn't lose a single one in the Gulf conflict. Furthermore - the effectiveness
of multi-role aircraft (such as the F-18) had been demonstrated. The ability to strike both air and ground targets with the same air-frame was being
considered essential - a role the F-22 was -never- designed for with its shallow munitions bay tailored for air-to-air ordnance. Before long - we saw
the F-22 being designed to take on roles that were well outside of the original ATF contract. Technologies that sprouted up during the time of
development were also trialed on the F-22 (such as the ceramics used on the TVC nozzles) - stuff that was dropped into the program.
Aircraft like the F-18 E/F Super-Hornet only had about five years from development to production, and eight years between development and service. Of
course - neither of those were considered 'rush' priority - something projects like the P-51 had going for them. Though it should also be noted
that the P-51 was "under development" for its entire service history - the D-model that everyone thinks of was one of the later evolutions of the
original design. So - even the P-51 took a few years to develop, even though the first airframe of that designation took to the air in record
time.
The mass produced point is also disingenuous - 150 years ago it was difficult to mass produce a light bulb, but today we mass produce much more
complex items in less time.
Parts of aircraft are mass-produced.. but the airframe, itself, is still pretty much assembled by hand - particularly in the age of composite
airframes, where mass-production processes are still on the horizon. How they do that is not necessarily classified - but it's a 'dark art' of the
industry. You could call that "above top secret" - there's more spy-wars going on between industries of different nations (and of fellow nations)
than anything else. Everyone really IS after his Lucky Charms - or... the secret to making them, at least. (Note - that's not necessarily saying
that product, in particular, is all that special or secretive of a manufacturing process, but you'd be surprised what you use every day and is made
by some rather clever and closely guarded manufacturing methods).
Anyway - the whole thing is pretty moot. There's a point where it doesn't make sense to build a more sophisticated aircraft at the cost of
serviceable numbers. There's a point where sophistication doesn't need to be sacrificed for serviceable numbers.
Everyone has a different opinion on where that balance is, and it all depends upon factors that will be unique to each engagement in each theater and
campaign - factors that can't be accurately predicted when commissioning the design.
Generally speaking - you're better off to go with numbers. Sophistication has an exponential curve to cost-effectiveness. Spending twice as much on
a more sophisticated computer will likely only net you 20-30% more effective power. Your goals will determine your choice of expenditure, but your
choice will likely be influenced by whether or not you are simply wanting to build the ultimate gaming rig for the time, or outfit your friends/family
with systems.
Likewise, if you are simply wanting to build an aircraft to see what you can do with it and technology - that's one thing. If you are looking to
build a main-stay fighter, that's another.
