It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Open Source" isn't really necessary - or all that big of an obstacle. It's a decade old technology that could be out-done by a distributed network of smart phones (I'm exaggerating slightly). The real challenges lay in the programming and the actual IR/radar/etc technologies. The data processing end of it is child's play in today's world of buku-flops and memory.
Take a look at today's aircraft - simply look at the different demands placed upon the F-16 and the F-18 - two aircraft bred from the same light-fighter competition. Look even further at the differences between the F-14 and the F-15 - two aircraft with similar roles but working in two completely different environments.
Sure - parts-commonality is good when you can actually make use of it - but to make the same airframe attempt to conform to so many different demands is stupid, to be blunt. You will be decades and trillions into developing a fighter to service the needs of a defense system that is 20 years in the past.
I'm not sure I follow your statement - the problem, here, is that the U.S. has lost anything that resembles control over mission creep. We treat our aircraft like we treat a piece of legislation - "Oh, let's make this Advanced TACTICAL FIGHTER fill a light bomber role! It can replace the F-15E, too!" - That's part of what killed the raptor program, they couldn't help but attach all kinds of completely contradictory roles to the aircraft and felt they had to justify its existence in a world where the threat the ATF was meant to counter no longer existed.
The very same thing is happening with the JSF - except the program to create it sprang from the collapse of the raptor program. Rather than doom an aircraft to a perpetual identity crisis - they decided a program dedicated to developing an entire fleet of airframes out of that identity crisis was a better use of tax payer dollars.
Why? Because the AIM-9 does not have the ability to be targeted while in the bay - it has to be exposed to be targeted. Which raises an interesting question regarding the AIM-9 and the F-22... Does it have to drop its stealth advantage to target the Sidewinder? If not, then why didn't Lockheed carry that ability over to the F-35?
Originally posted by RichardPrice
Why? Because the AIM-9 does not have the ability to be targeted while in the bay - it has to be exposed to be targeted. Which raises an interesting question regarding the AIM-9 and the F-22... Does it have to drop its stealth advantage to target the Sidewinder? If not, then why didn't Lockheed carry that ability over to the F-35?
Though not part of the original requirement, AIM-9X demonstrated potential for a Lock-on After Launch capability, allowing for possible internal use for the F-35, F-22 Raptor en.wikipedia.org...-9X
Originally posted by FredT
Originally posted by RichardPrice
And it all adds up, cost wise
I know but almost 40 million worth?????
Originally posted by jensy
It looks like it might only be the F-35a that makes it to production...
Daily Mail Link
If the c version goes under, is there any way that the rest of the project could survive?
Jensy
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by jensy
The program will likely fall through. The reality is that the C should have higher volume sales than the A, shouldering more of the cost burden (as a model).
For somewhat obvious reasons... politicians actually seem to be under the impression that the Air Force leads the military in fighter/strike aircraft deployment.
Fact is... the Navy has far more aircraft deployed and accrues more flight hours on each airframe than the Air Force does. The key sale for the F-35 was the Navy. Without it, the entire program goes under.
I'm only sad it took this long to drive the final nail in this forsaken bird's coffin.
An industry expert who is a graduate Flight Test Engineer (FTE) of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS), Peter Goon, stated that, "Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due primarily to the commonality that was being sought between the three variant designs and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always going to be high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements."
He also points to well-known and well understood military specifications that address tail hook design requirements, such as MIL-A-81717C and MIL-D-8708C.
(update: the first one should read MIL-A-18717C not MIL-A-81717C as first reported)
When asked how such things could have been missed, Peter suggested they likely weren’t, at least by the engineers, but their concerns would have just as likely been ignored.
Originally posted by curioustype
OK, so what were the UK engineers doing when they evaluated the design? Are we saying our engineers weren't allowed close enough to spot this in the deal? Or were their views/concerns steam-rollered too?
What happened there?
Originally posted by RichardPrice
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by jensy
The program will likely fall through. The reality is that the C should have higher volume sales than the A, shouldering more of the cost burden (as a model).
For somewhat obvious reasons... politicians actually seem to be under the impression that the Air Force leads the military in fighter/strike aircraft deployment.
Fact is... the Navy has far more aircraft deployed and accrues more flight hours on each airframe than the Air Force does. The key sale for the F-35 was the Navy. Without it, the entire program goes under.
I'm only sad it took this long to drive the final nail in this forsaken bird's coffin.
In 2009 the F-35 desired orders breakdown stood as follows:
USAF (F-35A) - 1736 (including 480 for ANG duty)
USMC (F-35B) - 398
USN (F-35C) - 282
The USN buy doesn't look impressive enough to be the "key".
Originally posted by jensy
I suppose you could argue that the air-force has a number of different options open to it for future aircraft, whereas the USN is a little more constrained when it comes to what airframes they can select. Making the F-35c 'key' to US defense procurement.
Fundamentally though what we are seeing is the pure stupidity of trying to build an entire airforce out of one aircraft, it never worked in the past (F-111) and is unlikely to do so until we see truly adaptable modular airframes.
The Americans are free to do whatever they like on this project, but from a cash-strapped British perspective we should be looking elsewhere, for both Tornado replacements and for carrier borne aircraft.
Jensy
Originally posted by Aim64C
The F-35 has all the hallmarks of the same type of thinking.
The contractors, in effect, are handed something like this: "Build us a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon, has 500 horsepower, a light body, all-wheel drive, crash tolerance with few crumple zones, a truck-bed, 3 kilowatt electrical distribution system, a hatch-back design, GPS navigational systems, an insulated trunk, 800-mile range, a 2-gallon gas tank, total seating for 13.2, a 1 kw audio system, and a design that limits driver distractions."
Then, the public accuses them of 'misuse of public funding.'
At the end of the day - the contractors don't really make money until they are awarded a production contract. They have as much of their own money tied up in developing these M.C. Escher contracts as anyone else, most of the time.
Though I suppose one could question the ethics of attempting to build something that is known to be literally impossible....