Why do current military aircraft designs lack important features?

Reading through some of these posts, I see that there are many well informed folks posting here, including some that have used the equipment on the front lines.

I was reading the post about the VF-22 (Osprey) and a question came to mind. Why do new airframes come into service missing what I would think are important features. The Osprey does not have an advanced weather radar? Does this mean it cannot operate in less than ideal weather? It seems to me that would be something that should have been included from the beginning. I thought one key advantage the US Military had over our potential enemies was it's ability to operate in all weather. Do budget constraints dictate leaving out systems like that? Seems rather short sighted. It's gotta be cheaper to do it right the first time rather than retrofit the equipment after the fact.

Originally posted by Redfish
Reading through some of these posts, I see that there are many well informed folks posting here, including some that have used the equipment on the front lines.

I was reading the post about the VF-22 (Osprey) and a question came to mind. Why do new airframes come into service missing what I would think are important features. The Osprey does not have an advanced weather radar? Does this mean it cannot operate in less than ideal weather? It seems to me that would be something that should have been included from the beginning. I thought one key advantage the US Military had over our potential enemies was it's ability to operate in all weather.

Completely agree that is a huge advantage and one that is needed. The next point is where you miss the bulls eye by a hair.

Do budget constraints dictate leaving out systems like that? Seems rather short sighted. It's gotta be cheaper to do it right the first time rather than retrofit the equipment after the fact.

The budget is a problem and you would see things implemented faster but you do need a test period which the V-22 is in right now. In fact I'd be surpised if the advanced radar wasn't in the plane in under a year. Whats not easier or cheaper is installing a radar that will fail in all production aircraft due to not properly being tested. tech its not retrofitting its the intial fitting at the time that is proper due to the need for testing in the way the system is set up. other examples is the F-22 testing and F-35 testing and the expanding of the envelope in tech as it is finished testing. If you did start producing plane until everything had been tested would save some money but create problems in speed the of feilding the plane and job creation etc.

The title of your psot is a bit misleading but I understood it once i read your discription. Its the fact that its lacking in the planes coming off the production line. Even possibly being fielded with out the tech and the tech not coming till 3 years later.

Originally posted by Canada_EH

The budget is a problem and you would see things implemented faster but you do need a test period which the V-22 is in right now. In fact I'd be surpised if the advanced radar wasn't in the plane in under a year. Whats not easier or cheaper is installing a radar that will fail in all production aircraft due to not properly being tested. tech its not retrofitting its the intial fitting at the time that is proper due to the need for testing in the way the system is set up. other examples is the F-22 testing and F-35 testing and the expanding of the envelope in tech as it is finished testing. If you did start producing plane until everything had been tested would save some money but create problems in speed the of feilding the plane and job creation etc.

That makes sense. I didn't think in terms of developing systems independently. I picture the entire sum of the aircraft as one system, when it is really lots of independant systems operating (hopefully) in harmony.

The Osprey was just an example, though. It seems like the shortcomings of the new tech system (whether they are air, land or sea based) get the most attention. I know the military excells at making the equipment they are given work in ways designers never thought of.

(Edit for spelling)

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Redfish]

As you have touched on, the majority of efforts being made in recent times are joint efforts. Theoretically, you can have a greater aircraft if you build it using each part from the are of expertise that it comes from. However, the problem lies in just that. This gives the company holding that technology a huge advantage when it comes to the latter stages of development. They sort of, 'hold all the cards', if you want to put it that way and can delay many parts of production.
So, there are instances that aircraft are flight capable to some degree and war ready to some degree but not in the optimum condition as planned. This may be the case with the Osprey, and since other aircrat can perform the role as well, I would assume they are going ahead as best they can to get some sorties in and see how things go. The planned radars and so on will come online eventually, but it
s sort of like thrying to think about draining the swamp when you are up to your neck in alligators.

Redfish,
You also mention aircraft being developed that are lacking key components! Other than a major flaw in thinking in Vietnam with the F 4, could you elaborate on what you think may be missing in certain aircraft?? Keep in mind that what may seem necessary to you may be old skool to current front line aircraft. The F 18 program that I was a part of had to let go of some of the old "reliable" technology to make room for the new. At the time, many scoffed at the ideas but in retrospect, good decisions were made.
Anyway, good thread.....Peace, Mondo

Originally posted by Redfish
That makes sense. I didn't think in terms of developing systems independently. I picture the entire sum of the aircraft as one system, when it is really lots of independant systems operating (hopefully) in harmony.
[edit on 5-4-2007 by Redfish]

Redfish,

If I could, I would like to expand on this though for you!

Today's Military aircraft are created as what are called Weapon Systems. The idea behind a weapon system is that all of these smaller peices are developed and tested. Once everything works, you begin to put it all together. Let me give you an example:

The F-15's replacement is a weapons system called the Advanced Tactical Fighter or ATF. Lockheed is building the ATF. Now you are probably saying the plane is the F-22, and you're right. However, The ATF is MORE then just the F-22. Here's all the Major parts of the Weapons System:

F-22 Airframe (basic airplane)
F-119 Turbofans (Engines)
APG-77 Radar
AIM-120C AMRAAM Missiles
AIM-9X Sidewinder Missiles
JDAM Smart Bombs

All of these things were developed on their own and later put together. However, if you take away any of these pieces the F-22 Raptor can't forfill it's mission.

Do you see what makes it a weapon system?

Tim

Originally posted by Mondogiwa

Redfish,
You also mention aircraft being developed that are lacking key components! Other than a major flaw in thinking in Vietnam with the F 4, could you elaborate on what you think may be missing in certain aircraft?? Keep in mind that what may seem necessary to you may be old skool to current front line aircraft. The F 18 program that I was a part of had to let go of some of the old "reliable" technology to make room for the new. At the time, many scoffed at the ideas but in retrospect, good decisions were made.
Anyway, good thread.....Peace, Mondo

A fantastic example, and one often misunderstood, is that of the Eurofighter which has come up recently in several threads on ATS.

The Eurofighter entered service initially as a block 1 standard - it had a set performance envelope, no ground attack, no real advanced radar systems, no really advanced weapon systems.

Block 2 and block 2B were introduced, each increasing the aircrafts performance and abilities - 2B added some interim ground attack ability.

Block 5 will be introduced later this year, adding expanded performance, better ground attack abilities and inter aircraft data communications.

Tranche 2 will come in 2009, and it will add the METEOR BVRAAM missile, the best BVR missile at the moment, and it will add the production standard ground attack systems which will greatly enhance the swing role capabilities of the aircraft.

Tranche 3 will again offer a series of incremental upgrades to the aircraft, resulting in the final 'full service capabilities' by the end of the first quarter of the 21st century.

Why do this?

Cost - its cheaper to incrementally improve something than go all out on brand new technologies and suffer the setbacks of doing so.

Availability - we get a high performance aircraft now, with improvements over the next 20 years.

Experience - rather than pilots being overwhelmed with all the capabilities of a new airframe, they get it in bursts - they gain experience, and they can use that experience to apply the new performance increases.

Basically, we get something now and it keeps getting better until we replace it. The aircrafts designed in this way so major modifications can be made to it at a later date if required.

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
Redfish,
You also mention aircraft being developed that are lacking key components! Other than a major flaw in thinking in Vietnam with the F 4, could you elaborate on what you think may be missing in certain aircraft?? Keep in mind that what may seem necessary to you may be old skool to current front line aircraft. The F 18 program that I was a part of had to let go of some of the old "reliable" technology to make room for the new. At the time, many scoffed at the ideas but in retrospect, good decisions were made.
Anyway, good thread.....Peace, Mondo

Just a little background on me, I am an admirer of aircraft, boats, ships, cars, pretty much anything mechanical. I have a pretty good understanding of cars. I’m no engineer, but I enjoy tinkering with my Mustang, making it faster. Anyway, suffice to say, I appreciate the time and effort that goes into engineering a piece of moving sculpture. I don't have the extensive background that many of you here have. I am more of sideline admirer.

At any rate, I think I probably put up a misleading title when I started this thread. What got the thought started in my head was an article that was linked in the thread that concerned the Osprey being a widow maker. It was originally posted by Canada EH:

www.navair.navy.mil...

I thought it was a thoughtfully written piece about the Osprey. In it, the writer discusses some of the potential shortcomings of the Osprey, lack of all weather operational ability, lack of defensive systems, etc. Those are more the “systems” I was thinking about. (Overall, it was positive about the Ospreys abilities, and pointed out that the men and women that operate it would make it a sucessful platform) In my mind, the US Military already has aircraft that are able to operate in any weather. Why not take the systems they use, and retrofit them to the Osprey. I think that is the shadetree mechanic in me. Obviously, you cannot have a Marine transport designed by Bubba Mouthbreather, mechanic extrodinaire.

In conclusion...I wasn't really pointing to a specific plane, or a specific system. It just seemed to me that there had to be some specific reasons why technologies were not blended together from the begining of an airframes conception.

maybe I just don't understand the technical details here so please forgive me,but I was under the impression that there is no need for advance radar on the plane because we use satilites to send realtime weather data to the planes.

I also am interested in the Eurofighter as I love this aircraft but has it intered service yet? and If not when it does would it not be technologicaly behind at this point?

oops I see someone stated it has entered service.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by CaptGizmo]