[ARCHIVED THREAD] - F35 problems. Again. (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/2/2011 4:06:36 PM EDT
|
A top Pentagon official is calling for a production slowdown for the costly F-35 fighter jet after fatigue testing exposed potential cracks in the design.
In an interview with AOL Defense, U.S. Navy Vice Adm. David Venlet said it would be "wise to sort of temper production" of Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter, calling initial assumptions about the design a "miscalculation." Venlet said early tests revealed that parts would need to be replaced and redesigned, adding several million dollars to the cost of planes that already carry a $111 million price tag on average. "The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," he told AOL Defense, adding that the fatigue spots are tough to get at, meaning "the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs." He said the upgrades aren't necessary for safety but are important to ensure the jets last longer. He said early tests performed after discovering a crack in one F-35 type showed other spots that could. "The question for me is not: 'F-35 or not?'" Venlet told AOL Defense. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/02/pentagon-reportedly-calls-for-f-35-production-slowdown-after-cracks-found/ C |
|
Quoted:
Cracks in the design? How can a design have cracks?  When aluminum flexes over long periods it develops stress cracks. If something isn't engineered properly (like the nice aluminum frame all modern jets are made of) then it will develop stress cracks much sooner. Usually aircraft parts have a lifetime like 5000 hours for X part and 2000 for Y part. They're saying this engineering fault will cause the lifespan - of whatever part they pooched the design of - to be severely decreased.... What a fucking joke this thing has become. |
|
Quoted:
The saying is: "aluminum can't take the cycles". Aluminum can take the cycles, if management hasn't been breathing down the engineers necks about weight for the better part of a decade, because some genius decided that one "version" of this aircraft needs to be able to operate vertically. Think back on history. The most successful combat aircraft have been the simplest. As a matter of fact, designing the aircraft to be supremely good at one single thing has produced some of the finest multirole aircraft this country has ever purchased. (F4U Corsair, F-100 Super Sabre, F-4 Phantom, F-15 Eagle/Strike Eagle, F-14 Tomcat, F-16 Viper, etc etc.) They were all designed for one goal: Shoot down other aircraft. The results were such uniformly excellent aircraft, that they were then successfully adapted to other roles. Designing a do-it-all-for-everyone was a mistake, and the taxpayer is going to pay for it. |
| Hours before the first flight of the 787, Boeing discovered there was zero structural margin in the wing structure. First flight was delayed six months while they scabbed on a structural fix. Offhand, I'd say Boeing's problems were a little more egregious than Lockheed's. |
|
Quoted: Who wants to bet it was initially designed correctly, but some beancounter changed the process to save $100? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Redesigned several years back for weight reduction. I've been to Alcoa's plant where they forge the big F-35 bulkheads... pretty impressive process. |
|
Quoted: Cracks in the design? How can a design have cracks? Everything tends to wear out with time and use. When you buy a car do you expect it work perfectly forever without needing to ever replace the tires or the brakes or parts which wear out and get damaged from use? Aircraft are no different. Things get worn out from use and testing like what is described in the article help people discover current or future problems with all kinds of different equipment and materials.
|
|
Quoted:
Already? What a farce. This is on one of the dedicated fatigue test assets. This thing is fully instrumented and sits in a building while it undergoes flexing for thousands of hours to replicate the design life, and then beyond design life. As with F-22, production aircraft are rolling out the door and into flight testing before these tests are completed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Already? What a farce. This is on one of the dedicated fatigue test assets. This thing is fully instrumented and sits in a building while it undergoes flexing for thousands of hours to replicate the design life, and then beyond design life. As with F-22, production aircraft are rolling out the door and into flight testing before these tests are completed. Thank you for the clarification. |
|
Quoted: How in the blue fuck did we go from being able to lay out the entire Century Series, KC-135, and B-47, and B-52, in a matter of years but have been stalled on the last decades' projects for the better part of, well, a damned decade? Because the military keeps changing specifications in the middle of the project AND Congress keeps making their own changes, combined with the idiocy of trying to make the three different airframes 80% compatible across three different missions AND trying to include as many international suppliers as possible... Remember, an elephant is a mouse designed by government committee. |
|
We paid out to foreign nations in 2009 $47.7 BILLION Dollars in total.
In 2010 we paid out $1.4 BILLION to 16 nations that held at least $10 BILLION in US Treasury securities. Including $27.2 Million to China (WTF are we giving China money for?), $25 Million to Brazil, $71.5 Million to Russia (even after they invaded Georgia and fight us in the UN on Iran), $126 Million to India (Mother of God), $316.7 Million to Mexico (yeah, it's doing them a lot of good), and $255.7 MILLION to Egypt.
Cut Foreign Aid to at least the nations that don't need it and we'll have more than enough to buy the F-35s we need with their upgrades. |
|
Quoted:
Pretty much every major procurement project in the past couple of decades has been fucked up. If it seemed to be going well, it got cancelled. Something's seriously wrong. When you have to design and build something using hundreds of subcontractors to appease those in Congress so that you can afford to design and build anything at all you get a lot of problems. In a true free market system where you didn't have to help Congressmen and Senators bring home bacon you could probably build these aircraft in half the time at half the price. |
|
Seems like it was stupid to cancel the F22 after only 160 something aircraft when we had the airframe in production, and had already sunk all of the the R&D costs. It would've probably been cheaper to engineer a F22B designed for ground attack (something like a super F15E) instead of sinking so much more money in the F35. Plus the F22 is supposedly much better than the F35 in an air superiority role.
Hell the F22 could probably be adapted for carrier use cheaper than all the money they are spending on the F35C model. |
|
Quoted: Pretty much every major procurement project in the past couple of decades has been fucked up. If it seemed to be going well, it got cancelled. Something's seriously wrong. Two problems: People at the Pentagon who believe in magic and don't realize you can't cram 5 missions into one vehicle. People in industry (Boeing/Lockheed/etc) who know that if they can make it mostly work, then once the gov't procures all the parts common between airframes, they'll be so fucking stuck with the design and so invested in inventory, that no alternative will ever look affordable. |
|
Quoted:
How in the blue fuck did we go from being able to lay out the entire Century Series, KC-135, and B-47, and B-52, in a matter of years but have been stalled on the last decades' projects for the better part of, well, a damned decade? It's obvious you don't know the differences between the different B-52 variants and you probably know nothing about the issues with the "tall tail" B-52's. Same goes for the KC-135 A-B-E-R models and why at one the USAF had the largest fleet of Boeing 707's. The differences in the metal that the C-130A was made of vs the C-130 B-E-H-J planes. Read up on the century series of aircraft, there were a couple of real "winners" in that series and it took a couple of years to iron out the bugs. If the .mil and .gov had said "Let's buy the USAF 500 new F-15E's and buy the USMC 250 new Super Hornets" then the could have spent the time and effort developing the Naval version of the F-35 instead of doing three at once. Then they could have built upon the knowledge gained from the first variant and it would have been that much easier to develop the other two. |
|
Quoted:
Seems like it was stupid to cancel the F22 after only 160 something aircraft when we had the airframe in production, and had already sunk all of the the R&D costs. It would've probably been cheaper to engineer a F22B designed for ground attack (something like a super F15E) instead of sinking so much more money in the F35. Plus the F22 is supposedly much better than the F35 in an air superiority role. Hell the F22 could probably be adapted for carrier use cheaper than all the money they are spending on the F35C model. No, the F-22 cannot be adapted for carrier use. Lockheed submitted a proposal for an carrier variant of the F-22, but it was a very, very different platform. The keel stresses on a carrier based aircraft are tremendous. The F-22 has an arresting hook that looks a lot like a carrier hook, but it's only designed to prevent the aircraft from running off the end of the runway in the event of brake failure. The F-22 and F-35 are optimized for two different roles, and you really do need both. USAF, et al, were very deliberate in their ATF and JSF specifications. The F-35 is purpose built for ground targeting. It has amazing IR ground targeting abilities. Ironically enough, this type of system was first slated for the F-22 platform. There were provisions to offer this type of system on F-22s once production exceeded 300-something. The F-35 is a good aircraft. Sure, it can't do everything the F-22 can do, but the F-22 can't do everything the F-35 can do. This was a deliberate government specification, dictated by physics. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How in the blue fuck did we go from being able to lay out the entire Century Series, KC-135, and B-47, and B-52, in a matter of years but have been stalled on the last decades' projects for the better part of, well, a damned decade? It's obvious you don't know the differences between the different B-52 variants and you probably know nothing about the issues with the "tall tail" B-52's. Same goes for the KC-135 A-B-E-R models and why at one the USAF had the largest fleet of Boeing 707's. The differences in the metal that the C-130A was made of vs the C-130 B-E-H-J planes. Read up on the century series of aircraft, there were a couple of real "winners" in that series and it took a couple of years to iron out the bugs. If the .mil and .gov had said "Let's buy the USAF 500 new F-15E's and buy the USMC 250 new Super Hornets" then the could have spent the time and effort developing the Naval version of the F-35 instead of doing three at once. Then they could have built upon the knowledge gained from the first variant and it would have been that much easier to develop the other two. You derived all that from my anecdotal comparison? You must have the ESPN. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like it was stupid to cancel the F22 after only 160 something aircraft when we had the airframe in production, and had already sunk all of the the R&D costs. It would've probably been cheaper to engineer a F22B designed for ground attack (something like a super F15E) instead of sinking so much more money in the F35. Plus the F22 is supposedly much better than the F35 in an air superiority role. Hell the F22 could probably be adapted for carrier use cheaper than all the money they are spending on the F35C model. No, the F-22 cannot be adapted for carrier use. Lockheed submitted a proposal for an carrier variant of the F-22, but it was a very, very different platform. The keel stresses on a carrier based aircraft are tremendous. The F-22 has an arresting hook that looks a lot like a carrier hook, but it's only designed to prevent the aircraft from running off the end of the runway in the event of brake failure. The F-22 and F-35 are optimized for two different roles, and you really do need both. USAF, et al, were very deliberate in their ATF and JSF specifications. The F-35 is purpose built for ground targeting. It has amazing IR ground targeting abilities. Ironically enough, this type of system was first slated for the F-22 platform. There were provisions to offer this type of system on F-22s once production exceeded 300-something. The F-35 is a good aircraft. Sure, it can't do everything the F-22 can do, but the F-22 can't do everything the F-35 can do. This was a deliberate government specification, dictated by physics. Aside from B/C, what can the 35 do that the 22 can't? |
|
Quoted:
You derived all that from my anecdotal comparison? You must have the ESPN. No, you made an ignorant post, I provided you with information so you could do some research on your own to come to an understanding as to why your post was ignorant. You made the choice to ignore the information that was provided and instead make some "cutesy" remark instead. |
|
And this is why the 'JSF" concept is retarded.....
There is nothing wrong with the AV-8B platform for USMC needs. You cannot do CAS at Mach 1. The AV-8BII+ introduced all kinds of problems for Power Plants (engines not even making 500HRS vs the 1K they were 'supposed' to make), Airframes (blast shields cracking early, structural members aft of the engine cracking, skin cracks aft of the engine) ,and AVI (the introduction of the AGP-65 radar that wasn't fully functional for quite a while due to various software issues). Should have just bought more -8B's. |
|
Quoted:
Hours before the first flight of the 787, Boeing discovered there was zero structural margin in the wing structure. First flight was delayed six months while they scabbed on a structural fix. Offhand, I'd say Boeing's problems were a little more egregious than Lockheed's. Wing carry through structure. In 20 years, the 787's problems will be dimissed as the growing pains of taking a big risk. I will disagree with that opinion then, too. The F-35 is complicated by designing three diffferent airplanes that look similar externally. I'll bet the F-35C and F-35A have different fatigue life requirements, beyond the obvious for landing gear and backup structure, and not only that, but different acceptable methods. Here's an example. The USN allows a cold work benefit for bull nose hi-locks installed into a class 2 hole in metallic structure. The USAF does not allow that benefit. Then, there are differences in the fatigue spectra, which means everything. Different philosophies on intial crack size, crack intiation life, and crack growth life are more complications that separate the design of each airplane. Requirements for analysis also differ, although some companies have an over riding internal policy that is sufficiently conservative to cover both - an example is using a scatter factor of 2 on life during sizing of critical components that will be tested, and a scatter factor of 4 on life for components that won't be tested. These uncertainty factors are required due to our poor overall ability to accurately predict the actual fatigue life of parts, and especially, joints. I don't whether LM uses a similar philosophy. You might be able to imagine that this imposes a weigth penalty on VSTOL and carrier airplanes, which seriously impacts nozzle born flight in the first case, and wing area for acceptable landing speed in the second. High performance airplanes don't play well with "joint" or "all around". It's a "pick two" kind of thing. |
|
Quoted:
And this is why the 'JSF" concept is retarded..... There is nothing wrong with the AV-8B platform for USMC needs. You cannot do CAS at Mach 1. The AV-8BII+ introduced all kinds of problems for Power Plants (engines not even making 500HRS vs the 1K they were 'supposed' to make), Airframes (blast shields cracking early, structural members aft of the engine cracking, skin cracks aft of the engine) ,and AVI (the introduction of the AGP-65 radar that wasn't fully functional for quite a while due to various software issues). Should have just bought more -8B's. They just did. We’ve all seen the news that emerged on Sunday saying that the Marines are close to buying 70 of Britain’s freshly retired Gr7/9 Harrier jump jets to keep the USMC Harrier fleet flying into the 2020s. This comes a few months after it was revealed that the Corps is slated to purchase about 80 F-35C carrier variant Joint Strike Fighters. This is clearly a hedge against delays with the F-35 program. The Marines have been all in on the JSF for years, saying that it was the future of Marine Corps tacair and that there is no plan B. Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/11/14/the-marines-new-harriers-and-the-f-35b/#ixzz1fa1BWnFc Defense.org |
|
Quoted:
That's what *testing* is for. These things don't come off the drawing board ready for an IOC date two months after the first pre-production prototype rolls out of the company hanger. Too bad they cut back on the flight test program. Still we're finding problems, even with a significantly reduced flight test regime. Somehow though, we're supposed to think this thing is worth the money. |
|
Quoted:
How in the blue fuck did we go from being able to lay out the entire Century Series, KC-135, and B-47, and B-52, in a matter of years but have been stalled on the last decades' projects for the better part of, well, a damned decade? Decreasing defense budgets in the 90s led to a reduction of defense contractors. It started before that, of course, but the net effect is we have too few defense contractors. In order to maintain the industrial base we have went from fielding viable weapons systems to corporate welfare. Congress happily goes along with it, as long as a widget or two is produce in their districts and the money keeps flowing. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Seems like it was stupid to cancel the F22 after only 160 something aircraft when we had the airframe in production, and had already sunk all of the the R&D costs. It would've probably been cheaper to engineer a F22B designed for ground attack (something like a super F15E) instead of sinking so much more money in the F35. Plus the F22 is supposedly much better than the F35 in an air superiority role. Hell the F22 could probably be adapted for carrier use cheaper than all the money they are spending on the F35C model. No, the F-22 cannot be adapted for carrier use. Lockheed submitted a proposal for an carrier variant of the F-22, but it was a very, very different platform. The keel stresses on a carrier based aircraft are tremendous. The F-22 has an arresting hook that looks a lot like a carrier hook, but it's only designed to prevent the aircraft from running off the end of the runway in the event of brake failure. The F-22 and F-35 are optimized for two different roles, and you really do need both. USAF, et al, were very deliberate in their ATF and JSF specifications. The F-35 is purpose built for ground targeting. It has amazing IR ground targeting abilities. Ironically enough, this type of system was first slated for the F-22 platform. There were provisions to offer this type of system on F-22s once production exceeded 300-something. The F-35 is a good aircraft. Sure, it can't do everything the F-22 can do, but the F-22 can't do everything the F-35 can do. This was a deliberate government specification, dictated by physics. Aside from B/C, what can the 35 do that the 22 can't? It doesn't have a FLIR/EO targeting sensor, to do optical targeting of ground targets. It can still drop JDAMs and SDBs though. Other than that and the very slightly larger weapon bay of the -35 that's about it. |
|
Quoted:
We paid out to foreign nations in 2009 $47.7 BILLION Dollars in total. In 2010 we paid out $1.4 BILLION to 16 nations that held at least $10 BILLION in US Treasury securities. Including $27.2 Million to China (WTF are we giving China money for?), $25 Million to Brazil, $71.5 Million to Russia (even after they invaded Georgia and fight us in the UN on Iran), $126 Million to India (Mother of God), $316.7 Million to Mexico (yeah, it's doing them a lot of good), and $255.7 MILLION to Egypt.
Cut Foreign Aid to at least the nations that don't need it and we'll have more than enough to buy the F-35s we need with their upgrades. So how long have you worked for Lockheed Martin? Foreign aid isn't the problem. Lack of competition, changing design requirements, and Congressional pork are the problems. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like it was stupid to cancel the F22 after only 160 something aircraft when we had the airframe in production, and had already sunk all of the the R&D costs. It would've probably been cheaper to engineer a F22B designed for ground attack (something like a super F15E) instead of sinking so much more money in the F35. Plus the F22 is supposedly much better than the F35 in an air superiority role. Hell the F22 could probably be adapted for carrier use cheaper than all the money they are spending on the F35C model. No, the F-22 cannot be adapted for carrier use. Lockheed submitted a proposal for an carrier variant of the F-22, but it was a very, very different platform. The keel stresses on a carrier based aircraft are tremendous. The F-22 has an arresting hook that looks a lot like a carrier hook, but it's only designed to prevent the aircraft from running off the end of the runway in the event of brake failure. The F-22 and F-35 are optimized for two different roles, and you really do need both. USAF, et al, were very deliberate in their ATF and JSF specifications. The F-35 is purpose built for ground targeting. It has amazing IR ground targeting abilities. Ironically enough, this type of system was first slated for the F-22 platform. There were provisions to offer this type of system on F-22s once production exceeded 300-something. The F-35 is a good aircraft. Sure, it can't do everything the F-22 can do, but the F-22 can't do everything the F-35 can do. This was a deliberate government specification, dictated by physics. Aside from B/C, what can the 35 do that the 22 can't? It doesn't have a FLIR/EO targeting sensor, to do optical targeting of ground targets. It can still drop JDAMs and SDBs though. Other than that and the very slightly larger weapon bay of the -35 that's about it. Correct. And, to a greater point, thats a pod away for the F22. And in the deliberate planning cycles of the air battle and strike packages, 90% of targets are going to be pre-identified. Or dynamic targeting can be done with UAVs. Lets flip it now. What can the 22 do that the 35 can't (other than crash unexpectadly for no reason). 22 has, in theory, all axis stealth. 35 doesn't. 35 can't go down town against real threats. Because multi-spectral all axis radar networks is what our enemies are going to do to us. and the 35 would be helpless in that environment. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Seems like it was stupid to cancel the F22 after only 160 something aircraft when we had the airframe in production, and had already sunk all of the the R&D costs. It would've probably been cheaper to engineer a F22B designed for ground attack (something like a super F15E) instead of sinking so much more money in the F35. Plus the F22 is supposedly much better than the F35 in an air superiority role. Hell the F22 could probably be adapted for carrier use cheaper than all the money they are spending on the F35C model. No, the F-22 cannot be adapted for carrier use. Lockheed submitted a proposal for an carrier variant of the F-22, but it was a very, very different platform. The keel stresses on a carrier based aircraft are tremendous. The F-22 has an arresting hook that looks a lot like a carrier hook, but it's only designed to prevent the aircraft from running off the end of the runway in the event of brake failure. The F-22 and F-35 are optimized for two different roles, and you really do need both. USAF, et al, were very deliberate in their ATF and JSF specifications. The F-35 is purpose built for ground targeting. It has amazing IR ground targeting abilities. Ironically enough, this type of system was first slated for the F-22 platform. There were provisions to offer this type of system on F-22s once production exceeded 300-something. The F-35 is a good aircraft. Sure, it can't do everything the F-22 can do, but the F-22 can't do everything the F-35 can do. This was a deliberate government specification, dictated by physics. Aside from B/C, what can the 35 do that the 22 can't? It doesn't have a FLIR/EO targeting sensor, to do optical targeting of ground targets. It can still drop JDAMs and SDBs though. Other than that and the very slightly larger weapon bay of the -35 that's about it. Correct. And, to a greater point, thats a pod away for the F22. And in the deliberate planning cycles of the air battle and strike packages, 90% of targets are going to be pre-identified. Or dynamic targeting can be done with UAVs. Lets flip it now. What can the 22 do that the 35 can't (other than crash unexpectadly for no reason). 22 has, in theory, all axis stealth. 35 doesn't. 35 can't go down town against real threats. Because multi-spectral all axis radar networks is what our enemies are going to do to us. and the 35 would be helpless in that environment. The -22 is much faster, can cruise at least 15-20K higher, has an AESA radar that is larger and much more powerful, carries more air-to-air weapons, and if or when it experiences an engine failure, it can return to base. The -35 is stealthy enough, nobody is really expecting the same level of stealth for day two of the war as for day one from either platform. ETA: Also unlike the F-35B/C the A and the F-22 both have a gun. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like it was stupid to cancel the F22 after only 160 something aircraft when we had the airframe in production, and had already sunk all of the the R&D costs. It would've probably been cheaper to engineer a F22B designed for ground attack (something like a super F15E) instead of sinking so much more money in the F35. Plus the F22 is supposedly much better than the F35 in an air superiority role. Hell the F22 could probably be adapted for carrier use cheaper than all the money they are spending on the F35C model. No, the F-22 cannot be adapted for carrier use. Lockheed submitted a proposal for an carrier variant of the F-22, but it was a very, very different platform. The keel stresses on a carrier based aircraft are tremendous. The F-22 has an arresting hook that looks a lot like a carrier hook, but it's only designed to prevent the aircraft from running off the end of the runway in the event of brake failure. The F-22 and F-35 are optimized for two different roles, and you really do need both. USAF, et al, were very deliberate in their ATF and JSF specifications. The F-35 is purpose built for ground targeting. It has amazing IR ground targeting abilities. Ironically enough, this type of system was first slated for the F-22 platform. There were provisions to offer this type of system on F-22s once production exceeded 300-something. The F-35 is a good aircraft. Sure, it can't do everything the F-22 can do, but the F-22 can't do everything the F-35 can do. This was a deliberate government specification, dictated by physics. Aside from B/C, what can the 35 do that the 22 can't? It doesn't have a FLIR/EO targeting sensor, to do optical targeting of ground targets. It can still drop JDAMs and SDBs though. Other than that and the very slightly larger weapon bay of the -35 that's about it. Correct. And, to a greater point, thats a pod away for the F22. And in the deliberate planning cycles of the air battle and strike packages, 90% of targets are going to be pre-identified. Or dynamic targeting can be done with UAVs. Lets flip it now. What can the 22 do that the 35 can't (other than crash unexpectadly for no reason). 22 has, in theory, all axis stealth. 35 doesn't. 35 can't go down town against real threats. Because multi-spectral all axis radar networks is what our enemies are going to do to us. and the 35 would be helpless in that environment. The -22 is much faster, can cruise at least 15-20K higher, has an AESA radar that is larger and much more powerful, carries more air-to-air weapons, and if or when it experiences an engine failure, it can return to base. The -35 is stealthy enough, nobody is really expecting the same level of stealth for day two of the war as for day one from either platform. ETA: Also unlike the F-35B/C the A and the F-22 both have a gun. if the f35 is a day 3 bird, then we already have that in the f16. 117 rounds of 25 mm isn't a gun, its a fig leaf (and, frankly a waste of fuel and weight). should have used that for more internal tankage. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That Harrier purchase from the UK was brilliant. Brilliant born out of near desparation for spares is probably closer. As they say necessity is the mother of invention. Didnt the UK dump a ton of money into their Harriers right up to when they killed them off? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That Harrier purchase from the UK was brilliant. Brilliant born out of near desparation for spares is probably closer. As they say necessity is the mother of invention. A pretty good way to operate. On the topic of F-35's and F-22's; I'm really tired of reading all the posts here that try to compare airplanes with two marks and (four) disparate missions. It's no different than comparing battleships to cruisers. They aren't intended to do the same missions, and they can't do the same missions. The costs are all fucked up due to other reasons. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How in the blue fuck did we go from being able to lay out the entire Century Series, KC-135, and B-47, and B-52, in a matter of years but have been stalled on the last decades' projects for the better part of, well, a damned decade? It's obvious you don't know the differences between the different B-52 variants and you probably know nothing about the issues with the "tall tail" B-52's. Same goes for the KC-135 A-B-E-R models and why at one the USAF had the largest fleet of Boeing 707's. The differences in the metal that the C-130A was made of vs the C-130 B-E-H-J planes. Read up on the century series of aircraft, there were a couple of real "winners" in that series and it took a couple of years to iron out the bugs. If the .mil and .gov had said "Let's buy the USAF 500 new F-15E's and buy the USMC 250 new Super Hornets" then the could have spent the time and effort developing the Naval version of the F-35 instead of doing three at once. Then they could have built upon the knowledge gained from the first variant and it would have been that much easier to develop the other two. So what was the issues with b52s and what was the all tail version? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That Harrier purchase from the UK was brilliant. Brilliant born out of near desparation for spares is probably closer. As they say necessity is the mother of invention. A pretty good way to operate. On the topic of F-35's and F-22's; I'm really tired of reading all the posts here that try to compare airplanes with two marks and (four) disparate missions. It's no different than comparing battleships to cruisers. They aren't intended to do the same missions, and they can't do the same missions. The costs are all fucked up due to other reasons. outstanding example. Guess why we don't have both anymore? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How in the blue fuck did we go from being able to lay out the entire Century Series, KC-135, and B-47, and B-52, in a matter of years but have been stalled on the last decades' projects for the better part of, well, a damned decade? It's obvious you don't know the differences between the different B-52 variants and you probably know nothing about the issues with the "tall tail" B-52's. Same goes for the KC-135 A-B-E-R models and why at one the USAF had the largest fleet of Boeing 707's. The differences in the metal that the C-130A was made of vs the C-130 B-E-H-J planes. Read up on the century series of aircraft, there were a couple of real "winners" in that series and it took a couple of years to iron out the bugs. If the .mil and .gov had said "Let's buy the USAF 500 new F-15E's and buy the USMC 250 new Super Hornets" then the could have spent the time and effort developing the Naval version of the F-35 instead of doing three at once. Then they could have built upon the knowledge gained from the first variant and it would have been that much easier to develop the other two. So what was the issues with b52s and what was the all tail version? back fell off. |