Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

armed-services.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 173 posts

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#141

Post by sneal »

stcredzero wrote: post #129
johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

> A. C. Clarke _Superiority_ This fits the Tiger Tank vs. T-33 in WWII. The T-33 had very good firepower and armor. The Tiger was superior in both those regards. However, the T-33 could be more easily produced, dealt better with Russia's muddy seasons and winters, and was far cheaper to maintain.

I think you meant the T34, the second most produced tank in history.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#142

Post by CamperBob2 »

johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

True. At this point they might as well build a Space Shuttle with guns.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#143

Post by toyg »

KineticLensman wrote: post #106
gaius wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar And an X-wing could take out an F-35, I mean, if we're talking complete hypotheticals. The Harrier is battle-proven everywhere from the Falklands to Afghanistan. Marry it up with modern radar and air-to-air missiles and you will have a very capable platform - one that the F-35 - if it ever flies in combat - which it won't because no-one will risk those mind-bogglingl…

>> The Harrier is battle-proven everywhere from the Falklands to Afghanistan This doesn't translate into a tactical capability today: Falklands: Harriers fighting Mirage III, which were 20 years old, 34 years ago. Afghanistan: dropping dumb bombs on adversaries who didn't have a SAM capability

Isn't that the point, though? Who are these jets going to fight -- pretty much any realistic hypothesis of conflict today would consist of asymmetrical warfare, especially if waged by the US or US allies. Asymmetrical warfare with existing weaponry, let alone next-generation planes. The only scenario where the US would face significant resistance is vs China or Russia, where planes wouldn't even get the chance to take off before Midnight is upon us.

Given the situation, it would make more sense to invest in something cheaper that will do the job just as well.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#144

Post by Retra »

russell wrote: post #108
sickbeard wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Army: We need 3 different planes Government: Why not build one plane that can do 3 things? it will be cheaper. ... it turns out it isn't.

Hah! The army is the only service not getting one, unless there is a helicopter variant in there somewhere.

Is it too late to add helicopter capability?

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#145

Post by bdowling »

sharpy wrote: post #114
prodmerc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsurprisingly, it's already divided into three different aircraft - F-35A, F-35B, F-35C. They were supposed to be 70% common, but that's simply not achievable so the differences are quite a bit larger.

I always felt that F-35B at least should have been its own design. As for A & C, there have been successful examples of naval aircraft being used by air forces too - such as F-4, and F/A-18. But trying to have a design that is also STOVL capable?

It is my understanding that the biggest problem with the naval version is that it has only one engine. The F-4 and F/A-18 were both twin engine planes and if one engine failed or was damaged, the plane could still fly and the pilot could land on the aircraft carrier and save the plane. With the F-35C, if the engine is damaged far from the carrier, the pilot will probably have to eject and be rescued. In that case, even if cost is no object there is the inconvenience of going to rescue the pilot and being short one airframe. I also remember reading somewhere that the repair bays on an aircraft carrier can swap an engine in an F/A-18 in just a few hours.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#146

Post by tomohawk »

hga wrote: post #15
johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project Or an example of how we don't learn from history, for the same exact thing happened with the '60s TFX, except the F-35 substitutes S/VTOL for air superiority. 5 models of it were planned, two for the Navy, all but what ended up as the F-111 were canceled, and we resumed building focused planes like the F-14 through F-16, and the A-10 I…

My dad was a fighter pilot in the USAF at the time the F-111 was supposed to come out. It was late, so he ended up flying the F-100.

McNamara was the genius pushing the F-111. Also the genius behind the Ford Edsel. When he came to visit the base one time, one of the NCOs who was near retirement had an Edsel painted in the camo pattern specified for the F-111. It was parked within clear view so that McNamara could see it when he disembarked from his plane. He was pretty steamed.

That's about what airmen thought of the F-111 and McNamara at the time.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#147

Post by engi_nerd »

stcredzero wrote: post #126
neurotech1 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAND didn't mention the commonality between the F/A-18A and the F-117A aircraft. McDonnell-Douglas significantly upgraded the YF-17 mission systems and cockpit avionics for the F/A-18A/B and it was more advanced than the F-16A version at the time. The F-117A basically used the same mission avionics and engines as the F/A-18 which was a few years ahead in development. Having inter-service commonality in major systems…

Avionics and engines can be treated in a modular fashion. Airframes cannot, and that's probably the biggest sin of the F-35.

I'd say that calling the lack of modularity an outright sin glosses over the engineering reality behind why the F-35 variants aren't as common with each other as initially planned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY

Here's Jon Beesley, the pilot who did first flight in the F-35, along with quite a bit of the early air worthiness work. He is discussing the weight reduction efforts associated with what was called SWAT, STOVL Weight ATtack.

Originally the three F-35 variants were supposed to have about 75% of their structures as either common (identical) or "cousin" (largely the same but with some minor differences) parts. In other words, the F-35 was supposed to be modular. Unfortunately, this made all three variants overweight. This matters most for the F-35B, where extra airframe weight directly reduces bring-back weight and cuts into the performance margins of STOVL flight.

Starting at 2:15, he discusses the modularity issue directly (with a bonus discussion on scope creep!) "Holes are really heavy." For every hole, you must have a more robust structure around that hole to maintain overall structural integrity. A modular aircraft meant a heavier aircraft, so heavy that the F-35 was in great danger of being too heavy, missing a key performance parameter for the contract. Eliminating the modularity was the way to make the F-35 meet this performance parameter.

It's all about engineering tradeoffs.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#148

Post by engi_nerd »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #130
engi_nerd wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's almost irrelevant. The point is, the computational power on even a 5th generation fighter is much less than a flagship smartphone. Which is fine, because defense acquisition is on a completely different timescale than a typical consumer electronic product.

I agree with your overall point but not smartphone part. The systems I'm seeing certified for DO178C, etc and defense are usually PowerPC boards with 1-2 cores. PPC always smashed ARM back in the day. So, some are probably better than most smartphones. Just not the highest-end. Which is fine because you're right: they don't need them. I'll add the older nodes were more reliable, too, as it was trivial to get chips to…

My point was that how much more or less powerful the avionics in a modern fighter are as compared to a modern smartphone is irrelevant. What matters is the ability to accomplish the mission in a robust and fault-tolerant matter.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#149

Post by nickpsecurity »

engi_nerd wrote: post #148
nickpsecurity wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your overall point but not smartphone part. The systems I'm seeing certified for DO178C, etc and defense are usually PowerPC boards with 1-2 cores. PPC always smashed ARM back in the day. So, some are probably better than most smartphones. Just not the highest-end. Which is fine because you're right: they don't need them. I'll add the older nodes were more reliable, too, as it was trivial to get chips to…

My point was that how much more or less powerful the avionics in a modern fighter are as compared to a modern smartphone is irrelevant. What matters is the ability to accomplish the mission in a robust and fault-tolerant matter.

I recognized and agreed with that in my comment. Just correcting the misconception that they're all weak. Many are good and some have more than one.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#150

Post by bane »

johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

It's the worst case of both scope creep and putting your eggs in one basket.
Post reply on HN