AHC: Make the F-35 a sucess story.

Your challenge is to make the F-35 a modern military project success story preferably meeting it's promised capabilities preferably being a popular uncontroversial project that meets it's deadlines and fits it's requirements.

Just using a different aircraft and keeping the F-35 Lightning II name is cheating.

Its first problem is being a 3 in 1 aircraft. Make it an Air Force only project and the requirements being meeting or exceeding the F-16's performance figures. Give it a greater sweep angle on the wing and give it greater wing area as well. TVC is not unlikely and most of these things solve a lot of its problems regarding performance. The avionics are fine, now getting it into production without delays and cost overruns is the hard part.

It is and will, just later and more expensive than planned and hoped. However that was written into the spec when it first started, things like sensor fusion, stealth and STOVL all in the one airframe is bound to expensive and difficult.

The obvious thing would be to stretch out the program, aim for getting a working airframe for the conventional version, once the bugs for that are worked out then move onto to a carrier version, once that is worked out then move on to the SVTOL version, instead of trying to develop all three at the same time

Reduce the reliance on computer testing, instead lengthen the flight testing regime

Try to simplify to supply chain issues if possible

In short make the program less ambitious and more drawn out

While this might not eliminate all of the controversy this could substantially reduce it

RamscoopRaider said:

The obvious thing would be to stretch out the program, aim for getting a working airframe for the conventional version, once the bugs for that are worked out then move onto to a carrier version, once that is worked out then move on to the SVTOL version, instead of trying to develop all three at the same time

Reduce the reliance on computer testing, instead lengthen the flight testing regime

Try to simplify to supply chain issues if possible

In short make the program less ambitious and more drawn out

While this might not eliminate all of the controversy this could substantially reduce it

Click to expand...

While that might have solved many issues what would be the knock ons? When you consider for example the Spanish and Italian Carriers that were designed to use them and the RN's CVF as well, how long could they expand the timeframe without impact on decisions like those major capital projects as well?

sparky42 said:

While that might have solved many issues what would be the knock ons? When you consider for example the Spanish and Italian Carriers that were designed to use them and the RN's CVF as well, how long could they expand the timeframe without impact on decisions like those major capital projects as well?

Click to expand...

Mostly didn't consider it, the US is buying 2/3rds of them, they will make or break it

Anyways if this is considered from the start in 2001 then you might have other nations taking steps to cover the capability gap until the variants are ready

If the STOVL variant is spun off into a seperate design the air force and naval variants could be more optimized. It is hard enough to make a stand alone STOVL aircraft, trying to give it commonality with standard aircraft is always going to be an issue. Many experts have said that separating the programs from the start would have been the best choice, and I think I read something about how the differences are so great they are effectively two different aircraft families at this point anyways.

I also would have switched the design priority and focused on making the naval aircraft first. There have been many naval aircraft that have successfully served with air forces, but when air force aircraft try to make the switchover to navies they tend have compromised maintenance and performance.

Delta Force said:

If the STOVL variant is spun off into a seperate design the air force and naval variants could be more optimized. It is hard enough to make a stand alone STOVL aircraft, trying to give it commonality with standard aircraft is always going to be an issue. Many experts have said that separating the programs from the start would have been the best choice, and I think I read something about how the differences are so great they are effectively two different aircraft families at this point anyways.

I also would have switched the design priority and focused on making the naval aircraft first. There have been many naval aircraft that have successfully served with air forces, but when air force aircraft try to make the switchover to navies they tend have compromised maintenance and performance.

Click to expand...

This is it basically. Cancel the Air Force version as anything beyond a cheapened version of a naval fighter, and drop the idea that the STOVL aircraft is related in much more than being developed simultaneously by connected teams and you should be able to get a decent successor to the Harrier and a stealthy F-16 replacement that can do carrier ops. You should even be able to get a decent amount of commonality, it's largely just a matter of dropping the idea of it actually being a single type.

That said, I also have to agree that what we have isn't a bad aircraft. It's expensive and late, but everything military is now. The price will come down with production numbers, and the capabilities are pretty much what was asked for. The concerns I've seen are largely about it's capability as a front line air superiority aircraft, and it never was supposed to be that; as with the F-16 the JSF was supposed to be a lighter, cheaper, multirole platform to sell overseas and to COMPLEMENT the air superiority fighters, and I don't see anything that contradicts that. Realistically the failing of the program isn't the aircraft, but that unreasonable expectations were put of what became a massively complex project.

Of course, the other option (and this is one I rather like) would be to make the project only semi stealthy. Whatever you do about the three in one nature of the aircraft (and I think in this scenario a semi stealth F-16, F-16N and fully independent V/STOL program are the way to go) this will help bring cost and complexity down a lot. The problem here, of course, is that when the program was launched we were very much thinking in terms of Desert Storm, and the late 90s, before it became clear that stealthiness is so expensive by its nature (rather than as a result of it's newness), and LONG before question started being asked openly about it's long term technical viability. In short, at the time, to propose a next gen platform that wasn't stealthy would have been a non starter.

In that case then why not have the USAF order an F-16E with various stealth goodies like LOAN nozzles, RAM, DSI intake and the F-35's avionics suite?

In the last 40 years the requirements for a fighter have changed dramatically, so much so that a new generation of aircraft is needed rather than an existing one tarted up. No matter how much you tart up an F16 by 2030 it will be obsolete and by 2050 it will have been obsolete for 20 years. All the pods and sensors you see scabbed onto existing fighters, creating drag, eating into payload and lowering performance and all fully integrated into the F35, which also has the architecture designed in to accomodate growth in this area. People would also notice the proliferation of 2 seater variants of existing fighters to handle all the inputs of the scabbed on pods and sensors, the fully integrated nature of the F35 means that the 2nd crewman, with the subsequent reduction in fuel load, increase in the need for drop and conformal fuel tanks and AAR tankers, is not needed.

On top of this the F35 is stealthy, has better energy maneauvreability than the F16 and better high AoA than the F18. It will be better than any tarted up teens series when it enters services and light years away after 20 years of updates in production/service.

Riain said:

In the last 40 years the requirements for a fighter have changed dramatically, so much so that a new generation of aircraft is needed rather than an existing one tarted up. No matter how much you tart up an F16 by 2030 it will be obsolete and by 2050 it will have been obsolete for 20 years. All the pods and sensors you see scabbed onto existing fighters, creating drag, eating into payload and lowering performance and all fully integrated into the F35, which also has the architecture designed in to accomodate growth in this area. People would also notice the proliferation of 2 seater variants of existing fighters to handle all the inputs of the scabbed on pods and sensors, the fully integrated nature of the F35 means that the 2nd crewman, with the subsequent reduction in fuel load, increase in the need for drop and conformal fuel tanks and AAR tankers, is not needed.

On top of this the F35 is stealthy, has better energy maneauvreability than the F16 and better high AoA than the F18. It will be better than any tarted up teens series when it enters services and light years away after 20 years of updates in production/service.

Click to expand...

The point is that you can do everything you list but full stealth by combining the F-16XL with major changes to the fuselage and get the whole project cheaper (at least if you shove S/STOVL off onto another airframe). That ultimately leaves the question of whether stealth will prove itself worth what we've paid (and will keep paying over the life of the aircraft), and that is frankly an open question. My point above, though, was that when the F-35 program launched that wasn't something anyone was really considering; the potential (and even now it's still more theoretical possibility than something definitely coming) obsolescence of the stealth tech we're using just wasn't even on the horizon.

LOL it is, the US owns the air so much that we just don't need it yet

Bureaucromancer said:

The point is that you can do everything you list but full stealth by combining the F-16XL with major changes to the fuselage and get the whole project cheaper (at least if you shove S/STOVL off onto another airframe). That ultimately leaves the question of whether stealth will prove itself worth what we've paid (and will keep paying over the life of the aircraft), and that is frankly an open question. My point above, though, was that when the F-35 program launched that wasn't something anyone was really considering; the potential (and even now it's still more theoretical possibility than something definitely coming) obsolescence of the stealth tech we're using just wasn't even on the horizon.

Click to expand...

I don't tend to equate 'major changes to the fuselage' with 'get the whole project cheaper'. The F35 is designned for seamless 360 degree EO/IR viewing amongst other things, can a tarted up 80s mod version of a 70s aircraft be readily and effectively fitted for the same capability? I doubt it.

The powers that be aren't total fuckwits, they're the ones whose jobs are on the line over this project after all. The teen series have done everything they were going to do, now its time to let them go and build their repacement.

Just as a matter of interest the Hornet had major cost blowouts as well. It was mooted as a cheap compliment to the F14 but by combining the bulk of the capabilities of the F4 and A7 into one airframe with 80s technology it came out the same price as the F14. How soon we forget.

Maverick721 said:

LOL it is, the US owns the air so much that we just don't need it yet

Click to expand...

I think decades of bombing backward countries that can't really fight back has been a big problem when it comes to assessing military reality. It's kind of like thinking you have best army in the world because your tanks, APCs, helicopter gunships, GPS and night vision goggles helps you to beat a few illiterate goat herders in a fire fight.

BTW the F 35 project has foreign partners who have invested a lot of cash into this thing and are still f**king waiting.

There are only so many F 35 propaganda documentaries you can make before people lose patience. Where is the plane? What's wrong with it now? Why is the cost going up again?

All this leaves a nasty taste in the mouth and can have a serious affect on the security of many countries who put their trust in this project and the people selling it.

IMO the long term effect is that many countries will think twice before agreeing to purchase American planes that are only in the prototype stage. This could affect US aircraft sales later.

Maybe the F35 is a good news story for the Russians and Chinese.

riain:

The F35 was supposed to be a cheap capable fighter to supplement the F22 and serve in the air forces of many smaller countries.

It totally and dismally failed at the first requirement. Saying it is a technological masterpiece (which is still not proven by the way) misses the main point. It is not cheap and hence failed to meet project requirement.

It does come with impressive capabilities on paper. It is still to be seen if these paper capabilities translate into real life. I am not holding my breath.

There are a lot of allies who bought into this program and they feel like they are getting shafted, guess who willing they will be to jump into future programs?

Devolved said:

There are only so many F 35 propaganda documentaries you can make before people lose patience. Where is the plane? What's wrong with it now? Why is the cost going up again?

All this leaves a nasty taste in the mouth and can have a serious affect on the security of many countries who put their trust in this project and the people selling it.

IMO the long term effect is that many countries will think twice before agreeing to purchase American planes that are only in the prototype stage. This could affect US aircraft sales later.

Click to expand...

Politically maybe, but the reality remains that there is nothing wrong with the aircraft besides cost and delays. Neither are anything new for major aerospace projects. The program could be improved, but to say that it has failed or is failing just isn't true.

It was supposed to be the cheaper plane to complement the F22. Saying it hasn't failed despite being equally or even more expensive than the F22 is missing the point. Not cheap = failure. It is ally that simple.

Cheap is a relative thing. If a Super Hornet costs say $70 million and an F35 cost $80 million but can beat the Super Hornet 4 out of 5 times does the country who cancels their F35s to buy a slight larger super hornet fleet get a better deal? And what about 20 years down the track when the world F35 fleet is 3000 strong and the Super Hornet Fleet is 700 strong and you go looking for a mid life upgrade? Which plane do you think will have the best options for upgrades?

Bureaucromancer said:

Politically maybe, but the reality remains that there is nothing wrong with the aircraft besides cost and delays. Neither are anything new for major aerospace projects. The program could be improved, but to say that it has failed or is failing just isn't true.

Click to expand...

I never used the word failed because we don't really know how good the F 35 is. It could be fantastic but all we have is sales talk and a few confusing combat simulations some of which are positive some not so positive.

Cost and delay are important. How long do you wait and how much do you pay? How long can a country that needs to update its defences wait?

At what point does a customer say enough I'm buying a generation 4.5 Russian plane or a Rafaele or a Typhoon or even a Chinese plane that is both available and cheaper and not all that inferior?

Assuming the Lightning can take them all on is just an assumption.

Like I said all we have are propaganda documentaries and sales talk.

Cheap is not relative when defense budgets are limited like they are in most countries. If Country A set aside X amount to buy 200 planes, and the price of the plane rises shit will hit the fan. The money has to come from somewhere or the number of planes will have to be cut. T pretend this is not an issue is naive.

Imagine somebody comes to remodel your kitchen and you end up paying twice what he promised you, would you call that a succes?