In the event the F-22 is cancelled which would be the best way to go? (Talk about opening a can of worms :-) )
Scott Ferrin
As much as I think it would be a bad idea to cancel the F-22 I have to
admit that the perception is that it's iffy as far as hitting it's
deadlines. But also from what I've read it seems that most of the
problems are with software and avionics and that the airframe/engine
combination is relatively sound and hasn't had anything more extreme
than any other new aircraft as far as surprises go. So the question is
if the software and avionics ultimately drag it down what would be the
best alternative?
1. Would it be possible to completely shit-can the avionics and
software and use the same as is going to be used in the F-35? I mean
IDENTICAL other than the differences to deal with the different flight
characteristics of the F-22?
2. Stuff the latest generation Strike Eagle avionics into an
F-22/F-119 combo as a stopgap until you could do #1? It would
essentially BE a faster, stealthy F-15.
3. Can the F-22 entirely which would mean you flushed billions away
and got nothing for it and then buy F-15Ks with AESA APG-63s as a
stopgap until the F-35 is ready?
4. *shudder* buy "Super"Hornets for the Air Force?
5. Buy foreign?
5 seems like a nonstarter
I would HOPE 4 would be a nonstarter.
IMO 3 would be most likely but then in the end you end up with an
underpowered aircraft that wasn't designed for air-to-air as it's
primary role.
2. Seems like it would cost as much or more than just working out the
current problems.
1 Would not only likely be MORE expensive since you's REALLY be
stretching out the purchase of F-22 airframes but you'd have gone
something like 20 years between prototype flight and inservice.
Anyway ALL opinions welcome but let's all try to keep the
flamethrowers at home.
Yama
"Scott Ferrin" <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:lbn470l4g97a9p67l...@4ax.com...
> 1. Would it be possible to completely shit-can the avionics and
> software and use the same as is going to be used in the F-35? I mean
> IDENTICAL other than the differences to deal with the different flight
> characteristics of the F-22?
No idea, really...perhaps it would be possible, but would it save anything?
> 2. Stuff the latest generation Strike Eagle avionics into an
> F-22/F-119 combo as a stopgap until you could do #1? It would
> essentially BE a faster, stealthy F-15.
I'm not sure you can just insert F119 to F-15. Very costly anyway. However
if F-22 is canned, some sort of Eagle upgrade is obvious.
> 3. Can the F-22 entirely which would mean you flushed billions away
> and got nothing for it and then buy F-15Ks with AESA APG-63s as a
> stopgap until the F-35 is ready?
IF F-35 ever gets ready...and it can't really replace F-22 in any case.
Unless given more money...
> 4. *shudder* buy "Super"Hornets for the Air Force?
I thought the idea was to get *better* planes than the current inservice
ones?
> 5. Buy foreign?
Bwuhaha!
I'm on record saying in 1997 or so that cancelling F-22 would be
gigantically stupid because the program is too far advanced. Cancelling it
now would be...well, something.
John Cook
>> 1. Would it be possible to completely shit-can the avionics and
>> software and use the same as is going to be used in the F-35? I mean
>> IDENTICAL other than the differences to deal with the different flight
>> characteristics of the F-22?
That's not too far from the truth.... but has to be managed in such a
way as to give the impression is a evolutionary upgrade to the F-22
while benefiting the JSF.
>> 2. Stuff the latest generation Strike Eagle avionics into an
>> F-22/F-119 combo as a stopgap until you could do #1? It would
>> essentially BE a faster, stealthy F-15.
Not a hope.
>> 3. Can the F-22 entirely which would mean you flushed billions away
>> and got nothing for it and then buy F-15Ks with AESA APG-63s as a
>> stopgap until the F-35 is ready?
Its a possibility which is increasing exponentially with development
time, there are many examples of 'how good it is' news pieces being
posted by the marketing bods, this tends to happen during times of
threat to programs.
>IF F-35 ever gets ready...and it can't really replace F-22 in any case.
>Unless given more money...
There's several tens of billion dollars if the F-22 is cancelled,
the JSF price just took another hike, I'm on the record as saying
something's got to give as the numbers don't stack up, Comanche was
just a starter, expect another big ticket item (or two) to fall.
>
>> 4. *shudder* buy "Super"Hornets for the Air Force?
Not a hope.
>
>> 5. Buy foreign?
Not a hope, but out of interest - if forced to which would the US
prefer Typhoon, Rafale, or a Russian jobbie.
>I'm on record saying in 1997 or so that cancelling F-22 would be
>gigantically stupid because the program is too far advanced. Cancelling it
>now would be...well, something.
Its only development money:-) , hopefully the JSF will be better
managed, canceling the F-22 only means a red face for the US, but its
the lengths they will go to avoid canceling it, that's the real
question, if the reports of the F-22 being a bit of a lemon are true
how far will they go to defend it.
Cheers
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Email Address :- Jwcook@(trousers)ozemail.com.au
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
mozzer
"John Cook" <Jwc...@ozemail.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news:3n05701ln2jcpco6d...@4ax.com...
>
> >> 5. Buy foreign?
>
> Not a hope, but out of interest - if forced to which would the US
> prefer Typhoon, Rafale, or a Russian jobbie.
>
At the moment, Rafale is the only true modern high efficient mutirole
aircraft !
Typhoon has never been designed to carry out air to ground missions.
Russian are nice looking but ...
Well, will F35 do the job ?
Tarver Engineering
"mozzer" <moz...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:c4uomg$e0s$1...@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr...
If the Russians raise their MTBF numbers with an electric FCS they will be
right back in it.
> Well, will F35 do the job ?
Probably. It all depends on how well the program migrated from mil-spec to
the RPL model and how well problems down flow are mitigated. Otherwise the
F-35 is as screwed as the F-22.
Some F-15 life extension will be necessary during the gap, or F-18s for the
USAF.
Kevin Brooks
> news:3n05701ln2jcpco6d...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >> 5. Buy foreign?
> >
> > Not a hope, but out of interest - if forced to which would the US
> > prefer Typhoon, Rafale, or a Russian jobbie.
> >
>
> At the moment, Rafale is the only true modern high efficient mutirole
> aircraft !
Have they produced any multi-role versions yet? Last I heard the only ones
in service are the M's, which were dedicated exclusively to air-to-air and
had no ground attack capability whatsoever.
Brooks
Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>
>"Scott Ferrin" <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote in message
>news:lbn470l4g97a9p67l...@4ax.com...
>> 1. Would it be possible to completely shit-can the avionics and
>> software and use the same as is going to be used in the F-35? I mean
>> IDENTICAL other than the differences to deal with the different flight
>> characteristics of the F-22?
>
>No idea, really...perhaps it would be possible, but would it save anything?
>
>> 2. Stuff the latest generation Strike Eagle avionics into an
>> F-22/F-119 combo as a stopgap until you could do #1? It would
>> essentially BE a faster, stealthy F-15.
>
>I'm not sure you can just insert F119 to F-15. Very costly anyway. However
>if F-22 is canned, some sort of Eagle upgrade is obvious.
That's not what I said. Gut the F-22 of electronics and use Strike
Eagle avionics in an F-22 engine/airframe. Think an F-22 that is a
Strike Eagle under the skin.
Scott Ferrin
LOL!! Looks like you're the one who sucked down the can of worms.
That post has "Tarver bait" written all over it. And like the
predictable troll you are you rose to the occassion and showed us all
what a class act you are. Unable to keep himself from flamming he had
to start a thread dedicated to it. Keep up the good work Johnny boy.
Scott Ferrin
>>> 5. Buy foreign?
>
>Not a hope, but out of interest - if forced to which would the US
>prefer Typhoon, Rafale, or a Russian jobbie.
Out of those options IMO since none of them are stealth aircraft the
best way to go would be to start with a gutted Su-37 and stuff it with
American engines, avionics and weapons but chances are even if the US
could make itself do that, by the time they were happy with the
aircraft it would be damn near as expensive as the F-22.
Ideally the best replacement would have been new build Tomcat 21s but
there is no chance of that now.
Typhoons and Rafales seem like nonstarters for the simple reason that
whatever aircraft is chosen would also do air to ground. Let's see
you hang a 5000lb PGM or two on either of those aircraft. Sure you
can go on about small bombs etc. but it's tough to duplicate the
flexibility of being able to carry a heavy load.
Harry Andreas
<sfe...@xmission.com> wrote:
> 1. Would it be possible to completely shit-can the avionics and
> software and use the same as is going to be used in the F-35? I mean
> IDENTICAL other than the differences to deal with the different flight
> characteristics of the F-22?
Not in any near-term timeframe. Also, since the airframes are so different
the electronics would have to be re-packaged in most cases.
Plus the airframes would have to be completely re-wired: $$$
> 2. Stuff the latest generation Strike Eagle avionics into an
> F-22/F-119 combo as a stopgap until you could do #1? It would
> essentially BE a faster, stealthy F-15.
Nearer term, but the F-15 uses a federated architecture.
Since the airframes are so different
the electronics would have to be re-packaged in most cases.
Plus the airframes would have to be completely re-wired: $$$
> 3. Can the F-22 entirely which would mean you flushed billions away
> and got nothing for it and then buy F-15Ks with AESA APG-63s as a
> stopgap until the F-35 is ready?
USAF are going to buy more of something anyway, this is the most likely
scenario. Not K's for sure. More F-16 Block 50's or more F-15's are pretty
much a sure thing regardless of what happens with F-22 and F-35.
> 4. *shudder* buy "Super"Hornets for the Air Force?
And start a whole new logistics tail? Not bloody likely.
> 5. Buy foreign?
See #4
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
Tarver Engineering
"Harry Andreas" <and...@computer.org> wrote in message
news:andreas-0604...@147.16.85.59...
An RPL model based COTS logistics trail used in the F/A-18E is not optional.
It is the future and the major reason to believe the F-35 will have a better
chance of success than the obsolete logistics system the F-22 sufferers
from. It could be very educational for USAF to see how USN has applied
AFRL's changes.
Yama
However
> >if F-22 is canned, some sort of Eagle upgrade is obvious.
>
> That's not what I said. Gut the F-22 of electronics and use Strike
> Eagle avionics in an F-22 engine/airframe. Think an F-22 that is a
> Strike Eagle under the skin.
My bad, I misread. Anyway, my uninformed opinion is it wouldn't much good
either.
Tarver Engineering
"Yama" <yam...@SPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c4v67i$ha7$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi...
If we were to be gutting electronics, a transfer from the F/A-18E into some
Super Eagle would be a low risk option. The electrics in the F/A-18A were
basicly F-15 developed, including the FBW system. Such a change would also
introduce USAF procurement to the present, as defined by AFRL's changes.
Yama
"John Cook" <Jwc...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3n05701ln2jcpco6d...@4ax.com...
> >IF F-35 ever gets ready...and it can't really replace F-22 in any case.
> >Unless given more money...
>
> There's several tens of billion dollars if the F-22 is cancelled,
> the JSF price just took another hike, I'm on the record as saying
> something's got to give as the numbers don't stack up,
Oh, they will, when you increase the budget a bit...
> >> 5. Buy foreign?
>
> Not a hope, but out of interest - if forced to which would the US
> prefer Typhoon, Rafale, or a Russian jobbie.
It would never happen in a million years. No, make that a billion. However
should the decision come to that I don't see why they would choose anything
else than Typhoon; French have too many systems totally unique to them, to
say nothing about Russian planes. Whether Typhoon is the best available
plane, is totally another can of worms... :)
> >I'm on record saying in 1997 or so that cancelling F-22 would be
> >gigantically stupid because the program is too far advanced. Cancelling
it
> >now would be...well, something.
>
> Its only development money:-) , hopefully the JSF will be better
> managed, canceling the F-22 only means a red face for the US, but its
> the lengths they will go to avoid canceling it, that's the real
> question, if the reports of the F-22 being a bit of a lemon are true
> how far will they go to defend it.
At some point, programs will proceed to point where you just have to soak it
up even if things are not progressing 100%, because cancelling it will be
even more expensive (in the long term). In case of F-22, that point IMHO has
been reached years ago.
Of course it doesn't mean that it CANNOT be cancelled...
Peter Kemp
<sfe...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>Not a hope, but out of interest - if forced to which would the US
>>prefer Typhoon, Rafale, or a Russian jobbie.
>
>Out of those options IMO since none of them are stealth aircraft the
>best way to go would be to start with a gutted Su-37 and stuff it with
>American engines, avionics and weapons but chances are even if the US
>could make itself do that, by the time they were happy with the
>aircraft it would be damn near as expensive as the F-22.
Err, you've lost me here. Not only would the US be more liekly to buy
even a French aircraft than a Russian one, the Su-37 is not in any way
a stealth aircraft - from the front you can see both compressor faces.
Both the Typhoon and Rafale were designed with some reduced
observables involved.
>Typhoons and Rafales seem like nonstarters for the simple reason that
>whatever aircraft is chosen would also do air to ground. Let's see
>you hang a 5000lb PGM or two on either of those aircraft. Sure you
>can go on about small bombs etc. but it's tough to duplicate the
>flexibility of being able to carry a heavy load.
Again, you've lost me - we're talking about an F-22 replacement - I've
not seen any proposals to hang TWO 5000lb weapons on them.
Given the options of Typhoon, Rafale, and SU-whatever, I just don't
see an option other than Typhoon. Be nice to get more funding for
things like tranche 3 and the radar upgrades.
---
Peter Kemp
Life is short - drink faster
Scott Ferrin
>>Out of those options IMO since none of them are stealth aircraft the
>>best way to go would be to start with a gutted Su-37 and stuff it with
>>American engines, avionics and weapons but chances are even if the US
>>could make itself do that, by the time they were happy with the
>>aircraft it would be damn near as expensive as the F-22.
>
>Err, you've lost me here. Not only would the US be more liekly to buy
>even a French aircraft than a Russian one, the Su-37 is not in any way
>a stealth aircraft - from the front you can see both compressor faces.
>Both the Typhoon and Rafale were designed with some reduced
>observables involved.
That's one of the things they'd likely fix if they went with the
Flanker. They could put in the radar blockers like in the Super
Hornet to hide the compressor faces.
>
>>Typhoons and Rafales seem like nonstarters for the simple reason that
>>whatever aircraft is chosen would also do air to ground. Let's see
>>you hang a 5000lb PGM or two on either of those aircraft. Sure you
>>can go on about small bombs etc. but it's tough to duplicate the
>>flexibility of being able to carry a heavy load.
>
>Again, you've lost me - we're talking about an F-22 replacement - I've
>not seen any proposals to hang TWO 5000lb weapons on them.
How 'bout two 7500lb weapons? One of the things being looked at is
carrying a Lockheed Minion UCAV under each wing. Also on the F-22
each of the four pylons is stressed for 5000lb so if they wanted to
carry multiple 5000lb weapons they could. The Flanker can carry a
Sunburn so 5000lb weapons wouldn't present a problem from a load
perspective.
>
>Given the options of Typhoon, Rafale, and SU-whatever, I just don't
>see an option other than Typhoon. Be nice to get more funding for
>things like tranche 3 and the radar upgrades.
The Typhoon would be the most palatable from a political standpoint
but I'd think any foreign solution would be political suicide for
anybody involved in the decision. I'm wondering if maybe the US has
lost the expertise and vision needed to see a program through to
completion. B-2, Commanche, F-22 has been stretched out for nearly a
decade (it was originally intended to be in service in 1995) and the
problems with the F-35 are just starting to be shown. I don't think
it's a question of technology but more of a lack of talent in
management, planning, and dumbf--k politicians. But hey that's just
my opinion.
Kevin Brooks
>
> >>Out of those options IMO since none of them are stealth aircraft the
> >>best way to go would be to start with a gutted Su-37 and stuff it with
> >>American engines, avionics and weapons but chances are even if the US
> >>could make itself do that, by the time they were happy with the
> >>aircraft it would be damn near as expensive as the F-22.
> >
> >Err, you've lost me here. Not only would the US be more liekly to buy
> >even a French aircraft than a Russian one, the Su-37 is not in any way
> >a stealth aircraft - from the front you can see both compressor faces.
> >Both the Typhoon and Rafale were designed with some reduced
> >observables involved.
>
>
> That's one of the things they'd likely fix if they went with the
> Flanker. They could put in the radar blockers like in the Super
> Hornet to hide the compressor faces.
I don't think it would necessarily be that easy, nor are the turbines the
only source for a return. The Su-37 is anything but a stealthy platform (all
sorts of sharp angles, canards, big whomping flat surfaces, etc., not to
mention no ability to carry internal stores, which is about the only way you
are going to achieve true stealthiness).
>
> >
> >>Typhoons and Rafales seem like nonstarters for the simple reason that
> >>whatever aircraft is chosen would also do air to ground. Let's see
> >>you hang a 5000lb PGM or two on either of those aircraft. Sure you
> >>can go on about small bombs etc. but it's tough to duplicate the
> >>flexibility of being able to carry a heavy load.
> >
> >Again, you've lost me - we're talking about an F-22 replacement - I've
> >not seen any proposals to hang TWO 5000lb weapons on them.
>
> How 'bout two 7500lb weapons? One of the things being looked at is
> carrying a Lockheed Minion UCAV under each wing. Also on the F-22
> each of the four pylons is stressed for 5000lb so if they wanted to
> carry multiple 5000lb weapons they could. The Flanker can carry a
> Sunburn so 5000lb weapons wouldn't present a problem from a load
> perspective.
Where have you seen *any* kind of requirement for the F/A-22 to carry 5000
pound munitions? GBU-37 is apparently the biggest "regular" bomb we now have
in the inventory (at about 4000 pounds), and it remains the property of the
big boys (specifically the B-2). In fact, the reasoning is going in the
opposite direction--they have already done some shape-mating work with the
SDB on the F/A-22--nobody has even mentioned making the GBU-37 a fit for the
F/A-22.
>
> >
> >Given the options of Typhoon, Rafale, and SU-whatever, I just don't
> >see an option other than Typhoon. Be nice to get more funding for
> >things like tranche 3 and the radar upgrades.
>
> The Typhoon would be the most palatable from a political standpoint
> but I'd think any foreign solution would be political suicide for
> anybody involved in the decision. I'm wondering if maybe the US has
> lost the expertise and vision needed to see a program through to
> completion. B-2, Commanche, F-22 has been stretched out for nearly a
> decade (it was originally intended to be in service in 1995) and the
> problems with the F-35 are just starting to be shown. I don't think
> it's a question of technology but more of a lack of talent in
> management, planning, and dumbf--k politicians. But hey that's just
> my opinion.
And B-2 has done fairly well so far, albeit in a niche role for which it was
not originally really intended. Your statement in regards to a lack of
expertise or vision is a bit disconcerting--I imagine had you been around
back in the days when the F-16 went from being a true lightweight to a
multi-role platform before it even entered into service (with attendant
design changes), or when the F-15 went through its original rather abysmal
operational readiness rate due to a radar that was down more than it was up,
or when the F-14 was experiencing some rather nasty teething troubles, you'd
have claimed the same thing? You are amazed that the F-35 is experiencing
some development problems? Gee whiz, who would have thunk it--they should be
able to just slap one together, kick the tires, and zoom off into the wild
blue, keeping the myriad different customers both here and abroad smiling
the whole time, right? Fact is that aircraft these days are *much* more
complex than they were forty or fifty years ago, and development timelines
are extended across the board (note the length of the Typhoon and Rafale
development?); add to that the fact that many of these programs were
originally conceived under a drastically different threat scenario and you
can begin to see *why* there have been significant changes in the
fundamental basis underlying such systems. Yeah, there are SNAFU's; and
sometimes even programs that *deserve* to be cut (witness both Commanche and
Crusader); but methinks you are being a bit too quick with your knife in
regards to "expertise" and "vision".
Brooks
EB Jet
Scott Ferrin
>> That's one of the things they'd likely fix if they went with the
>> Flanker. They could put in the radar blockers like in the Super
>> Hornet to hide the compressor faces.
>
>I don't think it would necessarily be that easy, nor are the turbines the
>only source for a return. The Su-37 is anything but a stealthy platform (all
>sorts of sharp angles, canards, big whomping flat surfaces, etc., not to
>mention no ability to carry internal stores, which is about the only way you
>are going to achieve true stealthiness).
Whoa. I NEVER claimed the Flanker was stealthy :-) I said IF the US
were going to purchase it they'd want to tweak it to reduce the RCS.
I mentioned those blockers (I don't recall the "official" name for
them) as an example of what they could do.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>Typhoons and Rafales seem like nonstarters for the simple reason that
>> >>whatever aircraft is chosen would also do air to ground. Let's see
>> >>you hang a 5000lb PGM or two on either of those aircraft. Sure you
>> >>can go on about small bombs etc. but it's tough to duplicate the
>> >>flexibility of being able to carry a heavy load.
>> >
>> >Again, you've lost me - we're talking about an F-22 replacement - I've
>> >not seen any proposals to hang TWO 5000lb weapons on them.
>>
>> How 'bout two 7500lb weapons? One of the things being looked at is
>> carrying a Lockheed Minion UCAV under each wing. Also on the F-22
>> each of the four pylons is stressed for 5000lb so if they wanted to
>> carry multiple 5000lb weapons they could. The Flanker can carry a
>> Sunburn so 5000lb weapons wouldn't present a problem from a load
>> perspective.
>
>Where have you seen *any* kind of requirement for the F/A-22 to carry 5000
>pound munitions?
The four underwing hardpoints are rated at 5000 pounds. Roughly the
weight of a 600 gallon tank with 2 AIM-120s on siderails. Lockheed
themselves mentioned the Minion UCAV (search r.a.m. for "Minion" on
dejanews) and it would weigh 7500 pounds. So though the *requirement*
to carry one may not be there, if they decide to do more than SDBs on
it it would be able to handle it.
>GBU-37 is apparently the biggest "regular" bomb we now have
>in the inventory (at about 4000 pounds), and it remains the property of the
>big boys (specifically the B-2).
The GBU-28 is used on the F-15 and it is roughly 4700lbs. The GBU-28
is a laser guided bomb. The GBU-37 replaces the laser guidance with
GPS so the B-2 can carry it. There really is no reason why they
*couldn't* drop the GBU-37 from the F-22 other than software changes
and flight testing that would have to be done. The point is it COULD
do it and the F-15 CAN do it. To cancel the F-22 and replace it with
the Typhoon would eliminate that capability. In theory even the F-35
would be able to handle it. It's pylons are supposedly 5000 for the
inners and 2500 for the outers.
> In fact, the reasoning is going in the
>opposite direction--they have already done some shape-mating work with the
>SDB on the F/A-22--nobody has even mentioned making the GBU-37 a fit for the
>F/A-22.
I don't think that's what I said. I was saying they COULD if they
needed to since the airframe is already stressed for it. I don't know
that you could say the same for the Typhoon or Rafale. The centerline
on the Flanker is pretty beefy though to carry that Sunburn.
>And B-2 has done fairly well so far, albeit in a niche role for which it was
>not originally really intended. Your statement in regards to a lack of
>expertise or vision is a bit disconcerting--I imagine had you been around
>back in the days when the F-16 went from being a true lightweight to a
>multi-role platform before it even entered into service (with attendant
>design changes), or when the F-15 went through its original rather abysmal
>operational readiness rate due to a radar that was down more than it was up,
>or when the F-14 was experiencing some rather nasty teething troubles, you'd
>have claimed the same thing?
No. (Acutally my dad took me to Hill AFB when they had the open house
to show off their brand new F-16s so I was around. . .sorta :-) ).
The F-14, 15, and 16s eventually got to where they were cranking them
out regularly and the price was under control. The times from
prototype 1st flight to inservice were approximately:
F-14 First flight 12/21/70 In service: Two squadrons deployed
9/74
So from first flight to well into service: 3yrs 9 mo
F-15: First flight 7/27/72 In service: First deliveries to Langley
1/76
So roughly: 3 yrs. 6mo.
F-16: YF-16A first flight 1/21/74 In service: Hill AFB got their
first on January 6 1979 and had 102 by the end of 1980
So roughly: 5 yrs.
F-117: Have Blue 1st Flight 12/1/77 F-117 in service: 10/83
So roughly: 6 yrs. (To be fair the F-117s 1st flight was in '81 which
would make it 2-3 yrs)
F-22: YF-22A first flight 9/29/90 In service: 2005 estimated
So roughly: FIFTEEN YEARS.
Commanche: First flight 1/4/96 Cancelled 1/23/04
Eight years and hadn't gone into service yet when it was cancelled.
F-35: X-35 1st flgiht 10/24/00 In service: 2008 supposedly.
>You are amazed that the F-35 is experiencing
>some development problems? Gee whiz, who would have thunk it--they should be
>able to just slap one together, kick the tires, and zoom off into the wild
>blue, keeping the myriad different customers both here and abroad smiling
>the whole time, right?
Chill :-) No I don't think that. But the magnitude of the weight
problem is. . .well, I'd think "alarming" would be accurate.
>Fact is that aircraft these days are *much* more
>complex than they were forty or fifty years ago, and development timelines
>are extended across the board (note the length of the Typhoon and Rafale
>development?); add to that the fact that many of these programs were
>originally conceived under a drastically different threat scenario and you
>can begin to see *why* there have been significant changes in the
>fundamental basis underlying such systems. Yeah, there are SNAFU's; and
>sometimes even programs that *deserve* to be cut (witness both Commanche and
>Crusader); but methinks you are being a bit too quick with your knife in
>regards to "expertise" and "vision".
>
>Brooks
>
Perhaps (God I hope so). But there are too many days when you hear
about so-and-so whining because a program is somehow much more
expensive then they thought so they want to stretch it out or a
program has a MINOR problem so up go the red flags everwhere and out
come the politicians, hearings, and so on and so forth with everybody
looking more to cover their own asses than trying to solve or even
understand the problem. Anymore the big ticket items tend to sound
like one cluster f--- after another. And then there's the other end
of the spectrum when you keep personel to a minimum, nobody who
doesn't need to has even *heard* of the program, and they achieve
seeming miracles. I realize Rutan's rocket isn't an F-22 but look
what Scaled Composites has achieved on their relatively miniscule
budget. Anyway enough of this rant. And it's not just with military
equipment anyway; just look at the mess of a space program we have.
Okay I'm stoping. (Time for my meds LOL)