That’s my point exactly.
if just a little bit less functionality can save huge costs and bring it back on track, maybe that is a solution.
The analogy to this is the M400, where – finally – South Africa pulled out, claiming their down payment back. Loss of faith in the project.
Whether it was based on cost (just becoming way too expensive), too ambitious, too late in the day for the needs planned for it, or other reasons can be another discussion.
Are we getting closer to that with the F-35 in terms of the smaller nations?
Surely they must also be evaluating the “probation” and other messages coming out of DoD/LM.
Ivan
I was not sure if the two could be compared. fair enough. Point taken.
But are we then too much “bleeding edge” instead of “leading edge”?
Should we have cut back on the level of ambitions and made something less complex but more manageable?
Ivan
Are the export orders starting to be dicey now due to the delays?
Would the overseas costumers start to doubt the project? do we still have a margin there?
I know it is complex and it is to be expected with cost and time over runs. but…
How does it compare to the Super Hornet project, the Super Hornet being basically a new design anyway (I do like the Super Hornet a lot better than the F-35, sorry).
Ivan
Fair comments. I would expect testing to reveal things.
My point is: are we finding things which point to problems in the specifications rather than in the implementation?
The spar problem made me sit up, as that would not be expected in todays’ world with the modern design software we have.
Comments?
As a layman: The F-35 is now coming across as a compromise and it looks as though it is into “bad” engineering.
It shows the Super Hornet as a more “wholesome” a/c, maybe because the Super Hornet was not intended to be “all things to all men”.
Things like broken spars and weight considerations in the middle of the development phase do not show attention to detail and forward planning.
Some engineering problems and issues must be expected, but the issues right now seem to be of a very fundamental level and should surely not show up now.
“fixes” are probably un-avoidable, but are we into where the “fixes” cover fundamental flaws? Broken spar? No worry, I have fixed it, it took a few weeks Screetch? No worry, Fixed in 2 weks. Drive shaft? come back in an hour and i have a fix. Would anybody buy a car like that?
Is the end result getting off target in terms of original specification and what will it do to exports? If just one of the export costumers should back off, will the project die?
Does LM still see the thousands of a/c being generated? or are we into curtailing the orders into small numbers bringing the entire project into the red?
Could it be time to dust off the X-32 (the Sailor Inhalor), the worst designed a/c of all times, making fun of a serious fighter proposal by its weird design.
Just a thought
Ivan
One can only wonder if the
I see. OK, I am ignorant about Canada.
reg,
Without too much knowledge on Canada, I am getting more and more impressed with the Super Hornet. The F-35 programme just seems too complex lengthy, costly and in the end just too late for anything.
if Australia could settle on the Super Hornet, why not Canada?
reg,
Ivan
True, basing too much on some few pics, etc. will be a bit over the top.
That said, it does highlight a few issues I think: F-22 technology has been around for some years now and it is expected that others will catch up.
More problematic: Instead of having a “100% Raptor”, what about going for a “93% Raptor” but with a lot more a/c? Does the 80/20 rule also apply here? The last 20% of functionality is costing 80% of the budget? I know it is a bit simplistic, but the drift of it is really: Even with slightly less functionality, the J-20 may rock the boat, especially in the light of the dwindling numbers of F-22 ordered and now with the F-35 also looking a bit dicey.
If the F-35B is off and the A and C will have to take up the slack, dwindling numbers of F-22 and nothing really new on the horizon (everything Joint -> the camel, a horse designed by a committee) then there is a problem somewhere, me thinks.
Or did I get it wrong?
Yours,
…But if the F-35’s problems are NOT sorted in 2 years (cracking spars, etc etc), then what? and if Mr. Gates statements will now endanger the B-version?
It does look as though US Defence can be in serious problems suddenly.
Strangely enough, as also others have pointed out, the Super Hornet is coming in more and more as the best alternative to now everything.
Ivan
F-35 and the US defence custs
(I started a new thread without really realising we have one on the F-35, Please excuse my ignorance).
My point was: With the budget costs and the F-35 order being reduced (as seems to be likely based on Mr. Gates statements), will the entire programme be too costly and get cancelled alltogether?
How badly will it impact on the export orders if the US is not supporting the programme to the hilt?
How badly will it impact on the US in general if the costs sky rocket (because of the US decision) and to the detriment of the smaller nations. Those may have started to prepare for the integration of the F-35 and cannot just change to another a/c (as far as i know at least).
Could the f-16 nations (the one’s opting for the F-35 as the replacement) change to F/A-18 without major loss? Would they? Australia springs to mind, replaceing F-111 with F/A-18E (The Super Hornet).
How does the UK decision look in the light of this? (“save the harrier??”)
I could imagine a ripple effect if the costs go up or the programme gets seriously down-graded.
Just a thought,
ivan
Did they repaint them? bl*** agents.
And the Hartebees as well, then?
ivan
The war Museum in Johannesburg has a reasonable collection.
The Fw-190 and the Me262 look like they could be in original colours, but I will check up on that.
Their Mosquito and their Hartebees bi-plane also look quite original to me (a bit scruffy, really).
I will cruise past during these days to check and provide pics unless someone else knows their story by heart.
Ivan
Probably right it was political. Although the consequence was that some good kit got chucked away, I think.
Russia being difficult? Maybe, but maybe they would be fine with selling spares, etc -> hard currency.
Which reminds me of a myth (I think) where NATO put out a tender for 20 mm cannon ammo. The tender was won by a factory behind the Urals as being the cheapest. I still think it is a good story, though.
I still somehow think that it waste of good kit, but probably right when the main opposition vanished, what to do with an extra airforce.
Reg,
F-11 Super Tiger
That is an interesting a/c that I have not seen much about – have to admit that.
What would have happened if it had won the Swiss contract instead of Mirage III?
However, it did not have any “home support” as the navy dropped it.
reg,
The Tornado could surely be a candidate.
I am refering to the fact that it was (as far as I know) designed as a low-level strike.
The Iraq war showed that low-level strike was too dangeropus (according to Gen Horner) and got dropped.
That left the Tornado’s with a predicament as they could not do high-level bombing.
Now, whether this was because of the bomb loads or because of the Tornado itself, I am not too sure.
The F-35 does come aross as a “committee design”, though.
Ivan