backtop

Print 57 comment(s) - last by monkeyman1140.. on Mar 2 at 11:33 AM
The USAF making adjustments as the next-generation JSF program continues its struggles

The United States Air Force plans to purchase 1,763 next-generation F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter or JSF for short) aircraft over the next 20 years, but will only have the budget to afford 1,224 new "primary aircraft."

The Air Force's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines several different proposed light-attack planes and vehicles, but doesn't outline spending plans for upcoming projects. As the Air Force waits for its manned planes -- mainly the F-35 Lightning II -- it will also rely on newer unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that are designed to better avoid advanced missile defenses. 

The F-35 Lightning II program remains behind schedule and over budget, with the U.S. military confirming a one-year delay as Lockheed Martin is unable to keep up.  The U.S. Navy is now expecting to suffer a “fighter gap” as the branch retires its F/A-18 Hornet aircraft while the replacement F-35 Lighting II remain in the pipeline.

Due to the F-35 Lightning II delay, the USAF will have a wider variety of additional C-17s and 1,056 tankers and airlifters -- helping increase mobility of the Air Force -- though F-35 Lightning II interest will still be important.  The Air Force is phasing out C-17 development in favor of the smaller C-27 aircraft.

Continued confusion among the U.S. military and Lockheed has left some partner nations out of the loop. Australia plans to make an initial purchase of 14 F-35 Lightning II aircraft (but may purchase up to 100), though the $100 million price tag for each craft may increase in the future.  

The current F-35 Lightning II slowdown has led to increased pressure on Lockheed, especially as the company currently has $600M being withheld by the U.S. government.  Lockheed understands it is being held accountable at the moment, and spokespeople said things have been done to help increase productivity.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Mobility relies on good fighers
By jimbojimbo on 2/24/2010 2:15:53 PM , Rating: 5
There won't be much mobility if our transports just get shot down by superior air attack fighters.




RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Jedi2155 on 2/24/2010 3:47:25 PM , Rating: 5
Correct, but the F-35 is not a Air Superiority Fighter. Its a multi-role fighter while the F-22 is our Air Superiority design.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By InsaneScientist on 2/24/2010 7:32:14 PM , Rating: 5
The problem, of course, being that the government cut the funding for the F-22 program....


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Danish1 on 2/25/2010 8:26:53 AM , Rating: 2
I heard the Chinese and Russians threatened to stop buying T-bonds if you didn't cancel the F22.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By ArcliteHawaii on 2/24/2010 3:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
When was the last time we fought an enemy that had fighters on par with our own? Vietnam?


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Drag0nFire on 2/24/2010 4:11:29 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, $100 million PER PLANE? Something is seriously wrong with this. Because I can guarantee that none of our enemies can afford anything close to $100 million per plane. So either we're spending money on something that is completely useless, or we're simply not getting our money's worth. Or both!


By TerranMagistrate on 2/24/2010 4:38:35 PM , Rating: 4
OR we're getting defense technology that's decades ahead of what any potential adversary is developing now, costs reflecting that. Ever consider that possibility?


By MadMan007 on 2/24/2010 5:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
To keep the CIMC alive and well.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By rudy on 2/24/2010 5:52:17 PM , Rating: 3
Keep in mind that money is not the only indicator it costs more to hire engineers in the US then say Russia or China so while 100 million seems like alot its probably not any more if you normalize by man hours or gdp then other major nations spend on a high end fighter.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By FITCamaro on 2/24/2010 8:57:01 PM , Rating: 3
If you knew a damn thing about the F35, you'd realize that wasn't much.

Part of the problem is the military's and Lockheed's ever changing expectations as to why its behind schedule.

And our enemies don't have to spend $100 million. What they don't steal from us they develop cheaper due to the differences in the values of currency.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By gamerk2 on 2/25/2010 8:18:36 AM , Rating: 1
Funny; could have sworn that the lift system the F35 uses was designed by Yak enginners in Russia...

We "borrow" ideas just like everyone else.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Nfarce on 2/25/2010 10:15:14 AM , Rating: 4
You, sir = epic FAIL .

First of all, the "lift" system for the SVTOL Marine "B" version (the only F-35 variant with that capability) was a hybrid design between the concept behind the Yak-141 and the Harrier jump jet of the British. Oh, and for the record, we (the US) purchased the technology legally from both nations' companies.

Second, history has shown that the Russians have far more copied American design concepts (read: NOT purchased technology or design concepts) than the other way around since World War II.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By monkeyman1140 on 2/25/2010 10:12:24 AM , Rating: 1
We could have just bought the French Rafale and get air superiority for the same price.

The F-35 was designed mainly as an export aircraft, but with the ending of the cold war and indigenous defense industries of various nations experimenting with their own designs, it no longer has a mission. Even the British don't want it anymore.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By rcc on 2/25/2010 1:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't buying weapons from France a bit like buying booze from a closet drinking member of MADD?


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By porkpie on 2/24/2010 8:20:04 PM , Rating: 5
"When was the last time we fought an enemy that had fighters on par with our own? Vietnam? "

From that we can obviously conclude it will never happen again in the future, right?


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Orpheus333 on 2/24/2010 9:57:08 PM , Rating: 3
Uh, The Russian build T50 is aimed to be on par with the F22. Considering the F22 was in development for 20 years you cant just come up with a fighter at a moments notice, by then, its already to late. Canceling the F22 was a HUGE mistake IMO, how long till the Russians have full development and are selling to china, NK, Iran...ect


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Nfarce on 2/24/2010 10:52:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Considering the F22 was in development for 20 years you cant just come up with a fighter at a moments notice, by then, its already to late.


Very, VERY true! Many people have a hard time comprehending that reality. In fact, through the first two years of WWII it wasn't until the P-51 in the European theater and F6F Hellcat and of course F4U Corsair in the Pacific theater that the tables began to turn for the US in the air.

But the F-22 program can be reinstated with another congress and another administration. Reagan did it with the B1A program canceled by Carter. All it takes is money. But like you say, too many people are just complacent and in my opinion walking around with their heads in the sand thinking that a large scale global conflict involving Russia and China couldn't be more than just something for a Tom Clancy novel.

And if that ever came through fruition while we sit around and do nothing but pat ourselves on our backs for everyone having free health care, free government paid for college, and other socialist dreams, God help us.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By DM0407 on 2/24/2010 11:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
You Said:
quote:
n fact, through the first two years of WWII it wasn't until the P-51 in the European theater and F6F Hellcat and of course F4U Corsair in the Pacific theater that the tables began to turn for the US in the air.


History Says:
quote:
The North American Aviation P-51 Mustang was a long-range single-seat World War II fighter aircraft. Designed and built in just 117 days,


Different time, bad example.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Calin on 2/25/2010 3:36:53 AM , Rating: 3
Frankly, the "definitive" version of Mustang was the P-51D (a later variant than the 117 days researched and produced prototype). Other than that, your example stands.
Also, the most definitive Lightning is the P-38J, the fifth version (ignoring the original 13 planes).

So yes, development for the original version was fast, but the "final" version was usually some time off (B-17G)


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Nfarce on 2/25/2010 10:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Different time, bad example.


No, the point is that back then we didn't start winning big victories until new aircraft went into production. Today we can't build a new aircraft in a few years, let alone 117 days or whatever (you've got to read past the first paragraph in WiKi), which was the guy's original point that I replied to.

And for the record the P-51 went from on paper prototype to production combat in two years, and took another year to evolve into the fighter we know it was today, the D model.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By monkeyman1140 on 2/25/2010 10:05:42 AM , Rating: 1
Carter cancelled the B1-A for good reasons. First it was too expensive, its fuel tanks leaked, it was unsafe to fly at low altitudes due to its faulty TERCOM, and cruise missiles turned out to be far more cost-effective.
Reagan resuscitated the B1 for no reason other than to score cold war points and he never saw a military contract he didn't like.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Nfarce on 2/25/2010 10:19:53 AM , Rating: 3
For your information, we are still using the B-1B today and it has been used in both Afghanistan and Iraq with not one single loss. So, it wasn't a waste.

Second, what Reagan spent and the validity behind it can be debated all day long. What can't be is that the USSR collapsed soon after. And them's the facts.


By monkeyman1140 on 3/2/2010 11:33:41 AM , Rating: 1
We have lost a good number of B-1's to accidents, some of them due to faulty computer systems, a known issue.
The cost of the B-1 is $250 million per, far higher than the B-52's $45 million each, and the B-52 will fly until 2040. The B-1 is only expected to fly until 2027 at the most.

The collapse of the USSR had nothing to do with Reagan, but I guess I will give you a short history lesson for your benefit. There was this incompetent leader named Leonid Brezhnev, who got into unecessary wars, ballooned the military budget, and deficit spent. By the time Reagan took power the USSR was already broke, and Gorbachev instituted desperate reforms in order to stem the bleeding. It was too late however, and Perestroika combined with the Russian pullout of Warsaw Pact states couldn't fix the faltering russian economy. Some old style communists weren't too happy with the reforms so there was a KGB coup. It was disorganized and the coup conspirators were incompetent, so after a short period of time Gorbachev was let go, and Boris Yeltsin used his political power to marginalize the communists.

Any mention of Reagan here, no because the old bumbling fool in the brown suit had nothing to do with internal Soviet politics. Gorbachev realized Reagan was an idiot after his first meeting with him and had little to worry about in that regards.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Amiga500 on 2/24/2010 4:01:40 PM , Rating: 3
I hope your not expecting the JSF to help out there...

You'll be sorely disappointed. Indeed, you raise an interesting situation, say a flight of USAF birds have to escort transports, largely negating their stealthy advantage as the opposition will be focussing on the tranports... does the F-35 have the kinematic performance to operate effectively?

The answer to that, from everything I know, is definitely not.

It is probably a bigger worry for the USN that the JSF is set to become their main fleet defender. Mach 2.2 Tomcats with 180+km Phoenix AAMs were needed to keep the Backfires at arms length... what use is Mach ~1.65 and a ~100km missile? (*Note* The AIM-120D range is off a Mach 2.4+ F-22 at altitude...)

The Backfires have not gone... but the long ranged, long arm naval missile interceptor has... and it has not been replaced.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By psychmike on 2/24/2010 4:19:26 PM , Rating: 3
I hear you, but in some ways the Tomcat's role has not been replaced by the Super Hornet, it's been replaced by Aegis and Cooperative Engagement Capability.

Perhaps someone can confirm or clarify but my understanding is that CAP in a high threat environment would typically involve 2 flights; each consisting of 2 x Tomcats and 1 x E-2. Maintaining a standing CAP with 1/6 of the carrier's air defenders would be taxing.

Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers are operationally stationed some distance from the carrier and provide round-the-clock coverage. The newest Standard SAMs have a range of almost 200km. CEC means that surface units can 'lend' their missiles to the basket and make sure that all threats are being targeted.

As you know, a carrier doesn't just face an air threat and these surface combatants offer good ASW capability as well.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Tomcat. Anytime, Baby!

Mike


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Amiga500 on 2/24/2010 5:36:53 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, you are right on the CAP patterns, usually 2x hawkeyes with accompanying fighters. But, 24x Toms on a carrier that would be in danger?

A Nimitz class could pack 90 on the boat... not the 60 or so they sail with at the minute. If push came to shove, you can be damn sure there would be a packed deck leaving port! I would have expected 48x F-14s on any carrier deck going into a major hot-zone.

(No US carrier has recently went into a battle where there has been a real and present danger to the carrier - so I pay little heed to current deployment compositions)

A Backfire can carry the SS-N-22 Sunburn... it is in your best interests to keep those as far from your CVBG as possible. A SM-2 has a range of about a hundred miles... meanwhile a Tomcat could engage the Backfires 3 or 4 hundred miles out, that is quite a difference.

Also, the role of the carrier within NATO should not be completely forgotten... its mission was, and is to keep the sea lanes open. Reducing your effective sphere of influence (which has happened with the replacement of F-14/AIM-54 with F/A-18/AIM-120 & F-35/AIM-120) is a definite step backward with regards that mission IMO.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By psychmike on 2/24/2010 11:29:54 PM , Rating: 3
The 90 aircraft that a carrier can pack on include necessary SAR and ASW helicopters and strike aircraft (the raison d'etre) for the task force), not just air defenders. It may have happened, but I have never heard of a carrier deploying with more than 2 squadrons of Tomcats and I think there are good reasons for this including the availability of squadrons and the ability to efficiently move, launch, and recover aircraft on the deck. Of course in the highest threat situations, 2 or more CBGs would likely work cooperatively.

You're absolutely right, the Tomcats give further engagement ranges and a wider sphere of influence, but only against air threats. I think the thinking has moved to more balanced defenses. Surface combatants are multi-role and protect sea lanes not only from air threats but submarine threats as well.

As much as I like the Tomcat, I'm not sure the AIM-54 has really proven itself. I know that there was 1 widely publisized test involving close-to simultaneous launch of 6 missiles against drones. The -54 certainly could have been further developed, but the -120D could definitely reasonably be called a long-range AAM. The Super Bugs reported poor transonic acceleration is certainly something you don't want in an interceptor.


By Chernobyl68 on 2/25/2010 2:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
back when I was in the service, CVW-9 had:
2 squadrons of tomcats,
2 of hornets,
1 of prowlers,
1 of intruders,
1 of vikings
1 of seahawks,
1 of hawkeyes.

The navy has yet to aquire a replacement for the A-6 with anywhere near the range of that aircraft.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By knutjb on 2/24/2010 4:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
Fighters don't go very far for very long without a tanker to keep them in the air. They are useless without ground support delivered by airlift. Without a tanker the military flying world grinds to a halt and our 45+ year old tankers do need replacing. You might be able to contract airlift but not inflight refueling.


By Amiga500 on 2/24/2010 5:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
They are even more useless without their munitions ;-)

(which in the case of AAMs are very often delivered by airlift)


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By NullSubroutine on 2/24/2010 6:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
Especially considering last I had heard the turn radius or whatever for an F-35 is worse than F-4 Phantom...a Vietnam era jet...just about any 4th, 5th, or even 6th generation jets being able to out maneuver our $100 million toys.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By porkpie on 2/24/2010 8:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Northrop Grummond:
quote:
"With [the fighter's] distributed aperture system, maneuverability is irrelevant. Instead of mutual kills, the F-35 simply exits the fight, and lets its missiles do the turning..."


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Amiga500 on 2/25/2010 3:21:20 AM , Rating: 3
That is pure marketing PR bullsh!t that is gonna get good people killed.

With a missile being a skid steer, if you make a 180deg off-bore shot, you are essentially starting the shot off with close to zero kinetic energy. If the aircraft is going at Mach 1 (@SL), that means you are "losing" (maybe wasting would be a better term), for a 60kg missile, ~3.3 MJoules of kinetic energy.

To put that in perspective, an AIM-9E motor only had an impulse of ~4 KN/s and a burn time of ~2.2 seconds.... at Mach 2 that is a total of ~5.3 MJoules of potential energy in the motor.

As I said, marketing BS from the manufacturers to hide the blatant deficiencies.

A box-office (AIM-9X) will have a better motor, probably around 6-8 MJoules of potential energy... so you are "only" turning down a boost of around 50%. Ridiculous isn't it?


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Amiga500 on 2/25/2010 3:33:45 AM , Rating: 2
Do'h... sorry folks, too early in the morning... the conversion from impulse to energy is totally wrong, dunno wtf I was doing there.

Anyway... an AIM-9X box office will have a stored energy of ~ 20-25 M Joules.

So your turning down approx a 13-15% energy boost, and losing energy from actually having to decelerate the missile from your flight trajectory (to 0) and accelerate the missile toward the target (from 0 to target)... [as I said, skid steer], so double that and you are dropping between 25-30% of the missile energy you could have achieved.

(Doesn't change the end conclusion... more marketing BS!)


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By Regs on 2/25/2010 9:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Makes you wonder just how bad the Russian counter parts are. Where do people get their info on how great Asian or European air craft come from? (likely from the country who made them).

The perceived quality on many of these air craft are skewed. Remember WWII when the Japs had a faster plane but had a fuel tank at the bottom that only took one shot to make it explode?

The 100 million dollar mark likely comes from safety, guidance systems, weapon systems, and other robotics and computerization. The perceived quality of the competition planes are the only thing that is BS in this discussion.


RE: Mobility relies on good fighers
By 91TTZ on 2/25/2010 11:07:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"With [the fighter's] distributed aperture system, maneuverability is irrelevant. Instead of mutual kills, the F-35 simply exits the fight, and lets its missiles do the turning..."


That's a rather optimistic bit of PR nonsense to cover up for the fact that this very expensive new "low-cost" fighter can't deliver on performance expectations.

It's pretty hard to "simply exit" a fight when your aircraft is both slower and less maneuverable than your enemy's aircraft. It makes for a situation where if your missiles miss and he gets inside range to attack you, you're a sitting duck.


By Chernobyl68 on 2/25/2010 3:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
so I guess all those years of ACM training in the navy's "top gun" school are pointless? A fighter that is neither faster or more maneauverable is what is known to the technical crowd as a "sitting duck"


Aim High!
By headbox on 2/24/2010 1:39:57 PM , Rating: 3
I'm a chairborne ranger with no military experience, nor do I work in the defense industry, but my friend's brother was a cook in the air national guard, so I have insider information from which I can draw expert conclusions and post them on the internet.




RE: Aim High!
By JonnyDough on 2/24/2010 8:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in the ANG...and I hope you weren't making light of my friends in the dining hall, they do a good job (we don't call it the chow hall anymore, or at least we aren't supposed to).

I'll be getting trained on the C-27 later this year and I'm grateful because the C-21 is just a tad small for me. :)


RE: Aim High!
By MadMan007 on 2/25/2010 12:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
Why can't you call it the chow hall?


RE: Aim High!
By JonnyDough on 2/25/2010 2:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
Because its unoffi...

Err, actually I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you. Sorry.

Please reference Article #...


RE: Aim High!
By JonnyDough on 2/25/2010 2:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
Actually its just what the Maj who actually runs it told us one day. He's also in charge of my flight.


maybe they could save some money by...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/24/2010 1:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
I always wanted to build one of those kit cars... Make a Pontiac Fiero look like a Lamborghini... Well maybe we could do some kit planes... Just pimp out the old planes...

Just an idea... :)




RE: maybe they could save some money by...
By hiscross on 2/24/2010 8:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
That's what we did in Vietnam. Most of the planes we used came from the Korean and WWII. No Thanks.


RE: maybe they could save some money by...
By Nfarce on 2/24/2010 11:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's what we did in Vietnam. Most of the planes we used came from the Korean and WWII. No Thanks.


[[double take]]

Now just where did you get that information from? Let's see here:

For the Air Force, well into the war after the buildup it was mostly the A-7, F-100, F-101, F-105, F-4, F-5, F-111, C-130, C-141, and B-52 used in combat and transport missions.

For the Navy and combat (from ships obviously), it was the A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, F-4, and F-8.

Now both the US Air Force and US Navy used a WWII-era radial propeller attack aircraft known as the A-1 Skyraider, but if you can correct me in all those other aircraft being flown in WWII and Korea, please do so. :)


By porkpie on 2/24/2010 11:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we also flew F3-D's in both Korea and Vietnam, and some Korean war vintage helo's saw service in Vietnam as well.

Bomber wise, the B-47 saw service in both Korea and Vietnam. But yes, saying the planes were "mostly" from WW2 and Korea is quite an overstatement.


silly military planners
By marvdmartian on 2/24/2010 2:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
Any military planner that counts on a new device/system coming out on time, especially one as complex as the new JSF, is just foolish (IMHO).

It's like anything else. Take what the contractor tells you, and add 10% overage.....in this case, a year, maybe more.

At least they're making Lockheed responsible for their delay, and withholding funding until they get back on track (unlike the old days, when they'd just throw more money at the problem).




RE: silly military planners
By Regs on 2/24/2010 3:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
10 % overage is the rule of production, not delay in project completion time. Delaying completion time always pisses off your customers and ends up losing you money. No one forecasts delays because you just don't want them...period.


RE: silly military planners
By nascar246788 on 2/24/2010 5:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the thing, this delay is either the military fault's or the management of the project. Because one thing that holds true is military planners and management that don't have computer science experience fail to realize that it is not easy thing to do what they often ask of us and don't realize the complexity. Now I am not saying that is what is plaguing this project, I think it is a combination of too high expectations but then workers not doing their jobs so the delay is much bigger than what it should be.

As for air superiority someone mentioned above, F-35 is a multi-role aircraft it is not meant for air superiority. The F-22 was our air superiority airplane.


RE: silly military planners
By JonnyDough on 2/24/2010 8:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, this isn't some toy car they're making. But the bottom line is that management looks out over the next 10-30 years and tries to land contracts. That means that they see this huge amount of defense funding and they want it. They'll say anything to get it. Whoever put the stakes on the table knew the project wouldn't be done in time. They didn't care. They just wanted the contract.


Tactical Error: Sukhoi PAK FA T-50
By Destroyer on 2/25/2010 3:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
President Obama said the F-22 Raptor was a relic of the Cold War; unfortunately for the US and our allies who want to buy the F-22, the Russians didn't know the Cold War is over and last month test flew their version of the F-22, the Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 which looks like a mix of F-22 Raptor and YF-23 (Black Widow). You can expect Russia to make thousands of these Mach 2 stealthy fighter jets and sell to all enemies of the US while we try to counter-attack using UAVs like the Predator.




RE: Tactical Error: Sukhoi PAK FA T-50
By gamerk2 on 2/25/2010 8:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
Not really; Russia is flat broke, hence why their AF still constists of SU-27 and Mig-29 fighters, which while very good for their time, are now hopelessly obsolete.

Also note: Stealthy != Stealth. The F/A 18-E is a "Stealthy" fighter; so is the F-15.

Also note: they only have a single test flight [takeoff launch], so they still have several years of development/testing to go, neverming actually finding the money to buy the plane in large quantities...I expect this to be the same as "other" fighters Russia has developed [Mig 31, SU-35/37, etc) but never mass produced due to cost.


By monkeyman1140 on 2/25/2010 10:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
The difference is Russia no longer feels the need to maintain a global empire, unlike the USA. We are the new USSR.


By Chernobyl68 on 2/25/2010 3:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
actually, we'll be paying them to be built, as we contract with russia to travel to the space station, since they'll have the only ride there.


1 year delay for F35 :-o
By Aloonatic on 2/24/2010 3:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no, a delay you say? That is amazing, and a never before heard of event in the world of defence/government procurement...

...Assuming that the aircraft that they are replacing arrived on time, and that it's only reasonable to assume that the aircraft that will replace the F35 will arrive bang on schedule too?




RE: 1 year delay for F35 :-o
By FITCamaro on 2/24/2010 8:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Sure a P51 Mustang might have been easily to produce on time and quickly. But the F35 has so much software its not even funny. And you can't plan out software development the way you do hardware. Plus you have the fact that even the physical plane isn't even complete yet.


RE: 1 year delay for F35 :-o
By SittingBull on 2/26/2010 12:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
What I don't like about the F-35 is the fact that it doesn't have two engines.

I'm a Canadian and we almost NEED fighters with two engines due to the vast northern territory we must patrol and defend. If your ONLY engine dies on you, what are you going to do?

It is not like there are rescue facilities at hand all over the Arctic. There are only about 35,000 people living in the entire Canadian Arctic region, a region that is vast almost beyond comprehension. Not to mention deadly weather-wise most of the time.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki