Comments on: A JSF Program Re-Structuring on the Horizon? http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/ The Naval Institute’s taken its independent forum to a new level - with you in the middle of it. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:43:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: anon http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/comment-page-1/#comment-168981 anon Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:08:14 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=4846#comment-168981 4 VARIANTS OF ADVANCED FIGHTERS TO BE DEVELOPED BASED ON SU-27: http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2009/11/4-variants-of-advanced-fighters-to-be.html 4 VARIANTS OF ADVANCED FIGHTERS TO BE DEVELOPED BASED ON SU-27:
http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2009/11/4-variants-of-advanced-fighters-to-be.html

]]> By: Mike M. http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/comment-page-1/#comment-166004 Mike M. Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:39:38 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=4846#comment-166004 Byron, you're wrong. A lot of the problem with the procurement process is getting from startup to contract award. The process of simply getting a requirement through the approval chains and a specification written takes about four years. BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS LONG! Run the program under ACTD rules. Stripped-down requirement, truncated approval chain. You'll save three years right there - and buy yourself a lot of innovation in the process. Byron, you’re wrong.

A lot of the problem with the procurement process is getting from startup to contract award. The process of simply getting a requirement through the approval chains and a specification written takes about four years.

BUT IT DOESN’T HAVE TO TAKE THIS LONG!

Run the program under ACTD rules. Stripped-down requirement, truncated approval chain. You’ll save three years right there – and buy yourself a lot of innovation in the process.

]]> By: UltimaRatioReg http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/comment-page-1/#comment-165729 UltimaRatioReg Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:44:27 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=4846#comment-165729 Byron, So, all in all, you're optimistic? :) Byron,

So, all in all, you’re optimistic? :)

]]> By: Byron http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/comment-page-1/#comment-165727 Byron Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:27:04 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=4846#comment-165727 Lemme see...ability to perform high speed data transfer from off-board platforms without detection (the whole ambush thing)...exceptional radar/fire control system...the RCS vice aircraft controlability and fly by wire interface...electrical generation...enough range to get there and back without a lot of tanking (sorry, Hornet bubbas)...a tough enough airframe to withstand both launch and recovery...ability to fit inside the space-limited decks of a carrier (and if we keep paring away at the air wings, that might not be a consideration). And lets not forget all that goes before this: every last congress-critter is going to want his district to get a piece of the pie, even if it's the freakin' ashtray that won't get installed (boy, the stuff I could tell you about sole-source contracts..) every last company that manufactures aircraft or aircraft parts screaming to get a piece of the pie (just how many companies did it take to build the F-22?) and of course, all the money that got "contributed" to their favorite "lawmaker" to get that piece of pie. And then comes the day when wishful thinking hits the wall called reality, and everything goes back to the drawing board for more screaming and brib...er...contributing. Forgive me if I sound jaundiced, but I've seen where we were, and where we are now, and talk of such which I have avoided so far, truly pisses me off. Lemme see…ability to perform high speed data transfer from off-board platforms without detection (the whole ambush thing)…exceptional radar/fire control system…the RCS vice aircraft controlability and fly by wire interface…electrical generation…enough range to get there and back without a lot of tanking (sorry, Hornet bubbas)…a tough enough airframe to withstand both launch and recovery…ability to fit inside the space-limited decks of a carrier (and if we keep paring away at the air wings, that might not be a consideration).

And lets not forget all that goes before this: every last congress-critter is going to want his district to get a piece of the pie, even if it’s the freakin’ ashtray that won’t get installed (boy, the stuff I could tell you about sole-source contracts..) every last company that manufactures aircraft or aircraft parts screaming to get a piece of the pie (just how many companies did it take to build the F-22?) and of course, all the money that got “contributed” to their favorite “lawmaker” to get that piece of pie.

And then comes the day when wishful thinking hits the wall called reality, and everything goes back to the drawing board for more screaming and brib…er…contributing.

Forgive me if I sound jaundiced, but I’ve seen where we were, and where we are now, and talk of such which I have avoided so far, truly pisses me off.

]]> By: UltimaRatioReg http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/comment-page-1/#comment-165722 UltimaRatioReg Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:15:01 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=4846#comment-165722 Byron, I don't doubt that we won't be building P-51s anymore, going from design to production in a baseball season. But the "fifth generation" consists of what, exactly? Faster? The fastest fighter we ever produced was the F-4H Phantom. More maneuverable? I would like to see turn and roll rate comparisons between the F-35 and the Super Hornet. Or is it ordnance load? Again, won't compare to the F-4 or the A-6. My guess, knuckle dragger that I am, is that the definition will have far more to do with electronics suite and data capability than anything else. If that assumption is true, have we reached top technical potential of the F/A-18 airframe in those areas? Will the change in airframe be as significant an upgrade as the cost would otherwise indicate? Byron,

I don’t doubt that we won’t be building P-51s anymore, going from design to production in a baseball season. But the “fifth generation” consists of what, exactly? Faster? The fastest fighter we ever produced was the F-4H Phantom. More maneuverable? I would like to see turn and roll rate comparisons between the F-35 and the Super Hornet. Or is it ordnance load? Again, won’t compare to the F-4 or the A-6.

My guess, knuckle dragger that I am, is that the definition will have far more to do with electronics suite and data capability than anything else. If that assumption is true, have we reached top technical potential of the F/A-18 airframe in those areas? Will the change in airframe be as significant an upgrade as the cost would otherwise indicate?

]]> By: Byron http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/comment-page-1/#comment-165710 Byron Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:43:46 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=4846#comment-165710 URR, unlike the 60's when the Skunk Works went from napkin to SR-71 in two years, todays hi-tech AC takes years to build. If the Navy wanted a 5th generation fighter/attack(boy, it hurts to say that) then they should have started 8 years ago. Tell me I'm wrong... URR, unlike the 60′s when the Skunk Works went from napkin to SR-71 in two years, todays hi-tech AC takes years to build. If the Navy wanted a 5th generation fighter/attack(boy, it hurts to say that) then they should have started 8 years ago.

Tell me I’m wrong…

]]> By: Mike M. http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/comment-page-1/#comment-165630 Mike M. Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:14:50 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=4846#comment-165630 Well, a late-model Flanker is a pretty formidable opponent. But the real threat comes from the 5th generation aircraft under development. Those could pose quite a problem in the 2020 timeframe. Well, a late-model Flanker is a pretty formidable opponent. But the real threat comes from the 5th generation aircraft under development. Those could pose quite a problem in the 2020 timeframe.

]]> By: UltimaRatioReg http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/comment-page-1/#comment-165611 UltimaRatioReg Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:14:40 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=4846#comment-165611 I gotta ask... just like the shipbuilding situation (DDG-1000 and CG-X), is the F/A-18 Super Hornet being challenged by another airframe in our enemies' arsenal that requires the Navy to develop a new design to go along with recapitalization? I gotta ask… just like the shipbuilding situation (DDG-1000 and CG-X), is the F/A-18 Super Hornet being challenged by another airframe in our enemies’ arsenal that requires the Navy to develop a new design to go along with recapitalization?

]]> By: Cap'n Bill http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/comment-page-1/#comment-165610 Cap'n Bill Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:10:36 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=4846#comment-165610 I'm glad to see some appropriate recognition of the Super Hornet. A design that has been proven to be effective and affordable. Perfectly located in time. I’m glad to see some appropriate recognition of the Super Hornet. A design that has been proven to be effective and affordable. Perfectly located in time.

]]> By: Mike M. http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/23/a-jsf-program-re-structuring-on-the-horizon/comment-page-1/#comment-165597 Mike M. Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:30:12 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=4846#comment-165597 As SJS mentioned, the big issue is that the 'F'-35 isn't. It rightly should be designated 'A'-35. It's an air-to-ground aircraft with a secondary air-to-air mission. As for UCAV, remember that it is decidedly NOT an air-to-air machine. Not only is autonomy an issue (and the software is NEVER trivial on an unmanned aircraft), but the airframe is far less maneuverable than people think. The X-47 can be thought of as a pint-sized, carrier-capable B-2. The real solution for the Navy is F/A-XX. A true 5th generation fighter/attack aircraft. Buy more Super Hornets to buy time (and maybe pay to fix the wing in the later versions and get the stores aligned with the airflow). Buy UCAS to get a 'can opener' capability against the highest-threat targets. And buy TIME...time to get F/A-XX designed, time to get something better than the disaster that F-35 is turning into. BTW, the same applies to the Air Force. DOD should have killed the F-35, spent the money on additional F-22s and F-16s. As SJS mentioned, the big issue is that the ‘F’-35 isn’t. It rightly should be designated ‘A’-35. It’s an air-to-ground aircraft with a secondary air-to-air mission.

As for UCAV, remember that it is decidedly NOT an air-to-air machine. Not only is autonomy an issue (and the software is NEVER trivial on an unmanned aircraft), but the airframe is far less maneuverable than people think. The X-47 can be thought of as a pint-sized, carrier-capable B-2.

The real solution for the Navy is F/A-XX. A true 5th generation fighter/attack aircraft. Buy more Super Hornets to buy time (and maybe pay to fix the wing in the later versions and get the stores aligned with the airflow). Buy UCAS to get a ‘can opener’ capability against the highest-threat targets. And buy TIME…time to get F/A-XX designed, time to get something better than the disaster that F-35 is turning into.

BTW, the same applies to the Air Force. DOD should have killed the F-35, spent the money on additional F-22s and F-16s.

]]>