F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[Lugzy]

Well gents as soon as there's some good up lifting ,morale boosting reports/articles regarding the f-35-f-35b program , I'm sure they will be posted here too

[Ron5]

Well gents as soon as there's some good up lifting ,morale boosting reports/articles regarding the f-35-f-35b program , I'm sure they will be posted here too

There was one posted 3 days ago, just before you starting your long string of ridiculous comments. "Ridiculous" is being kind.

[bobp]

I wonder if they will announce some more orders for the f35b after the SDSR has been completed.

[Lugzy]

Well gents as soon as there's some good up lifting ,morale boosting reports/articles regarding the f-35-f-35b program , I'm sure they will be posted here too

There was one posted 3 days ago, just before you starting your long string of ridiculous comments. "Ridiculous" is being kind.

And I'm guessing ridiculous to you means anything you don't agree with , which is amusing tbh , well as you've pointed out in past disputes with members this is a forum , a place were people can discuse subjects and give there opinions , I'd rather someone state reasons for disagreeing than to be as lazy as to drop weak one liners ,

[seaspear]

I have not read anywhere that the pace of development of the F35B is slow ,I would of thought very quick considering its complexitiy and what it is able to do, consider the early Harrier took some years to even get a radar , the Typhoon may be older than some of the members here and still not finished as far as upgrades go. I find the contributions of the members here interesting but if there is digress we should at least respect the others views and not be dismissive, agree to disagree should be enough.

[Geoff_B]

I have not read anywhere that the pace of development of the F35B is slow ,I would of thought very quick considering its complexitiy and what it is able to do, consider the early Harrier took some years to even get a radar , the Typhoon may be older than some of the members here and still not finished as far as upgrades go. I find the contributions of the members here interesting but if there is digress we should at least respect the others views and not be dismissive, agree to disagree should be enough.

Oh it is LM and the propoganda machine only look forward and tactfully forget their clangers. You need to remember that much of the development took place in the 90s after stating in the late 80s as a Harrier replacement. The JSF competition was supposed to down select a design that would be ready for service for next decade, when we originally selected the F-35B to become the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) to operate from our CVF it was expected the ships to be in service by 2012 & 2014 with initially Harriers replaced by F-35B in 2014/5. That why they scrapped the Sea Harriers as they expected their replacements in 2012. LM had sold the F-35 concept by promissing to develop their X-35 into a service version using all their experience of F-16 and F-22 coupled wiith BAE's advanced Typhoon production process to develop the design quickly, as they could use the computer tyechnology to work it aal out without nee of a prototype or too much slow engineering testing.
Guess what they cocked it up their didgital design was too heavy and then spent a panicked 12 months culling weight without properly modelling the impact of those changes apart from weight saving. Thats why they have had numerous issues with part specificationsm overheating, odd flight behaviour and cracking bulkheads. Considering the first F-35B flew in December 2006 and 9 years later they are still trying to figure out how to replace the flawed lightened main bulkhead they put in to save weiight !!.

When you follow the programme for the last 20 odd years and know its going to be another 5 before they have an aircraft thats actually fit for purpose, you can become rather skeptical of the PR BS that tends to be spouted by those either in the know and lying through their teeth or those too young to know the real history and take whats said at face value.

I actually quite like the type and understand the UK's position on the variant in that given time and billions of Dollars LM will eventually iron out the kinks and produce a useful aircraft, but knowing the truth are less than willing to jump in with both feet until those issues are resolved or these aircraft might prove to have a limited and very expensive lifespan (Carrier STOVL operations and a weak main bulkhead for the landing gear don't go together very well for very long !!!).

It going to be good asset on the QEC in FAA & RAF hands but people really need to learn to see past the hype and bravado thats being spin doctored around. Sure there are alot of doom mongers who jump at anything that hints of failure but don't be too quick to dismiss them all as some have followed from the start and have charted a path of truth through the aggressive LM media machine.

[seaspear]

The promises of the implementation of delivery were unrealistic for an aircraft of this complexity the contract to LockheedMartin was back in 2001, there have also been other requirements for this aircraft added so that further modification to the design was needed,its a very different aircraft to the original X35 in its capabilities , to consider its implementation as slow ,is there anything this complex that has been produced quicker and more efficiently for comparison,

[Pseudo]

when we originally selected the F-35B to become the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) to operate from our CVF it was expected the ships to be in service by 2012 & 2014 with initially Harriers replaced by F-35B in 2014/5. That why they scrapped the Sea Harriers as they expected their replacements in 2012.

I don't think that in 2010 when the decision was made to retire the Harrier fleet there was any real expectation of the F-35 entering service before 2016 or the UK having enough of them to build a carrier air group before 2020. IIRC, this was one of the arguments used in favour of maintaining the Harrier fleet. Though it was an argument that was negated by the ultimately abortive decision to refit the carriers to CATOBAR and acquire the F-35C.

[shark bait]

Getting rid of the harriers was purely an exercise in cost cutting.

As for the F35, it will be a great asset to the UK, but make no mistake Lockheed Martin have done an absolute terrible job. Any target they set themselves they missed, and by any indicator the program is a failure.

At least there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

[seaspear]

Realistically though governments should have enough oversight of any defense program to understand if the manufacturer of the platforms timelines are achievable ,that production of the F35 was commenced before testing was completed ,the result of which added to costs as the aircraft had to have subsequent modification adding to cost and time was a result of the U.S policy of atempting to rush this ,that capabilities have been added to the original concept and need to be integrated should add to this platforms longevity, getting it right and not rushing it allows this platform to stay cutting edge for much longer

[shark bait]

yes, government procurement is also to blame. Between them and the project LM it is a serious balls up.

Concurrency development is a part of the problem, its a fad in the engineering world picked up from software engineering. Its never going to work on real things, I think that's plain to see.

[Geoff_B]

yes, government procurement is also to blame. Between them and the project LM it is a serious balls up.

Concurrency development is a part of the problem, its a fad in the engineering world picked up from software engineering. Its never going to work on real things, I think that's plain to see.

Well thats how they envisaged the programme at the time, they expected the computers to get the design right and only expected minor modifications and tweaks from the initial flight testing, thus the quick delivery dates predicted, the lack of a prototype and the prepping production for an early ramp up to full, thus we get stuck with 150+ aiircraft some of which are still being built with inferior parts whilst they stuggle to fix the desgn issues created from their cock up.

[shark bait]

They envisaged it wrong. Its not bad that things go wrong, its bad that you don't have a recovery built into the schedule.
Also computers don't design things, people do, if your tools are wrong it doesn't make it acceptable.

Im an not trying to say designing a fighter is easy, history has numerous examples that prove it isn't, and yet people don't learn from these examples an manage a program accordingly.

Look at the the carriers, look at the Olympics, look at Crossrail. They all have huge budgets and take ages, but are on budget and on time. This is not because things haven't gone wrong, but because there are resources in place to deal with that, something LM haven't done. Providing realistic budgets and time scales is important for everyone's long term planning and success.

I get the vibes people are defending the program. I'm certainly not going to, they have screwed over the taxpayers of many countries. Quick calculation, they have screwed over 747 million people, that's 10% of everyone!

[seaspear]

If there was another aircraft that had similar capabilities and was cheaper governments elsewhere would of gone for it .

[Ron5]

Well gents as soon as there's some good up lifting ,morale boosting reports/articles regarding the f-35-f-35b program , I'm sure they will be posted here too

There was one posted 3 days ago, just before you starting your long string of ridiculous comments. "Ridiculous" is being kind.

And I'm guessing ridiculous to you means anything you don't agree with , which is amusing tbh , well as you've pointed out in past disputes with members this is a forum , a place were people can discuse subjects and give there opinions , I'd rather someone state reasons for disagreeing than to be as lazy as to drop weak one liners ,

Fair comment. Apologies.

[Tony Williams]

Look at the the carriers, look at the Olympics, look at Crossrail. They all have huge budgets and take ages, but are on budget and on time. This is not because things haven't gone wrong, but because there are resources in place to deal with that, something LM haven't done. Providing realistic budgets and time scales is important for everyone's long term planning and success.

Crossrail is an amazing achievement, which I think largely down to the fact that the UK has built up a considerable reservoir of expertise in planning and delivering major infrastructure projects (something we could lose if there was a gap in such projects, leading key people to move on to other things). Compare this with the mess Germany has got into with Berlin's Brandenburg airport, which is massively late and over budget.

However, the Olympic Games and the QE carriers both need qualifying: in both cases, "on budget" refers only to the final budget agreed - the original cost estimates were far lower. The London Olympics were originally estimated to cost less than £3 billion but ended up costing £9 billion. The contract for building the carriers was signed in 2008 at a cost of £3.9 billion, rose to £5.2 billion by 2010 and is now £6.3 billion (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28153569).

[seaspear]

I would suggest that the F35 as a project required more technology breakthroughs than the carrier and crossrail project

[ArmChairCivvy]

from software engineering. Its never going to work on real things, I think that's plain to see.

SB, if you talk about Agile Development, concurrency is replaced by rapid iterations. Some of the iterations involve prototyping, which you will have to be ready (=budgeted for,in money as well as time) to discard.
- you may have meant that as in a later post you talk about budgeting for correcting errors?

F35 programme has been a concerted effort to get at least two main sectors of the fighter market in the West sewn up: the one involving stealth, and the one involving a carrier version. LM needs to play the "baddie" in all this and take the flak (in addition to all those extra billions poured in), but there has all along been a national interest in the background, too.
- the fact that stealth has proven not to be quite the silver bullet it was hyped as is neither here or there, due to the fact that the strategic importance of carrier aviation is on the rise. Just watch the struggling efforts that Russia and now China are making to have some meaningful planes to put on their, as of now, symbolic carrier forces.

[Tiny Toy]

Crossrail is an amazing achievement, which I think largely down to the fact that the UK has built up a considerable reservoir of expertise in planning and delivering major infrastructure projects

If only we had built up the expertise to run and maintain them afterwards

[ArmChairCivvy]

^ That is a question of management orientation, in the end incentives. The railway infrastructure company's board, when it started, had huge accumulated experience and knowledge. But the Gvmnt incentivised them to become property speculators (with so many "redundant" center-of-city properties on their balance sheet), which they embraced whole heartedly - but took their eye off the ball that they were supposed to play. And decades later, only about now, there might finally be some light at the end of the proverbial (railway?) tunnel.

[Tony Williams]

I would suggest that the F35 as a project required more technology breakthroughs than the carrier and crossrail project

Which is arguably the main point of criticism: the project was far too ambitious.

As a general rule, it is sensible to incorporate no more than one innovation at a time. Any innovation doubles the risk of problems, two innovations probably quadruples it, and so on. What with introducing a new form of STOVL engineering; developing one airframe to suit three different sets of requirements; pushing the technical boundaries on sensors; and including stealth technology; the project was bound to run into a whole set of problems which would result in considerable delays and cost increases, and so it proved. Yet despite this, they decided to start manufacturing the things before they had finished developing them! The mind boggles

[ArmChairCivvy]

F35 programme has been a concerted effort to get [...] fighter market in the West sewn up

Tony, not really if you look at it from this angle. Letting the international order book already built up drain away was not an option. Whereas for the international customers the "in for a penny, in for a pound" logic was only binding the UK and Italy in, remembering that their carriers also cost a few pennies - and both also did away with their ability to pursue next-gen fighter projects, just to get a good work share in the "Mother of all Defence Projects".

[ArmChairCivvy]

In fact (and while taking cover from the battle for naval supremacy reigning both on this board and @TD), the mistakes listed for the F35 prgrm and the latest generation of US carriers are almost identical:
http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/u ... raphic.png
perhaps with the exception of inadequate testing.
- the F35 has had an extensive test prgrm;
- at the same time its effectiveness has been hampered by the high degree of concurrency of the overall prgrm.

In IT speak (as it seems to be favoured here): You can Unit Test to your heart's content, but the only true test is the integration test... and when will that arrive (in its true sense) when the prgrm has too much concurrency (too many moving parts, to be able to ascertain how they constitute the "whole" and whether that "whole" as a deliverable lives up to the promises made (which promises, in themselves, can be a bit nebulous if the business case is badly constructed).

[shark bait]

However, the Olympic Games and the QE carriers both need qualifying: in both cases, "on budget" refers only to the final budget agreed - the original cost estimates were far lower. The London Olympics were originally estimated to cost less than £3 billion but ended up costing £9 billion. The contract for building the carriers was signed in 2008 at a cost of £3.9 billion, rose to £5.2 billion by 2010 and is now £6.3 billion (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28153569).

No, that is almost my exact point, some smart people from the contractors and the government recognised things would go wrong, and had the balls to allocate sufficient resources to the project to make sure it stays on track when things go wrong, rather than pretend everything will be OK, as if they can some how beat the system.

[ArmChairCivvy]

some smart people from the contractors and the government recognised things would go wrong

I think that nicely captures what is wrong in the adverserial model in use in defence contracting (and often skipped in UORs as the participants on both sides of the fence know that the model is broken). Here is a recent conversation regarding what to do about it:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/acqu ... i=22529378