F-35 article

[taxi1]

I truly, honestly, believe this is the most succinct yet complete explanation for what’s going on:

He had me at "exponential improvement"

Not quadratic...exponential.

It's disappointing that at the same time we are seeing a decrease in the time to market of new technology introduced into the rest of the world, we are seeing orders of magnitude increase in the time to market on the mil side.

 

[Pags]

He had me at "exponential improvement"

Not quadratic...exponential.

It's disappointing that at the same time we are seeing a decrease in the time to market of new technology introduced into the rest of the world, we are seeing orders of magnitude increase in the time to market on the mil side.

I think that's a false analysis because the public doesn't get to see how long things grow within companies. You could argue that it took Apple from 1983 until 2007 to grown Newton into the iPhone. But instead people focus on how long it takes to get from iOS X to X+1. Which many mil aviation platforms are on a 1-2yr cycle software cycle and that is more analogous to civilian sw dev. To equate developing a trillion dollar weapon system with the next iteration of TV is disengenous.

 

[Python]

He had me at "exponential improvement"

Not quadratic...exponential.

It's disappointing that at the same time we are seeing a decrease in the time to market of new technology introduced into the rest of the world, we are seeing orders of magnitude increase in the time to market on the mil side.

What Pags said.
Also...quadratic...exponential...did you have any comments to make on the video or not?

From first hand experience, I’d say the airplane truly is excellent, despite its growing pains. The program, obviously, was a shit show. But the aircraft is hands down the one I’d go to war in.

 

[taxi1]

You could argue that it took Apple from 1983 until 2007 to grown Newton into the iPhone.

That's what the X-craft are for, to mature the nascent technologies to the point that we can make a weapon out of them.

It was 18 years from when the X-35 flew to when it saw some combat. That is too long.

did you have any comments to make on the video or not?

Just that one pet peeve.

The fundamental issue is the time it has taken to get the plane into service. You give an opponent 18 years to noodle on how to counter it.

 

[Pags]

That's what the X-craft are for, to mature the nascent technologies to the point that we can make a weapon out of them.

It was 18 years from when the X-35 flew to when it saw some combat. That is too long.

Just that one pet peeve.

The fundamental issue is the time it has taken to get the plane into service. You give an opponent 18 years to noodle on how to counter it.

Yeah, not really. Programs have an Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase that comes after it becomes a program. That's where that specific aircraft is taken from an X plane to a fleet aircraft. We used to use Y but that seems to have fallen into disuse. There's a lot of real development work that happens between a prototype and an LRIP aircraft. If we want our fleet aircraft to have safe envelopes that allow them to effectively used then that development work needs to happen. If we're willing to accept more risk for our fleet aviators and maintainers than we could cut it short but we've said we aren't willing to do that. No one wants fleet aviators to become test pilots or have wings fall off during maneuvers within an approved envelope.

We don't see how long private companies take to make iphones, chips, tvs, and new materials but if you can see it took Apple 24 years to truly realize the concept of a PDA. And there was a lot of work going on in parallel that they didn't own such as the WWW, wifi, cell networks, etc. When the DoD does something like an F-35 they're essentially doing the entire ecosystem at once and not just the airplane. They're developing all the new systems, hardware, software, and materials in parallel. So that would be like the DoD developing the internet, wifi, cell systems, and an iphone all at once.

The DoD acquisition system is FAR from perfect but I think it gets a lot of undeserved beatings and unfair comparisons to non-analgous for profit companies.

 

[Griz882]

Sales winner of the century: B-52

Nobody’s out there naming their Grammy nominated pop punk band “The MH-60R’s”

Thanks for ruining the roll out of my new band...jerk.

Our song “Vertrep to Your Doorstep” is going to alter the music industry.

 

[Flash]

The DoD acquisition system is FAR from perfect but I think it gets a lot of undeserved beatings and unfair comparisons to non-analgous for profit companies.

Seeing how bad countries are at procuring weapons, along with our own very mixed record before much of the current bureaucracy was put in place, we actually don't do too bad.

 

[Hair Warrior]

The DoD acquisition system is FAR from perfect

I see what you did there.

 

[taxi1]

The DoD acquisition system is FAR from perfect

I'm still dying on the "18 years is a failure" hill. It's a full 23 years to IOC from program start. What if we needed its capabilities in a peer conflict during years 10-17? We got lucky, no?

And if we haven't needed it yet...

It's fair to point more at the JCIDS process than the acquisition process. Once the requirements are set, success or failure is dictated (or at least the odds are set) by technology and physics. You just have to wait decades and trillions of dollars to find out how it ends.

I did stuff on the USMC EFV amphibious vehicle that was a 35 ton jet ski. The Marines had to have that high speed in order to execute their mission, it was a hard requirement. Until the laws of physics and available technologies intervened and the program failed. Now it's not a requirement.

A supersonic plane that hovered would have been useful in the Vietnam War era too.

 

[Pags]

I'm still dying on the "18 years is a failure" hill. It's a full 23 years to IOC from program start. What if we needed its capabilities in a peer conflict during years 10-17? We got lucky, no?

And if we haven't needed it yet...

It's fair to point more at the JCIDS process than the acquisition process. Once the requirements are set, success or failure is dictated (or at least the odds are set) by technology and physics. You just have to wait decades and trillions of dollars to find out how it ends.

I did stuff on the USMC EFV amphibious vehicle that was a 35 ton jet ski. The Marines had to have that high speed in order to execute their mission, it was a hard requirement. Until the laws of physics and available technologies intervened and the program failed. Now it's not a requirement.

A supersonic plane that hovered would have been useful in the Vietnam War era too.

If we had needed it then folks could have made decisions to use it. Frankly, we wait for our systems to perfectly meet the JCIDS requirements before we field them because we can. At any point the right people can take the safeties off the system and run faster and with more risk if they wanted to.

 

[Pags]

I see what you did there.

The FARs and the contractual processes they engender certainly don't make it go any faster. But if NATOPS is written in blood the FARs are written in past cases of fraud, waste, and abuse and other cases of a few idiots ruining it for the rest of us.

 

[A Day In The Life]

What Pags said.
Also...quadratic...exponential...did you have any comments to make on the video or not?

From first hand experience, I’d say the airplane truly is excellent, despite its growing pains. The program, obviously, was a shit show. But the aircraft is hands down the one I’d go to war in.

I have a somewhat differing view on the F-35. Would I prefer to take it into combat over a Super Hornet? If all the mission systems are functioning correctly then absolutely. But we’re experiencing so many issues with various mission systems that you are rarely ever flying an aircraft that is FMC. Our latest software load is complete shit and is introducing even more issues into not only mission systems but to general aircraft software stability as well. Let’s not even get into interoperability and how poorly the F-35 play with others.

The list of DRs we have on this aircraft is ridiculous. I’d love to meet the person who worked on the LM contract on behalf of the government and punch them. LM completely screws us on every thing they can with this aircraft.

 

[Python]

I have a somewhat differing view on the F-35. Would I prefer to take it into combat over a Super Hornet? If all the mission systems are functioning correctly then absolutely. But we’re experiencing so many issues with various mission systems that you are rarely ever flying an aircraft that is FMC. Our latest software load is complete shit and is introducing even more issues into not only mission systems but to general aircraft software stability as well. Let’s not even get into interoperability and how poorly the F-35 play with others.

The list of DRs we have on this aircraft is ridiculous. I’d love to meet the person who worked on the LM contract on behalf of the government and punch them. LM completely screws us on every thing they can with this aircraft.

Sure. I meant a FMC or near FMC jet. Not one with a dozen ICAWS. So yes if the jet is not a good one, then no I won’t pick it.

All the other issues you refer to input in the column of “program issues.” I have as much resentment towards LM as the next guy. But I won’t blame the jet itself for that; rather, the program.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Check out Ash Carter's book Inside the Five-Sided Box for some insight into the program circa 2009-2017. Some great reading.

 

[FinkUFreaky]

I have a somewhat differing view on the F-35. Would I prefer to take it into combat over a Super Hornet? If all the mission systems are functioning correctly then absolutely. But we’re experiencing so many issues with various mission systems that you are rarely ever flying an aircraft that is FMC. Our latest software load is complete shit and is introducing even more issues into not only mission systems but to general aircraft software stability as well. Let’s not even get into interoperability and how poorly the F-35 play with others.

The list of DRs we have on this aircraft is ridiculous. I’d love to meet the person who worked on the LM contract on behalf of the government and punch them. LM completely screws us on every thing they can with this aircraft.

I can't speak on the F-35. Only on what the Navy replaced TIMS with; a hot mess with T-SHARP. It was supposed to be introduced 2-3 years ago. Not sure how it's supposed to be an improvement; I can't think of a single one. So many issues. Nothing is easier to do (looking at their old gradebook takes 3x as long) The old system was working better. There are students that will have to be put on hold because you can't submit a gradesheet. Yet I bet someone will make admiral for this fuckery.