Major problem for Pratt & Whitney and a delay Lockheed Martin could do without but this is hardly the fault of the project. I guess this wont stop the head hunters and the vultures waiting for the project to fail. Has any major defence project been on time and on budget.
Totally unrelated but if you can get your hands on the movie Pentagon Wars (development of the M2 Bradley fighting vehicle) with Kelsey Grammer...watch it...it's hilarious.
I guess this wont stop the head hunters and the vultures waiting for the project to fail.
Why does being critical equal "waiting for the project to fail"? I'd much rather the project succeed than not and my guess is that most critics feel that way.
Quote:
Has any major defence project been on time and on budget.
Very few, and mostly small ones at that. It's the scale of the problems, delays and cost overruns here that is most perplexing - an estimated 6 years late and reduced performance and treble the original cost!
Has any major defence project been on time and on budget.
P51 mustang,
Queen Elizabeth class battleships
Essex class aircraft carriers
Type VIIC submarines
( all of which ( relatively ) dwarf what we are doing these days )
plus a few more examples.
Admittedly, not recent, but designed to do a job,
and produced on time to suit the need.
On a related topic, I've wondered for a decade now why we wanted the JSF at all. I though the RAAF fighter mission was air superiority over Australia and its maritime approaches, and a reasonable maritime strike capability (not necessarily in the same aircraft, and the F-111s did deliver a pretty good maritime strike capability, AFAIK). Why the enormous emphasis on ground attack now, forcing a decision for the JSF? Am I missing something?
Being able to project undisputed air superiority 2500km E-SE of Sydney coupled with pinpoint ground attack capabilities is the only way we'll get the Bledisloe Cup back.
Make a massive order for SU-27's, on the proviso that one is sent straight away for the pilots to familarise themselves with.
Next, spend 12 months reverse engineering it, and have local factories make the parts. Except for the engine, which would need to be bought in larger numbers than one (as that couldn't be worked out in time).
The reconstruct it on home soil, calling it a completely unique strike fighter, and give it your own code.
Then cancel the remaining order to the Russians, and start selling the home grown one to Pakistan.
Win win!
/end sarcasm
(although this scenario has actually occurred, and they are trying to repeat with current fighters)
Very few, and mostly small ones at that. It's the scale of the problems, delays and cost overruns here that is most perplexing - an estimated 6 years late and reduced performance and treble the original cost!
I wonder how the F-35 project with all it's problems compares to the European Typhoon Eurofighter project which also had issues with a blown out budget and extensive delays...in the end they got an aircraft.
Going back in history I believe the Grumman Lunar Lander had 7 year development schedule and an initial budget of $500M which blew out to $2.2B..and that is back in the 1960's.
Make a massive order for SU-27's, on the proviso that one is sent straight away for the pilots to familarise themselves with.
Next, spend 12 months reverse engineering it, and have local factories make the parts. Except for the engine, which would need to be bought in larger numbers than one (as that couldn't be worked out in time).
The reconstruct it on home soil, calling it a completely unique strike fighter, and give it your own code.
Then cancel the remaining order to the Russians, and start selling the home grown one to Pakistan.
Win win!
/end sarcasm
(although this scenario has actually occurred, and they are trying to repeat with current fighters)
Why not just hack into the database and steal the plans and the manufacture your own
Being able to project undisputed air superiority 2500km E-SE of Sydney coupled with pinpoint ground attack capabilities is the only way we'll get the Bledisloe Cup back.
Well despite the similaraties...this Chinese version is very different to the JSF. One being it's twin engine and has fwd cannards. The Chinese version....no LE slats. Ailerons and flaps have cowl's covering the hydraulic jacks (points of radar signature return) also lower vertical stabilisers and the engine coal flaps do not look like thrust vectoring.
Other little things like the engine coal flaps project rearwards from the fuselage & airframe envelope (thus larger radar and heat return signatures) ...in other words it not a very good copy.
There is lots wrong with this Chinese version ...things that the US designers would have worked and overcome very well. This you can be assured.
I wonder how the F-35 project with all it's problems compares to the European Typhoon Eurofighter project which also had issues with a blown out budget and extensive delays...in the end they got an aircraft.
I've never suggested the Eurofighter, since it's current estimated flyaway cost is about the same as the JSF. But it is a good air superiority fighter by all accounts, and, in exercises, is rumoured to have some kills even against F22s. Estimated cost for an export Su30 is about one-third to one-half the cost of the Eurofighter or JSF - that's it's main attraction, given it's performance. But, as I said in an earlier post, I think the time for these options came and went a while back.
The F-35 blowouts are proportionally worse (at a given point in development). That stings more because one of the main selling points of the F-35 was that it was supposed to be built in a cost-controlled manner and to schedule.
Quote:
Going back in history I believe the Grumman Lunar Lander had 7 year development schedule and an initial budget of $500M which blew out to $2.2B..and that is back in the 1960's.
They weren't building ~2500 of them and selling them to partners! Key points are that the LEM was delivered quickly and on-time, met its goals and was a bespoke build in uncharted territory.
There's a saying in projects: "Cost, Quality, Schedule - pick any two". The F-35 is failing on all three!
Well despite the similaraties...this Chinese version is very different to the JSF. One being it's twin engine and has fwd cannards. The Chinese version....no LE slats. Ailerons and flaps have cowl's covering the hydraulic jacks (points of radar signature return) also lower vertical stabilisers and the engine coal flaps do not look like thrust vectoring.
Other little things like the engine coal flaps project rearwards from the fuselage & airframe envelope (thus larger radar and heat return signatures) ...in other words it not a very good copy.
There is lots wrong with this Chinese version ...things that the US designers would have worked and overcome very well. This you can be assured.
It's more like the Su PAK-FA T-50
Theres some interesting articles how the Chinese stole Russians intellectual property on the Su-27 many years ago. Russians learnt their lesson from sharing that time.
Now they are in a deal supposedly with Russia to buy Su-35 jets; which they'll then most likely use or reverse engineer the engines for their J program.
