This is what oversite failure looks like, the F35

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
Change or scope creep is definitely a problem. I wonder how much of it has to do with a detachment from the money and changes in military leadership over time. Essentially, everything is “for the sake of the mission”, and to a defense contractor, “the customer is always right”. However, when leadership changes and the mindset changes with it, you get new ideas and areas for improvement. Essentially, unless your Congressional backing is strong enough, your program will die if the cost balloons too much. For example, Shelby was a large part of keeping SLS alive even though it has been a colossal mess.
I think a big problem in general, is that military leadership changes everyone 2 to 3 years. And every new person thinks they have to "do something" to paid their resume. No one likes putting on their resume "After I took the job I realized the previous leadership had done a good job, and in three years I managed to not fuck it up."
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
I know that the F18 production was ramped up due to the excessive wear and tear fucking around in middle east has caused. We had to build new E\F's because the Air Force's over reliance on Growlers resulted in a lot of planes simply worn out. That has nothing to do with the planned F35 rollout and that's straight from the horses mouth. It is in the congressional record.
F16 always has orders since that the standard entry point into "US would like to sell you the boom boom" and its the goto plane for those not allowed to get the F35

No one planned on 20 years of continuous operations and the inventory got hit hard. I'm still thrown back that the airforce spun up F15ex's again to replace the F15C's that were basically antiques. It's waste of money considering the air superiority mission the F15c are tasked with is basically "theoretical" at this time.
Building F-15E's to modern standards at 150M per is insane.

I agree that all eggs in the same basket sucks and I hope the winner of the 6th gen contract doesn't rhyme with "Cockpeed".
However I'm still bitter about what Cheney did to Grumman

Personally, I would like the US to chill out for a decade and just reset. Stop trying to celebrate war for the fuck of it and actually try and help solve problems

Another article: "And the program is nine years behind the original 2001 schedule. All of this has forced the services to resume buying legacy aircraft like the F-15EX and the F/A-18E/F while extending the life of legacy A-10s and F-16s. With the prospect of level Defense Department budgets in the coming years, it is not surprising to hear more and more service officials talk of cutting the F-35 buy well below the planned 2,400."


I'm not quickly finding the original deployment schedule, but I know it wasn't to not be fully operational by 2021. I believe the F-15 and F-18 lines were supposed to be dead a decade ago. Yeah, jets wore out faster than anticipated, but if the f-35 was actually meeting goals, they would've increased production there as opposed to continuing to buy 40 year-old air frames.

At the end of the day we have a massive problem with government contractors at all levels. Everything costs more in the US than anywhere else in the world, be it military equipment or roads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I don't really know whether the f-35 is as bad the article claims. Many have been ordered by numerous countries. So maybe it isn't quite as useless as claimed.

I do want to focus on this tiny detail because it is a pet peeve of mine:

Take the problem they have with switches. The developers of the F-35 decided to go with touchscreen switches rather than the physical ones used in other fighters, like toggles or rocker switches. That would be nice if they worked, but pilots report that the touchscreen switches don't function 20 percent of the time.

I may be alone, but I can't stand touch screen interfaces. They are justified only on portable devices like smart phones where you can't use more reliable mechanical buttons as with a real keyboard. It's like certain people think that touch screen is "cool, "modern" or "techy" but the technology has been around since at least the 1970's and it flat out isn't reliable compared to physical buttons. I can't imagine flying a combat aircraft in actual combat and having it not respond to a touch screen command.

I don't even like them on TV remotes for crying out loud, but that isn't used in a situation where my life depends on it working right.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
I don't really know whether the f-35 is as bad the article claims. Many have been ordered by numerous countries. So maybe it isn't quite as useless as claimed.

I do want to focus on this tiny detail because it is a pet peeve of mine:



I may be alone, but I can't stand touch screen interfaces. They are justified only on portable devices like smart phones where you can't use more reliable mechanical buttons as with a real keyboard. It's like certain people think that touch screen is "cool, "modern" or "techy" but the technology has been around since at least the 1970's and it flat out isn't reliable compared to physical buttons. I can't imagine flying a combat aircraft in actual combat and having it not respond to a touch screen command.

I don't even like them on TV remotes for crying out loud, but that isn't used in a situation where my life depends on it working right.
It’s also a thing where you have to take your eyes off what you are doing in order to use it properly, which isn’t great in a combat situation either.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
One of the lessons from the last 4 years...

We don't need no stinkin' oversight
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
Another article: "And the program is nine years behind the original 2001 schedule. All of this has forced the services to resume buying legacy aircraft like the F-15EX and the F/A-18E/F while extending the life of legacy A-10s and F-16s. With the prospect of level Defense Department budgets in the coming years, it is not surprising to hear more and more service officials talk of cutting the F-35 buy well below the planned 2,400."


I'm not quickly finding the original deployment schedule, but I know it wasn't to not be fully operational by 2021. I believe the F-15 and F-18 lines were supposed to be dead a decade ago. Yeah, jets wore out faster than anticipated, but if the f-35 was actually meeting goals, they would've increased production there as opposed to continuing to buy 40 year-old air frames.

At the end of the day we have a massive problem with government contractors at all levels. Everything costs more in the US than anywhere else in the world, be it military equipment or roads.

F-35 productions is carefully planned out years in advance. It's not so simple to shuts ramp up when you are dealing with a huge ecosystem of suppliers on a brand new bleeding edge platform...especially after you kick a partner\Supplier (Turkey) out of the program.

Cost on individual platforms turns into a apples and oranges. You have to factor in total development cost and units built AND capability.

Russian equipment where the planes seem cheaper until you factor in the cost that engine MTBO airframe life is a fraction of US equipment.
Last time I dug, we're talking 1000 hrs MTBO vs 4000 hrs MTBO on engines. It's also the OG of shitty supply chain.

All for equipment that falls short of what we offer.
Then there is Euro equipment where from a customers point of view F35's look like a bargain.
- Swedes still pitching the Gripen E which is costing Brazil 130+ Mil per plane to offer close to F-16 capability at F15 pricing. Brazil probably bought only to gain knowledge for their own aircraft industry. No one else wants it. Their old Gripen C makes more sense for most countries who just need a basic defense fighter. Little Scooter with a single Hornet engine and you get to watch Netflix in the cockpit.
- The EF-2000 and Rafale which I think runs close to 150Mil per

All that aside, most countries don't build aircraft with the goal of being able to take over other countries and the prices reflect that lack of capability.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
F-35 productions is carefully planned out years in advance. It's not so simple to shuts ramp up when you are dealing with a huge ecosystem of suppliers on a brand new bleeding edge platform...especially after you kick a partner\Supplier (Turkey) out of the program.
This is literally no different than any other aircraft, commercial and military. The F-15 and -18 lines were supposed to be dead by now. The 787 line has gone from a rate of 5 to 7 to 10 up to 12, when it was originally designed for 7.

It seems like you are denying that the F-35 is far behind it's original schedule.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
This is literally no different than any other aircraft, commercial and military. The F-15 and -18 lines were supposed to be dead by now. The 787 line has gone from a rate of 5 to 7 to 10 up to 12, when it was originally designed for 7.

It seems like you are denying that the F-35 is far behind it's original schedule.

Nope not denying anything. Original F-35 program was a cluster.
They (JPO) restructured the whole thing and did a major smackdown in 2012-2013 and I talking about the planned lots that arose out of that effort
So I guess my question to which schedule are you referring to? The one from the Bush era or the one from Obama era smackdown?
I honestly could care less about that original schedule.

Damn it man...this is sucking me in.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
Can you name a fighter program from any country in the past 40 years that was perfectly executed, on schedule and on budget?
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
18,597
11,283
136
I was a bit surprised when the OP article was talking about supersonic dogfights. I wonder if one has literally ever happened.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,118
10,939
136
I was a bit surprised when the OP article was talking about supersonic dogfights. I wonder if one has literally ever happened.
By the time any modern aircraft is in dogfight range, it's already dead.
But damnit did someone (marines I think?) want a cannon on the F35
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
Nope not denying anything. Original F-35 program was a cluster.
They (JPO) restructured the whole thing and did a major smackdown in 2012-2013 and I talking about the planned lots that arose out of that effort
So I guess my question to which schedule are you referring to? The one from the Bush era or the one from Obama era smackdown?
I honestly could care less about that original schedule.

Damn it man...this is sucking me in.
I'm talking the original schedule and cost over runs. It was already completely fucked up by 2012. I'm glad the smackdown helped. I haven't been following that closely in recent years.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
Can you name a fighter program from any country in the past 40 years that was perfectly executed, on schedule and on budget?
Note, pretty much all my posts have talked about this being a systematic issue, not just a JSF issue. It's even taken over the commercial world.

I'm sure the B21 will be a cluster and a half too and we'll see the B-52 turn 100 in service.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
I was a bit surprised when the OP article was talking about supersonic dogfights. I wonder if one has literally ever happened.

F-35 became click bait a couple of years ago and a lot of content is written by English majors creating stories for people who relate to video games and popular culture.
To answer your question. No. A dogfight at supersonic speeds would take an 30 minutes, cover 2 states and the pilot would run out of fuel on aircraft that have been so overstressed they would be sent to the junkyard.

Combat generally occurs at subsonic speeds.
The only Aircraft that screw around at high speeds are the big boys up at high altitude. Mig-25\Mig-31's,F-22's and Typhoons with the occasional Grandpa F-15 I guess and thats probably only when they are on route to an emergency or getting the f out of dodge.
Everyone else is down at lower altitudes going subsonic.

A fully loaded F-35 is probably faster than a comparably loaded F-16.
F-16's top speed, like most aircraft is based on a fairly clean configuration.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
I'm talking the original schedule and cost over runs. It was already completely fucked up by 2012. I'm glad the smackdown helped. I haven't been following that closely in recent years.

All parties involved really whipped things into shape and we are now at the point the oversight is pretty hard core.
"A" models seem to be working out very well and pretty cheap for what people are getting. Aside form the normal issues on new planes, the big headache is the cost with the stealth coatings and that whole ecosystem they put together. At the very least, coating tech is getting cheaper and cheaper and breaking out of the whole Lockheed supply chain management system is possible down the line. (Out of nowhere...becomes bitter about Office 356).

"B" Models have made the Harriers they replaced look like antiquated shitboxes.
C model....thats another story. That sucker is still playing catchup. It's the Navy curse.

So far everyone has been really happy with the plane except people on the toilet ree

It's still a fairly new aircraft. Original F-15's had garbage engines. F-16's had no radar and all sorts of issues. Hornets had controll surface cracks I believe. F-22 was a laundry list of problems. Eurofighter had a ton of "We'll eventually add that in later if someone will pay for it.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
Note, pretty much all my posts have talked about this being a systematic issue, not just a JSF issue. It's even taken over the commercial world.

I'm sure the B21 will be a cluster and a half too and we'll see the B-52 turn 100 in service.

Yeah. I get it.
We should be seeing the B21 this year but I wouldn't be surprised if COVID-19 screwed up timelines.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
Yeah. I get it.
We should be seeing the B21 this year but I wouldn't be surprised if COVID-19 screwed up timelines.
Part of the problem is 50 years ago when people wanted to know if something would work, they'd build a mock up and find out. Now we discuss it with scores of people and blow a ton of time money debating. Other issues include treating software like it's free and it's the solution to every problem. Replacing a simple mechanical device with 5 sensors and thousands of lines of code destroys cost, schedule, and often creates issues.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
I don't really know whether the f-35 is as bad the article claims. Many have been ordered by numerous countries. So maybe it isn't quite as useless as claimed.

I do want to focus on this tiny detail because it is a pet peeve of mine:



I may be alone, but I can't stand touch screen interfaces. They are justified only on portable devices like smart phones where you can't use more reliable mechanical buttons as with a real keyboard. It's like certain people think that touch screen is "cool, "modern" or "techy" but the technology has been around since at least the 1970's and it flat out isn't reliable compared to physical buttons. I can't imagine flying a combat aircraft in actual combat and having it not respond to a touch screen command.

I don't even like them on TV remotes for crying out loud, but that isn't used in a situation where my life depends on it working right.
Dont get me started. My life in the field became miserable, when touch screens, multi function programable screens, and Graphical User Interfaces became engineering's new toy. Just writing procedures becomes so cumbersome, at least for military systems, because you are not allowed to assume that people know how to navigate a Graphical User Interface (GUi) or Windows in general. So you have to use word like highlight, select, and so on just to turn on a function, that used to be one switch setting instruction. I wrote some and tagged our companies first electronic tech manuals for our Readiness Instrumentation Data Acquisition System in an SGML authoring environment using a software display engine developed by General Dynamics. I think I'm finally getting over the PTSD's that this created in my life that lasted for 2 1/2 years in Anaheim. A wonderful idea, that was so flawed because of course the Navy insisted that it had to be their existing Strategic Projects "family" of contractors that got the display engine work without ever doing something like that before.

Dumbest idea ever. Touch screen TV remotes. My fingers know where the buttons are, I don't have to look.
 
Last edited:

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
I may be alone, but I can't stand touch screen interfaces. They are justified only on portable devices like smart phones where you can't use more reliable mechanical buttons as with a real keyboard. It's like certain people think that touch screen is "cool, "modern" or "techy" but the technology has been around since at least the 1970's and it flat out isn't reliable compared to physical buttons. I can't imagine flying a combat aircraft in actual combat and having it not respond to a touch screen command.

I don't even like them on TV remotes for crying out loud, but that isn't used in a situation where my life depends on it working right.

I don't know that many service-people that like touch screens either. The issue that I see come up a lot is that the UI has to be properly tailored to people wearing tactical gear, which can include thicker gloves. The lack of precision from having to use gloves often leads to larger UI elements, which can reduce the data-oriented portion of the display... or require an even larger display. On that note, I recall one project where the users actually wanted a smaller display because it gave them far more room in an already cramped cabin.

Dont get me started. My life in the field became miserable, when touch screens, multi function programable screens, and Graphical User Interfaces became engineering's new toy. Just writing procedures becomes so cumbersome, at least for military systems, because you are not allowed to assume that people know how to navigate a Graphical User Interface (GUi) or Windows in general.

Quite a few years back, I had to write a document... honestly, I can't even recall what it was about anymore (in regard to the specific topic/subject), but I had a horrible time trying to "dumb it down". I kept writing what I had considered a sufficient amount of information, and I kept getting it back saying they wanted more. Eventually, they just took it away from me and had someone else do it.

At this point, I've gotten a lot better at writing for others, but I still end up having to re-read a lot to determine whether I'm successfully writing at that level. I was writing a pretty basic, internal-only document a few weeks ago, and I think I rewrote one paragraph about a few times just to improve low-level clarity.
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,407
423
136
Most strategists look at China as the emerging conventional military threat. Russia is seen as more asymmetric and focused on information warfare.

So-called strategists see everything as an "emerging conventional military threat".

They're the door to door salesmen of the military world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay and KMFJD

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
I don't know that many service-people that like touch screens either. The issue that I see come up a lot is that the UI has to be properly tailored to people wearing tactical gear, which can include thicker gloves. The lack of precision from having to use gloves often leads to larger UI elements, which can reduce the data-oriented portion of the display... or require an even larger display. On that note, I recall one project where the users actually wanted a smaller display because it gave them far more room in an already cramped cabin.



Quite a few years back, I had to write a document... honestly, I can't even recall what it was about anymore (in regard to the specific topic/subject), but I had a horrible time trying to "dumb it down". I kept writing what I had considered a sufficient amount of information, and I kept getting it back saying they wanted more. Eventually, they just took it away from me and had someone else do it.

At this point, I've gotten a lot better at writing for others, but I still end up having to re-read a lot to determine whether I'm successfully writing at that level. I was writing a pretty basic, internal-only document a few weeks ago, and I think I rewrote one paragraph about a few times just to improve low-level clarity.

Current pilot gives some notes
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
So-called strategists see everything as an "emerging conventional military threat".

They're the door to door salesmen of the military world.

China has been the boogeyman for decades.
The bigger challenge is that China is a player in the global arms trade and supplying countries we would like to eventually bomb someday.

How the hell are we supposed to particpate in Civil wars if China goes around supplying weapons to the side that won't sell us mining rights?
 
  • Like
Reactions: obidamnkenobi

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
When is the last time the US military was in any dogfight? Supersonic, subsonic, or biplane?

U'S. Military?
Dogfight meaning 2 planes trying to shoot each other down? Gulf War back in 1991 and it was against the export garbage the Soviets churned out.

We downed some stuff in Serbia and Syria but they were BVR shots.
Not exactly a dogfight when you are launching from 25+ miles out.
 
Last edited: