I find it inconceivable that Lockmart would even dare show such a deficient tail hook design to the Navy. Did all the good/experienced naval aviation engineers retire? Do we have a bunch of Gen X engineers running around with their iphones and ipads trying to sex up the tail hook on the 35C? Oh, let's see if we make the tail hook the necessary length it would compromise stealth. Hey that's not a big deal, we just can't land the plane afterwards. Even worse the landing gear to tail hook geometry, you know the angle of attack to hook point is not even close. No worries though right, it worked in the video game. Boeing must be sitting the sidelines smiling right now, and shaking their head a little. Prediction: More F-18 E/F's. Block III version will happen, not because it is the best choice of the limited choices.
the tail hook problem seems to be some rudimentary requirement, it is mind boggling they can't complete it.
We'll I guess we just have to see what sort of ultra expensive tail hook design they have to come up with to stay stealthy while providing additional tail-to rear wheel length.
Probably some sort of telescoping tail hook with high strength synthetic fiber in it. (read: fucking expensive, and better not let it catch fire or getting too hot.)
When you have a single source scenario the contractor always rips off the purchaser. IMHO the big flaw here was always the single source approach. If Boeing also had a JSF under production one would see better pricing scenarios, and a huge reduction in the revolving door change order process where Lockmart just keeps coming back to the trough and saying, "We going to need another 500 million for this, and 500 million for that". If this was private business the contractor would be fired by now. Instead, what we get is marketing propaganda and if we just keep sinking money into it magic will come. I've said it before and I'll say it again, competition is a necessary component for success.
I agree on the competition requirements. At this point in the game, all taxpayers should feel we are being taken to the cleaners and LMT thinks we should be happy about it!
How many times is a contractor allowed to redesign it's freaking OWN design at taxpayers expense???
I am sick and tired of hearing from proF35 crowd that "this is just part of testing". How many times are we going to let LMT correct their own mistakes with no consequences?
Yep, I've come across two pieces recently that are appropos here: 1. Quote: "In fact if you look at the pre-Venlet F-35 program it is clear that maximizing sunk costs was a strategy for political protection: the same government that will reject a $10 widget for being too expensive will spend $20 to fix a $5 widget that never should have been bought in the first place." 2. Here is a paraphrased Op Ed piece about the military/industrial complex and how they do business. It was about development programs that are many (most) times late and over budget and how the programs somehow almost always continue even under those conditions. Two explanations (arguments) that are used over and over again by the programs are "lt's too early in the program to tell if it will be over budget or late" and then later on "The program is too far along and we have too much invested now to cancel it". QED
Perhaps a simple fix could be to stretch the airframe a couple feet forward in order to more easily set-back the hook?
OK, seriously, ELP's whole point as I read it -- with regards to those having an obvious conniption over the whole post -- was that yes, the 'hook' can probably be re-worked, but it will not necessarily mean the new hook design will be as stealthy.
Makes for a lot of interesting scenarios. F-35C dies. F-35B problems get resolved to a reasonable amount of mediocrity. USN fields STOVL capable carriers.
Complaints about Lockheed promoting their own products are misplaced. I expect that the company with its logo on the rudder pedals would defend and protect its interests. Why can't we assign most of the blame to the incompetent or corrupt government overseers that allowed all this risk to pile on. I do not understand why this hook problem was not settled during prototype trials. At least roll-ins should have been conducted back then, when was it, year 2000? Everyone can see that the geometry is an outlier. That does not mean it won't work, only that a demonstration (not a simulation) must be performed before we bet the ranch. One explanation for a foul-up like this would be that it goes all the way to the top. Nay saying at any level got you replaced. Approving the latest design review got you promoted. The problem here was that throttling of Lockheed optimism did not occur, probably because to do so would have killed the program in 2004. By the way, if level attitude roll-ins at various speeds never catch the pendant, are the chances for picking up the pendant less than zero for a real trap? As they re-shape the hook point to make the chances positive again, will the 125 knot engaging speed of the F-35C shred pendants at an unacceptable rate? Will it mean approach speeds must be slower? Is this another threat to the bring-back weight? Stay tuned for the thrilling conclusion of "Where was NAVAIR when you needed them".
@ ELP: I noticed on the notes below Spudman WP's Youtube Oct video* that he asserts that the F-35C had made 3 successful cable arrestments. I was unable to find anything to confirm the veracity of that assertion, and I'd appreciate your (Or anyone else here)posting of any links to credible sites confirming his claim. If you're aware of any, that is...
The linch pin is whether India chooses the Typhoon in it's MRCA program for 126 aircraft. The aircraft may be navalized to operate on Indian carriers. If that happens, the F-35 problems and delays may sway the Royal Navy to move to Typhoons.
The probability that the Indians will ever have a navalized version of the Typhoon on their carriers is something slightly less than zero. IOW, about the same odds as with the Royal Navy...
BTW, the Indian Navy operates MiG 29Ks, and will be receiving the first of a new batch this year.
True on the Mig-29K's for the re-fitted Soviet era carriers purchased from Russia. India however is interested in larger, more modern carriers to counter any Chinese moves in the Indian Ocean theatre of operation. The most realistic option for India is to jump in with Britain/France on some kind of new design like the QE carrier. Many wheels at work out there, and these are longer timelines than next couple of years. A navalised Typhoon demonstration was given at Aero India 2011. The idea was to hook India into seeing the flexibility of the Naval Typhoon as it would be 95% the same as the land version. Britain, Spain, Italy are all part of the Eurofighter program. As money, debt and employment issues dig deeper in Europe in 2012/13, a Naval Typhoon may be more appealing than an F-35, especially when the Euros employ European workers.
I think "cheaper" will become the operative word going forward. War machines have become too expensive to build and operate until the current model. Something has to give. The economic situation can not be disassociated from military spending.
" I do not understand why this hook problem was not settled during prototype trials"
If I remember rightly, during the prototype trials between LMT and Boeing, US Navy carrier operations were not in scope. THe reluctant USN was basically forced by congress to join the 'joint' program who then added all the carrier needs and also increase wing size for increased fuel load.
The back of the aircraft was not designed for carrier landing at the prototype stage, just opening doors for VTOL and blanking panel for the airforce.
Sees the 'simple' adding if USN to the mix caused a massive re-design of the aircraft.
As CF highlights, LMT is sole supplier and therefore has maximised their income. I agree that maybe when the USN requirements were added they should have done a re-bid.
Also, Boeing are not squeaky clean, they have their share of bad/late projects.
One unofficial reason mentioned at contract award was that without LMT getting JSF, they would soon be out of business. The military didn't then want to end up with just Boeing as single source supplier for most types of US aircraft.
20 comments:
I find it inconceivable that Lockmart would even dare show such a deficient tail hook design to the Navy. Did all the good/experienced naval aviation engineers retire? Do we have a bunch of Gen X engineers running around with their iphones and ipads trying to sex up the tail hook on the 35C?
Oh, let's see if we make the tail hook the necessary length it would compromise stealth. Hey that's not a big deal, we just can't land the plane afterwards. Even worse the landing gear to tail hook geometry, you know the angle of attack to hook point is not even close.
No worries though right, it worked in the video game.
Boeing must be sitting the sidelines smiling right now, and shaking their head a little.
Prediction: More F-18 E/F's. Block III version will happen, not because it is the best choice of the limited choices.
Correction
Prediction: More F-18 E/F's. Block III version will happen, because it is the best choice of the limited choices that are left.
do they even care?
the tail hook problem seems to be some rudimentary requirement, it is mind boggling they can't complete it.
We'll I guess we just have to see what sort of ultra expensive tail hook design they have to come up with to stay stealthy while providing additional tail-to rear wheel length.
Probably some sort of telescoping tail hook with high strength synthetic fiber in it. (read: fucking expensive, and better not let it catch fire or getting too hot.)
When you have a single source scenario the contractor always rips off the purchaser. IMHO the big flaw here was always the single source approach. If Boeing also had a JSF under production one would see better pricing scenarios, and a huge reduction in the revolving door change order process where Lockmart just keeps coming back to the trough and saying, "We going to need another 500 million for this, and 500 million for that". If this was private business the contractor would be fired by now. Instead, what we get is marketing propaganda and if we just keep sinking money into it magic will come.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, competition is a necessary component for success.
To CF:
I agree on the competition requirements. At this point in the game, all taxpayers should feel we are being taken to the cleaners and LMT thinks we should be happy about it!
How many times is a contractor allowed to redesign it's freaking OWN design at taxpayers expense???
I am sick and tired of hearing from proF35 crowd that "this is just part of testing". How many times are we going to let LMT correct their own mistakes with no consequences?
Yep, I've come across two pieces recently that are appropos here:
1. Quote: "In fact if you look at the pre-Venlet F-35 program it is clear that maximizing sunk costs was a strategy for political protection: the same government that will reject a $10 widget for being too expensive will spend $20 to fix a $5 widget that never should have been bought in the first place."
2. Here is a paraphrased Op Ed piece about the military/industrial complex and how they do business. It was about development programs that are many (most) times late and over budget and how the programs somehow almost always continue even under those conditions. Two explanations (arguments) that are used over and over again by the programs are "lt's too early in the program to tell if it will be over budget or late" and then later on "The program is too far along and we have too much invested now to cancel it". QED
Perhaps a simple fix could be to stretch the airframe a couple feet forward in order to more easily set-back the hook?
OK, seriously, ELP's whole point as I read it -- with regards to those having an obvious conniption over the whole post -- was that yes, the 'hook' can probably be re-worked, but it will not necessarily mean the new hook design will be as stealthy.
Makes for a lot of interesting scenarios. F-35C dies. F-35B problems get resolved to a reasonable amount of mediocrity. USN fields STOVL capable carriers.
Complaints about Lockheed promoting their own products are misplaced. I expect that the company with its logo on the rudder pedals would defend and protect its interests. Why can't we assign most of the blame to the incompetent or corrupt government overseers that allowed all this risk to pile on. I do not understand why this hook problem was not settled during prototype trials. At least roll-ins should have been conducted back then, when was it, year 2000? Everyone can see that the geometry is an outlier. That does not mean it won't work, only that a demonstration (not a simulation) must be performed before we bet the ranch. One explanation for a foul-up like this would be that it goes all the way to the top. Nay saying at any level got you replaced. Approving the latest design review got you promoted. The problem here was that throttling of Lockheed optimism did not occur, probably because to do so would have killed the program in 2004. By the way, if level attitude roll-ins at various speeds never catch the pendant, are the chances for picking up the pendant less than zero for a real trap? As they re-shape the hook point to make the chances positive again, will the 125 knot engaging speed of the F-35C shred pendants at an unacceptable rate? Will it mean approach speeds must be slower? Is this another threat to the bring-back weight? Stay tuned for the thrilling conclusion of "Where was NAVAIR when you needed them".
@ ELP: I noticed on the notes below Spudman WP's Youtube Oct video* that he asserts that the F-35C had made 3 successful cable arrestments. I was unable to find anything to confirm the veracity of that assertion, and I'd appreciate your (Or anyone else here)posting of any links to credible sites confirming his claim. If you're aware of any, that is...
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4noaLSJNQE
JRL
For shits and grins....
http://www.defencetalk.com/britain-voices-concern-over-future-of-f-35-in-us-39386/
The linch pin is whether India chooses the Typhoon in it's MRCA program for 126 aircraft. The aircraft may be navalized to operate on Indian carriers. If that happens, the F-35 problems and delays may sway the Royal Navy to move to Typhoons.
The probability that the Indians will ever have a navalized version of the Typhoon on their carriers is something slightly less than zero. IOW, about the same odds as with the Royal Navy...
BTW, the Indian Navy operates MiG 29Ks, and will be receiving the first of a new batch this year.
JRL
True on the Mig-29K's for the re-fitted Soviet era carriers purchased from Russia. India however is interested in larger, more modern carriers to counter any Chinese moves in the Indian Ocean theatre of operation. The most realistic option for India is to jump in with Britain/France on some kind of new design like the QE carrier. Many wheels at work out there, and these are longer timelines than next couple of years.
A navalised Typhoon demonstration was given at Aero India 2011. The idea was to hook India into seeing the flexibility of the Naval Typhoon as it would be 95% the same as the land version. Britain, Spain, Italy are all part of the Eurofighter program. As money, debt and employment issues dig deeper in Europe in 2012/13, a Naval Typhoon may be more appealing than an F-35, especially when the Euros employ European workers.
Naval Typhoon
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/Content_Images/news_pics/Naval_Typhoon_cutaway.pdf
This might be a cheaper option then a navalised Typhoon.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/2011/09/leaked-briefing-outlines-saab.html
I think "cheaper" will become the operative word going forward. War machines have become too expensive to build and operate until the current model. Something has to give. The economic situation can not be disassociated from military spending.
" I do not understand why this hook problem was not settled during prototype trials"
If I remember rightly, during the prototype trials between LMT and Boeing, US Navy carrier operations were not in scope. THe reluctant USN was basically forced by congress to join the 'joint' program who then added all the carrier needs and also increase wing size for increased fuel load.
The back of the aircraft was not designed for carrier landing at the prototype stage, just opening doors for VTOL and blanking panel for the airforce.
Sees the 'simple' adding if USN to the mix caused a massive re-design of the aircraft.
As CF highlights, LMT is sole supplier and therefore has maximised their income. I agree that maybe when the USN requirements were added they should have done a re-bid.
Also, Boeing are not squeaky clean, they have their share of bad/late projects.
One unofficial reason mentioned at contract award was that without LMT getting JSF, they would soon be out of business. The military didn't then want to end up with just Boeing as single source supplier for most types of US aircraft.
Hey Andy, WOW
Very nice.
Post a Comment