Slashdot Mirror

Just so I am clear, there is quite a bit of openness about the history and current state of the f-35 program. Where are the Solyndra documents?

Just so I am clear, there is quite a bit of openness about the history and current state of the f-35 program. Where are the Solyndra documents?

I agree with you in principle; Obama should definitely validate the actual need for existing programs (military and domestic), and kill those we can live without. I disagree, though, that the F-35 is "bleeding edge" (its focus has always been on affordability as an export fighter set to compete with the French Rafale, the Swedish Gripen, and the multi-national Eurofighter rather than "performance at any cost"), or that it can be replaced by "incremental upgrades" to the existing fleet.

The F-35 has strong international support from US allies who have helped fund and execute the program (including the United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Israel, and Singapore). It is the only potential replacement for the badly aging AV-8B Harrier II, and will also replace the F-16, A-10, EA-6B, and F/A-18 (except the Super Hornet model, for which it serves as a stealth-capable adjunct).

in favor of re-capitalizing with incremental improvements to exiting proven systems

This argument just doesn't work well for the F-35. While we could arguably replace existing F-16 inventories with the F-16 Block 60, and just buy more F-18 E/F Super Hornets for the Navy, we'd be left with two problems that make your suggestion impractical.

"Incremental improvements" to the Harrier II would be cost-prohibitive, and likely wouldn't solve the major supportability issues it faces. Remember, a STOVL aircraft lives or dies on weight. Cutting weight is hard. Adding weight in a mid-life upgrade is easy. Cost-wise, an "incremental improvement" to the Harrier II is equivalent to a re-design - and we've already paid for a redesign in the F-35. (Same basic problem in the long run with the A-10, though we have more time in that aircraft's instance.)

Second problem is more severe - you can't "incrementally upgrade" an existing aircraft to stealth. Other than the (expensive and non-exportable) F-22, the F-35 is the only fifth generation stealth fighter available to the allied military. The value of stealth has been proven thoroughly and repeatedly; GIYF.

Just as you have to eventually forsake upgrading your beloved IBM XT and buy a new freaking machine, it's time to replace Harrier II's and their generational cohorts with a new platform for the next 50 years - which explains the strong international support behind the F-35.

The F-35 is already in low-rate production after 12 years of competition and detailed design work, and is only 4 years from initial deployment in the USA and UK. Killing it now would be incredibly foolish - and I don't think Obama is foolish in the least.

(All of the F-35 info above I pulled from Wikipedia, of course.)

Just follow one coding standard and stick to it, preferably a aerospace and/or military related one (as those are the ones that happen to be the best worked-out I've seen).

Personally, I prefer 2RDU00001, because not only it has the rules, but explains why every single specific rule makes sense, thus making it easier to enforce in a team.

The embarassing thing is that the F-14's replacement, the F-18 series, dates from 1978. It's been upgraded through several generations, but it's still an old design.

The next step is supposed to be the F-35, which is supposed to replace the F-16, the A-10, and the Harrier. That's scary; those are very different airplanes with very different missions and very different design criteria.

Of course, that's not an F-22, but a F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) You're right, though. It's still not an aerial SUV. This is.

Don't tell the US Navy. They're headed back toward single engine carrier based aircraft.