Even though the F-35 is a joke...

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by texas_ex2000, Jan 13, 2017.

  1. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-significantly-lower/?utm_term=.404ba21bf669



     
  2. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I'm glad we might save a little money in this deal, but I've also read that the plane just isn't that good and that we're throwing good money after bad.
     
  3. Run Pincher

    Run Pincher 2,500+ Posts

    • Like Like x 1
  4. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    I'm pretty harsh on the F-35. It's not a bad system. It's just not the 5th generation system that we'll need to fight against other formidable 5th generation threats. And it's entirely too expensive for what we're paying for.

    That said, the point of the thread was to point out how Lockheed is working on a deal to bring the cost down. People are wondering what was Trump doing complaining about the F-35 in a tweet. An aerospace trade site was mocking the fact he asked Boeing to price up an "equivalent" F/A-18 Superhornet.

    This is how senior executives negotiate. As a banker and CFO, I've seen this with my own eyes and thought to myself, "what the heck is he doing?" And sure enough, they get what they want or something a lot closer to what they asked for. The reason it works is because the counterparty has a fiduciary duty to make money for their owners. Regardless of whether Boeing could actually deliver anything comparable, the margins lost by redoing the contract is chump change to Lockheed compared to the volatility and risk of a reduced order. Playing competitors off each other is how you save money in fees. I've seen it a hundred times. No one in government (and even people in the private sector who don't negotiate as part of their job) understands this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    You just can't "concentrate" on the F-22. The F-35 was supposed to be a joint next generation lightweight strike-fighter. Not an Air Force air superiority fighter. It's supposed to replace the Navy's and Marines F/A-18Cs and Harriers, and the Air Force's F-16s and A-10s.

    Those are 4 systems with 4 completely different missions and capabilities. The V/STOL Marine requirements are actually what diluted the airframe performance and skyrocketed the costs. The ironic thing is that it would have been cheaper to develop 4 or 3 different superior next generation aircraft than the F-35.
     
  6. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Sorta like how the F-111 was supposed to be an Air Force bomber and a Navy fleet air defense fighter?

    They need to stop trying to build a plane to serve a mess of different roles for multiple services. When they try to do that, we end up with very expensive planes that are mediocre at a few things and not very good at anything.

    They understand it in government. They just don't do it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Exactly. Right now, the Navy is getting a single engine carrier based fighter. It's been done before, but it's hardly ideal. And the Air Force is getting a jet whose entire base design has been diluted to accommodate the need for a freaking duct in the middle of the fuselage so the Marines can land vertically on ships. The Marines are getting a jet with all the latest stealth features the Air Force wants (which btw will be obsolete in 10 years), but they won't be flying these VSTOL jets in areas where stealth is critical.

    There have been examples of frontline aircraft used across services. The F-4 is the best example. It was basically a 4th generation carrier fighter/interceptor in a 3rd generation world. It was that good and so far ahead of its time the Air Force used them. Aside from helicopters and the C-130 there are very few other examples. @ShAArk92, what say you?

    I tutor MBA students part-time. One of my students is a 50 something year old career Foreign Service Officer who's getting an executive MBA because his family wants him to help run their construction business. He was specially an economic officer in the Foreign Service. He's a PhD with absolutely no business sense whatsoever. He's very self-aware about this too and jokes about it. He tells me that his State Department colleagues viewed "private sector" thinking as like the Force from Star Wars. Something very innovative, mysterious, and actually highly-valued. When he got there, he was tasked to build relationships for USAID grants in Tajikistan and put together a conference. No one in the embassy had any contacts with any real business people in the capital and had no idea how to build those relationships. They had no idea what actually motivated business people. He told me they said, "You're the private sector guy...you should be able to talk to people and figure out where they are and get them on board to partner."

    I can see someone in the basement of the Pentagon in the F-35 procurement office sh!ting his pants over Trump's tweet because, "doesn't he know the program director must first send a memo to request permission from the Service Chiefs to create a new RFP for distribution for the subcommittee's approval?"
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2017
  8. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    AFAIK, there is still scheduled a fly-off between the Hawg and the F35 in CAS mission.

    That oughta be a HOOT.

    Everything has a tradeoff in aviation.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    And that's what's silly about it. The different branches have different needs, and like Shaark said, everything in aviation has a trade-off. That's going to make it damn near impossible to make an aircraft that can be all things to all branches. I don't understand the temptation to try, but we've hemorrhaged money on it line there's no tomorrow. Even if the F-35 eventually works out reasonably well, will we still be better off (financially and otherwise) than of we had just developed three different advanced aircraft (one for the Navy, one for the Air Force, and one for the Marines)? I doubt it.

    I think the key is that the F-4 wasn't designed and intended to be used by all services. It was designed to be used by the Navy to serve its needs, and McDonnell did an outstanding job making the best aircraft it could for those purposes. It didn't try to balance all the trade-offs that would have made it ideal for the Air Force. However, it turned out that a plane that served the Navy that well could also serve the Air Force and Marines very well. I think we're more likely to find the modern version of the F-4 by falling *** backwards into it than by pissing money away trying to force it.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page