|
How dangerous is calling the marine corp that to a marine's face?
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Considering the idea for a multi-role fighter that could meet all three services' requirements as well as the (initial) requirements were written well before LockMart even existed as a company and a solid decade before they won the contract, I'd find the idea that LockMart is singlehandedly responsible for the overall JSF concept pretty hard to believe. Lockheed was founded in 1912, Martin Marietta in 1961. While I agree that they didn't single-highhandedly come up with the idea, it'd be foolish to think they weren't involved at every single step of the process. They're a major defence contractor; the people involved in defence procurement talk to them. Whether they were officially involved in the process is a whole other thing, of course. But a supplier would have to be pretty bad and lacking in vision not to get involved in shaping their customer's expectations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Just do like I do and blame all things bad about the F-35 on the hobbesmaster posted:How dangerous is calling the marine corp that to a marine's face? Dunno about the face, N4I usually just says it to their backs
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
The Lockheed bashing stuff is pretty silly. It doesn't do LockMart any good to have a steaming boondoggle. They'd see the most money with a plane they could sell boatloads of, to USAF and foreign customers, along with lucrative parts and service contracts, which is where the money is. Higher airframe cost means less birds means less long-term contracts and more competition from Viggens / MiGs / surplus F-16s etc which doesn't net LM a dime. If LockMart really was calling the shots we'd have nine crazy-specialized airframes, not one jack-of-no-trades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:If LockMart really was calling the shots we'd have nine crazy-specialized airframes, not one jack-of-no-trades. You mean we could spread assembly throughout 9 congressional districts? Why isn't this happening?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Dunno about the face, N4I usually just says it to their backs They do like being dominated and humiliated I find 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The Lockheed bashing stuff is pretty silly. It doesn't do LockMart any good to have a steaming boondoggle. They'd see the most money with a plane they could sell boatloads of, to USAF and foreign customers, along with lucrative parts and service contracts, which is where the money is. Higher airframe cost means less birds means less long-term contracts and more competition from Viggens / MiGs / surplus F-16s etc which doesn't net LM a dime. Foreign airplanes? An American supplier has such an immense competitive advantage to supply the US military, it's not even funny. The international market, going by the numbers on Wikipedia, represents about 22% of the total number of airframes, assuming all the buys go through as planned. Sure, once the production lines are set up, that's free money and nothing to sneeze at, but let's be honest, Canada and Turkey aren't the main customers here; they're not calling the shots on the whole project. There's political pressure to purchase the F-35 no matter what, as well. More complex planes are more expensive, but then it's harder to get third-party parts and services. You also have more competition, because now the fighter's not Fifth Generation Ultramax Stealth Party, and the European offerings are suddenly in the same market. LM's not interested in the inexpensive fighter market, or they'd be making inexpensive fighters. The people considering surplus F-16 won't switch to the F-35 because it's 10% cheaper; it'd have to be way cheaper. I mean I'm sure they'd love to be able to produce the F-35 for cheap, but their business model isn't to crap out huge number of cheap planes. Snowdens Secret posted:If LockMart really was calling the shots we'd have nine crazy-specialized airframes, not one jack-of-no-trades. If there were nine airframes, the Pentagon might want to spread the contracts to a few companies, to spread the pork around and ensure the survivability of competition in the aerospace industry or they felt like it that day or whatever, and now suddenly LM isn't building ALL THE PLANES. And in fifteen years when the next design competition comes out, their competitors are in a much better shape to participate and... From a business perspective, it's entirely in LM's interest to have a monopoly on a single plane. Or three similar-looking planes. I'm sure LM would love to be rolling out airplanes and shipping them, but for whatever reason that's not happening... And they're the ones making the planes so they probably have some part to play in that. If the customer keeps changing the specs, they might have some customer relation management issue... And again that's on them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
quote:"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s..." Can't the F-16 and F/A-18 do 9/7.5g sustained respectively? Or is this full of fuel and with onboard stores versus clean and light configurations?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:From a business perspective, it's entirely in LM's interest to have a monopoly on a single plane. Or three similar-looking planes. Not to mention that because defense spending is the archetype of sunk-cost fallacy (nonlinear, no less), it's in LM's interest to have one massively expensive umbrella project since smaller projects are more vulnerable during budgeting. No one's going to cut or rebid a 20 year project three armed forces and half a dozen allies are depending on to fulfill multiple roles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:Not to mention that because defense spending is the archetype of sunk-cost fallacy (nonlinear, no less), it's in LM's interest to have one massively expensive umbrella project since smaller projects are more vulnerable during budgeting. No one's going to cut or rebid a 20 year project three armed forces and half a dozen allies are depending on to fulfill multiple roles. Is it correct to say the F-35 is a good example of market forces or the invisible hand at work?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
I wish we had some inside guys in the AdA or the RAF to give us some direct opinions on their aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:Not to mention that because defense spending is the archetype of sunk-cost fallacy (nonlinear, no less), it's in LM's interest to have one massively expensive umbrella project since smaller projects are more vulnerable during budgeting. No one's going to cut or rebid a 20 year project three armed forces and half a dozen allies are depending on to fulfill multiple roles. That and they successfully sourced the project from manufacturers in all 50 states. That means every single senator and most reps will champion the F-35 because a 20-person metalworks company in their district makes a handful of washers for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:Is it correct to say the F-35 is a good example of market forces or the invisible hand at work? The F-35 program isn't designed to build a good airplane. It's designed to build a good jobs program in as many congressional districts as possible, and literally, in all fifty states, so the goddamned politicians won't try to can it after only 187 airframes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The F-35 program isn't designed to build a good airplane. It's designed to build a good jobs program in as many congressional districts as possible, and literally, in all fifty states, so the goddamned politicians won't try to can it after only 187 airframes. Except it's a pretty bad jobs program and the F-22 was canned at 187 airframes explicity in favor of the F-35 because Lockheed Martin assured Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that it would be a really really good plane for cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
And they lied.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Could you imagine if the galley items were treated like that? Tinker would've had 3 flyable jets after canning every tail. Reminds me of one of the best writeups I've ever seen (Click for huge/readable size)  Airlinepilot.jpg
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Hole Wolf posted:Except it's a pretty bad jobs program and the F-22 was canned at 187 airframes explicity in favor of the F-35 because Lockheed Martin assured Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that it would be a really really good plane for cheaper. Don't worry, we should have the NGB/LRS in a few years to keep everyone occupied on how much Lockmart/Boeing/Northrop sucks to take pressure off the F35.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The F-35 program isn't designed to build a good airplane. It's designed to build a good jobs program in as many congressional districts as possible, and literally, in all fifty states, so the goddamned politicians won't try to can it after only 187 airframes. I'm as big a critic of the program as anyone but I have to disagree with this. It was designed to build a good airplane, but it the problems it that it attempts to compromise between three different services' idea of a good airplane. All the jobs program stuff can be put pretty squarely on the shoulders of Congress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
FYI when I said buy F-16s and F-15s I was referring to new construction not "surplus" or whatever.. The UAE is having more F-16s built now and the F-15 is still in production with Saudi orders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
I don't know that the Boeing X-32 would have done any better at being an all-size-fits-one airframe. But part of me thinks it lost the JSF showdown due to how goofy it looked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
AzureSkys posted:I don't know that the Boeing X-32 would have done any better at being an all-size-fits-one airframe. But part of me thinks it lost the JSF showdown due to how goofy it looked. It was actually performing very well. I believe the looks definitely had something to do with its lack of success (which is hilarious given that most people think the A10 or Harrier are ugly, but they do their jobs quite well).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
 Things like this are what happen when you let the services design their own stuff!  Or could just be the Navy 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I might not much care for them (I like Gripens the best of the Eurocanard family), but what are the big issues with the Typhoon and Rafale? The main problem with them is the cost. They are only marginally more capable than the Gripen E/F (mainly they can carry more weapons per aircraft and have a bit better range) but cost incredibly much more money, both in purchase and in maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:It was actually performing very well. I believe the looks definitely had something to do with its lack of success (which is hilarious given that most people think the A10 or Harrier are ugly, but they do their jobs quite well). C'mon, how can someone not like the X-32?  It totally should've won; it could still stuck but at least that would be achieved in a more interesting way  . I haven't really spend much time  about the JSF program but I'd imagine shoehorning VTOL capabilities into a general purpose airframe would easily account for most of the challenges. And also not to defend it too much, but there's probably never been an airplane that was launched completely smoothly and trouble free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:And also not to defend it too much, but there's probably never been an airplane that was launched completely smoothly and trouble free. We should go back to WWII and literally throw everything in the air and see what comes back down in one piece. For every B-25 there was a B-26.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:We should go back to WWII and literally throw everything in the air and see what comes back down in one piece. For every B-25 there was a B-26. Didn't they both come out alright, though? Happy endings for planes are the best 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Didn't they both come out alright, though? Happy endings for planes are the best The B-26 was a disaster that makes the F-35 look like a joke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-26_Marauder#Accidents
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Didn't they both come out alright, though? Happy endings for planes are the best
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:We should go back to WWII and literally throw everything in the air and see what comes back down in one piece. For every B-25 there was a B-26. The B-26 was a perfectly fine aircraft assuming you were a bad enough dude to
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:The B-26 was a perfectly fine aircraft assuming you were a bad enough dude to My dad said that the best part of going to the air force museum in the 60s was hearing a B-26 pilot next to the B-26 display trying to tell everyone that it was actually in fact a good plane once you realized (long list of things you had to do to not cause it to stall and tumble out of the sky).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:
What was that quote from Kelly Johnson in Ben Rich's book that he didn't take but then wholeheartedly agreed with? "Never ever take on a navy project, they will run it into the ground" or something like that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
"Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
http://www.wset.com/story/25355879/feds-eye-crash-of-planes-over-san-francisco-bay So this is happening 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:http://www.wset.com/story/25355879/feds-eye-crash-of-planes-over-san-francisco-bay I feel like a terrible person for wondering if the Sea Fury is going to be alright before noticing that Cessna's crew hasn't been found. Given how cold the bay is, the chances of rescue are pretty much null.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The B-26 was a disaster that makes the F-35 look like a joke. I thought the F-35 already was one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:http://www.wset.com/story/25355879/feds-eye-crash-of-planes-over-san-francisco-bay Oh christ I was at Eagle's Nest yesterday - I posted picture from it in the auto pictures thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
So here's my album from the Seattle Airplane Funtime Museum And Amusement Park Sponsored By Boeing(tm) http://imgur.com/a/RJ8Hu Of note: JFK's private bathroom on AF1 mirror selfie Safes on AF1 that held nuclear launch codes Concorde concorde concorde concorde
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The B-26 was a disaster that makes the F-35 look like a joke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-26_Marauder#Accidents 15 crashes in 30 days sweet jesus those things fell out of the sky
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:15 crashes in 30 days sweet jesus those things fell out of the sky
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:
I don't think this is what Colin Chapman meant by "add lightness"
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:39
|
|
