The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

What would you say is? Among the US fleet, the F-15E would certainly be easier to fit it to, but which international aircraft are you thinking of? Or are you thinking go even larger with a Sukhoi, despite the obvious ITAR limitations?

At least with the General Atomics 3rd gen laser it seems you could take the doors off one of the F-35's bays, fit the laser / cooling / batteries inside the bay and have a conformal beam director hit targets under the aircraft; on a pod you could obviously give it an independent charging system (though I wonder what kind of charge times you would get off a RAT suitable for a pod). Something akin to the "pull out the lift fan, throw in a 360 degree laser" is obviously a while away, but it wouldn't necessarily have to come to that for it to be useful in air-to-air; it's a bit hard for the enemy to get above / behind you when they're still more than a minute's supersonic flight away.
 
Sorry. I should have said "earliest" potential platform. Posting pre-coffee again.


The answer is the Xian H-6. We're still trying to get 150 kW on target out of a 3,000-pound payload - if GA is to be believed, that's quite close - but you'd probably like more power to have a high Pk against incoming missiles, since merely warming the weapon up before it hits you in the face is of limited use. It's a special ops or bomber weapon first.
 
LowObservable said:
Sorry. I should have said "earliest" potential platform. Posting pre-coffee again.


The answer is the Xian H-6. We're still trying to get 150 kW on target out of a 3,000-pound payload - if GA is to be believed, that's quite close - but you'd probably like more power to have a high Pk against incoming missiles, since merely warming the weapon up before it hits you in the face is of limited use. It's a special ops or bomber weapon first.
Click to expand...

Then why not B-1B ?
 
I said "in production". It's an interesting thought experiment to consider what would happen if an H-6 variant packing a 500 kW electric laser suddenly popped up on the China websites.
 
LowObservable said:
I said "in production". It's an interesting thought experiment to consider what would happen if an H-6 variant packing a 500 kW electric laser suddenly popped up on the China websites.
Click to expand...


It's quite scary.


As for the B-1, there were/are various projects for solid state lasers. I've taken classes with the officers in charge of such projects, but haven't kept up with them since getting out.
 
LowObservable said:
I said "in production". It's an interesting thought experiment to consider what would happen if an H-6 variant packing a 500 kW electric laser suddenly popped up on the China websites.
Click to expand...

Even a laser has the same problem any other weapon has: you can't hit what you can't see.
 
kcran567 said:
phrenzy said:
donnage99 said:
If the f-35 can perform as advertised by northrop grumman. Wouldn't the combination of EODAS and an advanced missile make aggressive energy maneuvers at close range irrelevant?


Armed with such capability, wouldn't flying in a straight line to RETAIN energy and speed the wisest choice?


I guess we just have to wait and see how effective and how close to reality this new capability will turn out to be, and also if potential adversary will not be able to come up with an effective counter.
Click to expand...

As I see it the prime opponents that the F-35 might face will be quite aware that the US will be trying to fight a long range BVR war and will be doing as much jamming and general obfuscation as possible. Knowing that the US will try and fight a clean battle at arms length you'll see them try and get in close, this seems to be the trend (for aircraft at least, obviously long range SAMs are the order of the day). How able they are to actually interfere with the US standoff strategy is the question. I don't think anyone really knows, no major air battles have been fought by the US since 1991. There were maneuvering fights over Iraq, but command and control, IFF, target cueing from AWACS and individual aircraft and a whole host of other things have progressed markedly since then.

I think part of the furor is people's frustration that if it weren't for the tri-service design then you could have had a maneuverable aircraft with all the other capabilities they're now offering.

I don't want to be the guy who brings up the trope that long range missile fights were predicted to be the future of air combat since the 50's, but at the very least nobody can say that a real war has ever been fought that way.

Certainly other countries still think maneuverability is a key characteristic of their fighters, from the typhoon to the Russian and French jets, including those for export. But then the F-35 is supposed to be a buddy aircraft with the Raptor, it was never supposed to be trying to out fly Su-35s. It's only because of the cutback in the F-22 fleet that this is getting people so worked up because it's much more likely that the F-35 will be fighting a lot more of it's own air battles.
Click to expand...


Low frequency radars with digital signal processing, and updated (which Russia is doing now), IRST development, and missile jamming could make older aircraft [....]
Click to expand...


It's not a trend that's gone unnoticed...
 

Attachments

  • f-15sa-16-airtoair725.jpg
    f-15sa-16-airtoair725.jpg
    116.2 KB · Views: 128
You can't hit what you can't see.


Not a huge LimFac even with a 500 kW weapon.
 
LowObservable said:
Sorry. I should have said "earliest" potential platform. Posting pre-coffee again.


The answer is the Xian H-6. We're still trying to get 150 kW on target out of a 3,000-pound payload - if GA is to be believed, that's quite close - but you'd probably like more power to have a high Pk against incoming missiles, since merely warming the weapon up before it hits you in the face is of limited use. It's a special ops or bomber weapon first.
Click to expand...

Softkills are far more practicable. You probably only have to distort the radome sufficiently to raise the sidelobes to the point at which they go after your offboard countermeasure (chaff, nukla, towed etc).
 
I know the sa has new IRST and new EW gear but has it got any upgraded stealthy features against VHF radar, electronic sniffing or IRST? Definitely an aircraft that will have the Iranians reaching for the phone to get those s400's in quick smart.

I really very strongly believe the sa or silent eagle was what Australa should have gone with. We've basically given up a whole host of capabilities when we accepted the f-35, certainly we will gain some but it really limits what the RAAF can do without US support. For the things we're most likely to want regularly, like maratime and long range air intercepts it works well and it's a better strike fighter with the exception of the debatable LO advantage.

I'm much less critical of the f-35 in the US inventory, with all the intelligence and SIGINT capability to map and avoid radars and SAMs, AWACS, long range radar to give them better awareness of the tactical situation and they have the f-22 to do that voodoo that it do so well. It still could have been a better aircraft but with everything else that the US brings to bare I'm sure they can make good use of it. The smaller militaries just can't put that together and will be much more reliant on whatever capability is baked into the aircraft.
 
LowObservable said:
Among in-production combat aircraft, the best potential laser platform is not the F-35. It's not American either. Also, when you do have such a weapon, "maneuvering is irrelevant" is more than a marketing slogan.
Click to expand...

"Maneuvering is irrelevant" is in fact one of the main takeaways of John Stillion's (Of Pacific Visions 2008 fame) more recent work (@ CSBA) on
Air-to-Air combat. And that's not in the context of a particularly heavy DEWs environment either. So unless cherry picking is your hobby, dismissing
it as a mere slogan is inadvisable.
 
phrenzy said:
I know the sa has new IRST and new EW gear but has it got any upgraded stealthy features against VHF radar, electronic sniffing or IRST? Definitely an aircraft that will have the Iranians reaching for the phone to get those s400's in quick smart.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more in terms of defensive counter-air when the J-31 starts showing up in quantity in the Axis-Of-Evil inventories.
 
So now we have to give Lockeed Martin more Billions of dollars to try and fit a laser and put more money into a program that is already a failure? When does it end? This is what happens when you give out a blank check.
 
phrenzy said:
I know the sa has new IRST and new EW gear but has it got any upgraded stealthy features against VHF radar, electronic sniffing or IRST? Definitely an aircraft that will have the Iranians reaching for the phone to get those s400's in quick smart.

I really very strongly believe the sa or silent eagle was what Australa should have gone with. We've basically given up a whole host of capabilities when we accepted the f-35, certainly we will gain some but it really limits what the RAAF can do without US support. For the things we're most likely to want regularly, like maratime and long range air intercepts it works well and it's a better strike fighter with the exception of the debatable LO advantage.

I'm much less critical of the f-35 in the US inventory, with all the intelligence and SIGINT capability to map and avoid radars and SAMs, AWACS, long range radar to give them better awareness of the tactical situation and they have the f-22 to do that voodoo that it do so well. It still could have been a better aircraft but with everything else that the US brings to bare I'm sure they can make good use of it. The smaller militaries just can't put that together and will be much more reliant on whatever capability is baked into the aircraft.
Click to expand...




A force of Gipens with a few Silent Eagles would have been good choice for Australia.
 
LowObservable said:
You can't hit what you can't see.


Not a huge LimFac even with a 500 kW weapon.
Click to expand...

It's not? Well that'll surely come as news to those running the thing.
 
kcran567 said:
So now we have to give Lockeed Martin more Billions of dollars to try and fit a laser and put more money into a program that is already a failure? When does it end? This is what happens when you give out a blank check.
Click to expand...

::)
 
LT Col Fred Spanky Clifton's opinions on the F-35


And he has flown F-15s, F-16s, F-5s as aggressors, and was one of a small group to get to fly the Mig-29 in operational German units. So this is his opinion (as a fighter pilot) regarding the F-35.


If you had to fly any fighter into an air combat arena today, including an operational F-35A as an option, what would it be?[/color][/size]The F-22. It's a better jet than the F-35. It can carry at least as much, further and faster. If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors. A common counter to that is the cost to restart the F-22 assembly line. How much does one pig cost? Another is that the F-35 program is too far along. Yep, let's just keep paying for a poorly-managed, overly expensive fighter that has three versions that make any one version less than it could be. Can you say F-111? That the F-35's avionics are better than the F-22's; how about a Raptor upgrade? I'd also build more advanced versions of the F-15 and F-16. [/size]
OK, I've spent enough time on my soapbox.
[/size]


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379
 
Marauder - Aware of Stillion's paper. However, I think the report should be taken in context. The vision is very different from any USAF fighter force plan and has no relevance to F-35.
 
sferrin said:
LowObservable said:
You can't hit what you can't see.


Not a huge LimFac even with a 500 kW weapon.
Click to expand...

It's not? Well that'll surely come as news to those running the thing.
Click to expand...

I take it that he means that the big challenge of reliably detecting, tracking and engaging LO aircraft with a 500 kW weapon
is less of a big challenge than the other big challenges in producing, deploying and operationalizing such a weapon.
 
LowObservable said:
Marauder - Aware of Stillion's paper. However, I think the report should be taken in context. The vision is very different from any USAF fighter force plan and has no relevance to F-35.
Click to expand...

Right..aside from that whole "SA superiority being decisive" bit which is context independent.
 
The F-111 was canned for a good part of it's life but it outlasted and outproved it's detractors. So will the F-35 in my opinion.
 
kcran567 said:
LT Col Fred Spanky Clifton's opinions on the F-35


And he has flown F-15s, F-16s, F-5s as aggressors, and was one of a small group to get to fly the Mig-29 in operational German units. So this is his opinion (as a fighter pilot) regarding the F-35.


If you had to fly any fighter into an air combat arena today, including an operational F-35A as an option, what would it be?[/size]The F-22. It's a better jet than the F-35. It can carry at least as much, further and faster. If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors. A common counter to that is the cost to restart the F-22 assembly line. How much does one pig cost? Another is that the F-35 program is too far along. Yep, let's just keep paying for a poorly-managed, overly expensive fighter that has three versions that make any one version less than it could be. Can you say F-111? That the F-35's avionics are better than the F-22's; how about a Raptor upgrade? I'd also build more advanced versions of the F-15 and F-16. OK, I've spent enough time on my soapbox.[size=0.9375rem]



http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379
Click to expand...


Foxtrotalpha. . . ::)
 
kcran567 said:
LT Col Fred Spanky Clifton's opinions on the F-35


And he has flown F-15s, F-16s, F-5s as aggressors, and was one of a small group to get to fly the Mig-29 in operational German units. So this is his opinion (as a fighter pilot) regarding the F-35.


If you had to fly any fighter into an air combat arena today, including an operational F-35A as an option, what would it be?[/color][/size]The F-22. It's a better jet than the F-35. It can carry at least as much, further and faster. If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors. A common counter to that is the cost to restart the F-22 assembly line. How much does one pig cost? Another is that the F-35 program is too far along. Yep, let's just keep paying for a poorly-managed, overly expensive fighter that has three versions that make any one version less than it could be. Can you say F-111? That the F-35's avionics are better than the F-22's; how about a Raptor upgrade? I'd also build more advanced versions of the F-15 and F-16. [/size]
OK, I've spent enough time on my soapbox.
[/size]


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379
Click to expand...


That very pilot later posted a follow up.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25623&p=285243#p285243
 
So what ? Much ado about nothing, as would say great William Shakespeare. I don't think the F-35 is at any danger - Sidewinders and AMRAAMs should be able to kill any menace long before any dogfight ever happens. They are slightly better than Vietnam-era AIM-9B and Sparrows, aren't they ?
Yet I wonder if a METEOR-armed Rafale could kill a F-35 at long range ? :)
 
AIM-120 had an embarrassing kill rate even against non-maneuvering, unaware targets. AIM-120's active radar gives away its approach.
It's questionable whether it's a worthwhile munition against an ECM-laden fighter like Typhoon, Rafale or in the future PAK-FA.

AIM-9 uses the same principle of guidance (passive IR/UV) as do most ManPADS - and most ManPADS have become almost completely countered with missile approach warners, IRCM, DIRCM and evasive manoeuvres and are still blind in a cone of ~5-10° degrees around the sun.

The West does not apply proper sensor fusion in its AAMs, and only the French MICA is available with passive IR sensor for medium ranges (ASRAAM and IRIS-T have less effective range).


The dependence of about 90% of Western air combat power on AMRAAM and three very similar SRAAMs (IRIS-T, AIM-9X, ASRAAM) is a huge problem. Any peer enemy would have had years if not decades time to come up with a mere two decisive countermeasures.
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
kcran567 said:
LT Col Fred Spanky Clifton's opinions on the F-35


And he has flown F-15s, F-16s, F-5s as aggressors, and was one of a small group to get to fly the Mig-29 in operational German units. So this is his opinion (as a fighter pilot) regarding the F-35.


If you had to fly any fighter into an air combat arena today, including an operational F-35A as an option, what would it be?[/size]The F-22. It's a better jet than the F-35. It can carry at least as much, further and faster. If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors. A common counter to that is the cost to restart the F-22 assembly line. How much does one pig cost? Another is that the F-35 program is too far along. Yep, let's just keep paying for a poorly-managed, overly expensive fighter that has three versions that make any one version less than it could be. Can you say F-111? That the F-35's avionics are better than the F-22's; how about a Raptor upgrade? I'd also build more advanced versions of the F-15 and F-16. OK, I've spent enough time on my soapbox.[size=0.9375rem]



http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379
Click to expand...


That very pilot later posted a follow up.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25623&p=285243#p285243
Click to expand...


Shhhh. <stage whisper> He's a pilot who never flew the thing. His first opinion is the world of God, not his second.
 
lastdingo said:
AIM-120 had an embarrassing kill rate even against non-maneuvering, unaware targets. AIM-120's active radar gives away its approach.
It's questionable whether it's a worthwhile munition against an ECM-laden fighter like Typhoon, Rafale or in the future PAK-FA.
Click to expand...

Questionable by anybody who matters?
 
Marauder - I think it's important to take Stillion's conclusions in context.

Spot the F-35...
 

Attachments

  • csbapic.jpg
    csbapic.jpg
    61.2 KB · Views: 248
Coming late to this friendly little discussion, I only read the first few posts but feel that this qualifies me to pass comment as uninformed as most ;)

There is a clue in the last word in the phrase "joint strike fighter". One of the reports remarked to the effect that "Pilots like manoeuvrability": well, slap me round the face with a wet kipper if it ain't the truth!

That a new "fighter" should be outmanoeuvred by an ancient F-22 is clearly not good. However I am minded of the video card in this PC. It was sold with crap firmware, barely enough to get online and download the production version that the manufacturer had kept working on, and now that I have done that it is s*** hot. I have friends whose smartphones behaved much the same. The moral is simple: a modern fighter aircraft is not just the aeroplane (oh yes and the pilot and engine, oh yes and the armament, which is to say not just the weapons and ammunition but also the targeting and control gubbins, oh yes and the satellite system that its satnav relies on) but it is also the onboard software. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but walks like a chicken then it is not yet a duck. So, we have found to our amazement that a chicken in a duck suit cannot swim like a real duck. Well, well, well. Before we make hasty judgements here, let's get the duck software developed and see if the F-35 can out-perform my graphics card!
 
LowObservable said:
That would be "everyone who is buying Meteor", I should think.
Click to expand...

You mean Meteor's active radar wouldn't "give away it's approach"? Do tell.
 
The seeker may be detectable but Meteor gives you fewer options, by design, to evade it.
 
sferrin said:
The F-35 is just a weee bit more complicated than any of those.
Click to expand...


Talking about a circular argument! One of the counter argument justifying the JSF program's cost overrun and delay in comparison of the teen series, is that unlike the teen series, it attempts to pack all the electronic gizmos into one package instead of popping out an empty airframe that needs further upgrades down the line.


Then when reports come in that the f-35 will be missing many capabilities to be mission relevant until future blocks, then the argument turns around to be "but look at all them teen series blah blah blah."


With all that complexity that partly responsible for the 10 years delay, one would expect the f-35 to roll off production line with all its electronic gizmo ready for the warfighter, not waiting for further upgrades just to make it relevant in actual combat, then what makes it different from the f-16 development?
 
donnage99 said:
sferrin said:
The F-35 is just a weee bit more complicated than any of those.
Click to expand...


Talking about a circular argument! One of the counter argument justifying the JSF program's cost overrun and delay in comparison of the teen series, is that unlike the teen series, it attempts to pack all the electronic gizmos into one package instead of popping out an empty airframe that needs further upgrades down the line.


Then when reports come in that the f-35 will be missing many capabilities to be mission relevant until future blocks, then the argument turns around to be "but look at all them teen series blah blah blah."


With all that complexity that partly responsible for the 10 years delay, one would expect the f-35 to roll off production line with all its electronic gizmo ready for the warfighter, not waiting for further upgrades just to make it relevant in actual combat, then what makes it different from the f-16 development?
Click to expand...

The other problem with that is that they used proprietary systems or cut down versions of things from other aircraft for the F-35 that essentially prevents the transfer of anything of value to legacy or future aircraft. For all the billions spent there isn't much to show for it outside the program. That really ties both forces to killing off the legacy fleet since they have to make a decision every time they spend a dollar whether it will go towards upgrades in the F-35 or to the 4th gen fighters. Upgraded sniper pods for everyone else or upgrading the F-35s EOTS, updating MADL or putting new comms in the legacy aircraft. Obviously the F-35 wins every time since it's going to be the backbone of the fleet for a long time. I think that's where a lot of this system of systems focus comes from, baking it all in to the aircraft and reliant on the aircrafts specific architecture is really restricting. I can't think of much that has been transferred from the F-35 or that could be in the future to other programs, RAM coatings maybe, but you would think that they would be using different skin for LRS-B aimed at lower frequencies. I think it would be much easier to get behind the F-35 if some of those billions were going to have spin off benefits for the legacy fleet.
 
donnage99 said:
sferrin said:
The F-35 is just a weee bit more complicated than any of those.
Click to expand...


Talking about a circular argument! One of the counter argument justifying the JSF program's cost overrun and delay in comparison of the teen series, is that unlike the teen series, it attempts to pack all the electronic gizmos into one package instead of popping out an empty airframe that needs further upgrades down the line.


Then when reports come in that the f-35 will be missing many capabilities to be mission relevant until future blocks, then the argument turns around to be "but look at all them teen series blah blah blah."


With all that complexity that partly responsible for the 10 years delay, one would expect the f-35 to roll off production line with all its electronic gizmo ready for the warfighter, not waiting for further upgrades just to make it relevant in actual combat, then what makes it different from the f-16 development?
Click to expand...

This might have escaped your attention but there is a STOVL version, a CV version, and CTOL version. They're also stealth aircraft, with it's attendant requirements, and they have internal weapons carriage. Oh, and all that aside, the sensors and avionics are more complex than the last gen. I'll bet you wonder why your new-fangled computer requires it's own separate video card and CPU heatsink fan when your 286 didn't too right? And how many patches did DOS 5.0 get? How about Windows 8? Jeebus.
 
sferrin said:
donnage99 said:
sferrin said:
The F-35 is just a weee bit more complicated than any of those.
Click to expand...


Talking about a circular argument! One of the counter argument justifying the JSF program's cost overrun and delay in comparison of the teen series, is that unlike the teen series, it attempts to pack all the electronic gizmos into one package instead of popping out an empty airframe that needs further upgrades down the line.


Then when reports come in that the f-35 will be missing many capabilities to be mission relevant until future blocks, then the argument turns around to be "but look at all them teen series blah blah blah."


With all that complexity that partly responsible for the 10 years delay, one would expect the f-35 to roll off production line with all its electronic gizmo ready for the warfighter, not waiting for further upgrades just to make it relevant in actual combat, then what makes it different from the f-16 development?
Click to expand...

This might have escaped your attention but there is a STOVL version, a CV version, and CTOL version. They're also stealth aircraft, with it's attendant requirements, and they have internal weapons carriage. Oh, and all that aside, the sensors and avionics are more complex than the last gen. I'll bet you wonder why your new-fangled computer requires it's own separate video card and CPU heatsink fan when your 286 didn't too right? And how many patches did DOS 5.0 get? How about Windows 8? Jeebus.
Click to expand...
fair points but isn't it odd that this didn't occur to LM and the JPO when they were setting timetables? It's not like they are only a little behind or that they are only behind from the original schedules set out at the down select. Powerpoints from 2008 and 2010 I've seen look pretty embarrassingly ambitious if they weren't being deliberately misleading.
 
phrenzy said:
sferrin said:
donnage99 said:
sferrin said:
The F-35 is just a weee bit more complicated than any of those.
Click to expand...


Talking about a circular argument! One of the counter argument justifying the JSF program's cost overrun and delay in comparison of the teen series, is that unlike the teen series, it attempts to pack all the electronic gizmos into one package instead of popping out an empty airframe that needs further upgrades down the line.


Then when reports come in that the f-35 will be missing many capabilities to be mission relevant until future blocks, then the argument turns around to be "but look at all them teen series blah blah blah."


With all that complexity that partly responsible for the 10 years delay, one would expect the f-35 to roll off production line with all its electronic gizmo ready for the warfighter, not waiting for further upgrades just to make it relevant in actual combat, then what makes it different from the f-16 development?
Click to expand...

This might have escaped your attention but there is a STOVL version, a CV version, and CTOL version. They're also stealth aircraft, with it's attendant requirements, and they have internal weapons carriage. Oh, and all that aside, the sensors and avionics are more complex than the last gen. I'll bet you wonder why your new-fangled computer requires it's own separate video card and CPU heatsink fan when your 286 didn't too right? And how many patches did DOS 5.0 get? How about Windows 8? Jeebus.
Click to expand...
fair points but isn't it odd that this didn't occur to LM and the JPO when they were setting timetables?
Click to expand...

It would be nice if everybody had crystal balls so nothing was ever late. And of course the F-35 is the only program, ever, to be late because "they didn't know what they didn't know". The unreasonable expectation here is that, somehow, they should have known what couldn't be known. How often does software ship on the original planned date? (Still waiting for Duke Nukem'.) The more complex something gets the more likely it is to happen. This should surprise absolutely nobody but still it does. And some managerial hand-waving won't make things simpler going forward. Hell, we still get to incorporate fancy stuff like "smart skins", "morphing aero surfaces", "directed energy weapons", etc. etc. etc. including crap we haven't even thought of yet, on future aircraft. Sure, we could ditch all the cutting edge stuff, go back to 1980, and buy everything off the shelf. And if one doesn't mind losing/dying I imagine that would be perfectly acceptable.
 
bad project management is bad project management.
no matter how complex the project itself is. lame excuse...
my .02
 
gTg said:
bad project management is bad project management.
no matter how complex the project itself is. lame excuse...
my .02
Click to expand...

Who's making excuses? I merely pointed out facts.
 
sferrin said:
This might have escaped your attention but there is a STOVL version, a CV version, and CTOL version. They're also stealth aircraft, with it's attendant requirements, and they have internal weapons carriage. Oh, and all that aside, the sensors and avionics are more complex than the last gen. I'll bet you wonder why your new-fangled computer requires it's own separate video card and CPU heatsink fan when your 286 didn't too right? And how many patches did DOS 5.0 get? How about Windows 8? Jeebus.
Click to expand...


uhmm...duh? Nobody makes the argument that LM engineers just sit around drinkin tea instead of working their asses off trying to get this plane in the air. The argument was that trying to make one airplane do everything to save money, has caused it to become over complex to engineer, causing cost overrun and price to skyrocket - making the whole point of making it do everything pointless.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom