All's not well with the F-35… again.

#3
You have to wonder if computers have really aided design or if the class of designer has fallen that much.

Aircraft like Apollo, SR-71, TSR-2 etc were all pretty much designed by men with slide rules and drawing boards. We seem to be going backwards ...........

People like Leslie Mitchel , Henry Camm and Kelly Johnson must be turning in their graves. What could they have done with the computer assistance we have nowadays ..... ?
 
#4
You have to wonder if computers have really aided design or if the class of designer has fallen that much.

Aircraft like Apollo, SR-71, TSR-2 etc were all pretty much designed by men with slide rules and drawing boards. We seem to be going backwards ...........

People like Leslie Mitchel , Henry Camm and Kelly Johnson must be turning in their graves. What could they have done with the computer assistance we have nowadays ..... ?
the proble is those guys knew how to do the design work by hand so once they learnt how to use the package available there design would of just taken far less time to evolve from sketch to drawing, not to mention rather than choosing the bits to include first they started with the overall external look and moved onto what went where inside and what could be put where without causing the risks to the overal objective.

the curent crop fill ashopping basket with what will go inside or be mkounted on the outside and thenwork out how do meet the overal briefe of it will do xyz in an undetectable manner whilst still being the b2 abrams of the sky, that fundamental differance is where they fall apart in using and relying on new engineering methods to build computer modles based on what looks really cool and not very agressive but still is able to trun multiple grid sqaures into mist at the flick of a switch.

immage consulting in design work is never a good idea, unless your like BAE and build the iuggly plane then give it a nice coat of paint to try and disgues the uglyness (like they used to do)
 
#5
I think most of us old enough to have seen our particular industries go all computerized is that we do know the old, first principles methods and always refer back to them.

A lot could be said of making sure our wunderkind of today learnt the old ways first. There are no shortcuts to being thoroughly grounded in any discipline.
 
#6
A well known Aviation magazine I get every month just ran an article on the F-35 and it's many problems, again. I fail to see why we have to buy into this programme when a blind man and the dog can see the howlers it will continue to throw up. I can remember 20+ years ago the issues with eurofighter and only now are the RAF finally getting it to do the re-badged job it was never designed to do. Now that the Royal Navy wants to put catapults onto their carriers, my personal viewpoint would be to ditch JSF, and go with the Super Hornet. (I'm sure we could do a deal with the septics seeing as they are buying our Harriers for spares.) Does the UK really need a 4th generation aircraft?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#8
A well known Aviation magazine I get every month just ran an article on the F-35 and it's many problems, again. I fail to see why we have to buy into this programme when a blind man and the dog can see the howlers it will continue to throw up. I can remember 20+ years ago the issues with eurofighter and only now are the RAF finally getting it to do the re-badged job it was never designed to do. Now that the Royal Navy wants to put catapults onto their carriers, my personal viewpoint would be to ditch JSF, and go with the Super Hornet. (I'm sure we could do a deal with the septics seeing as they are buying our Harriers for spares.) Does the UK really need a 4th generation aircraft?
Which job was it never designed to do? :roll: Why do I get the feeling the reply will about ground attack capabilities which were factored in right back at the start of the program.
 
#9
Why is it that in politics and Govt procurement we seem to have the people least competent to do the job properly ?
Remember the people who do the (ahem) Procurement are looking for the big "Look at the legacy I got for the (insert service here), which will enable them to be better equipped for the future etc" Half of these projects are still stuck in design/testing and have proven the square root of **** all. Now you can argue the point of buying a stop-gap would end up costing more, but if we really did need these capabilities would they not have chucked out an UOR package? JSF (VTOL version) looked good ten years ago, when we still had the carriers to fly them from.
 
#10
Remember the people who do the (ahem) Procurement are looking for the big "Look at the legacy I got for the (insert service here), which will enable them to be better equipped for the future etc" Half of these projects are still stuck in design/testing and have proven the square root of **** all. Now you can argue the point of buying a stop-gap would end up costing more, but if we really did need these capabilities would they not have chucked out an UOR package? JSF (VTOL version) looked good ten years ago, when we still had the carriers to fly them from.
But does a stop-gap cost more? One thing we're also very, very good at is buying something with a projected life of 30+ years but buying too few of them such that they're completely shagged out before they go out of service (and have all sorts of rag-tag patches applied along the way).

Do we not need instead to take the view that we'll buy System 'X' against a projected life of 10 years, roll the savings from buying something less advanced into buying in more realistic numbers (ie. more of whatever it is) which take account of attrition, and crack on in the knowledge that in a decade's time our rolling procurement programme will follow with Iteration X+1 or whatever new has come along in the meantime.

Does that make better sense when a lot of the improvements we see in equipment are in the area of electronics rather than the physical?

The irony is that those looking to secure for themselves a legacy often instead end up procuring legacy systems...
 
#11
But does a stop-gap cost more? One thing we're also very, very good at is buying something with a projected life of 30+ years but buying too few of them such that they're completely shagged out before they go out of service (and have all sorts of rag-tag patches applied along the way).

Do we not need instead to take the view that we'll buy System 'X' against a projected life of 10 years, roll the savings from buying something less advanced into buying in more realistic numbers (ie. more of whatever it is) which take account of attrition, and crack on in the knowledge that in a decade's time our rolling procurement programme will follow with Iteration X+1 or whatever new has come along in the meantime.

Does that make better sense when a lot of the improvements we see in equipment are in the area of electronics rather than the physical?

The irony is that those looking to secure for themselves a legacy often instead end up procuring legacy systems...
no becaus buying the inferiour stuff means we will allways need the better stuff and law suits over the purchase will cost ten if not a hundred tiems more in the interim as we loose lives due to the crap available in the more advanced version.

also defence is what drives a large ammount of inovation so if were always buying crap theres no need ot improve nad inovate which in turn would see us hundred years behind where we could be.

what we need is to rein in the dreams of those in the procurement loop, stop the constant fiddeling wiht major design features and get on with production so we see things in service far faster, with proper realistic project life maintenance provisions (like we buy a 100 chasis of mkI varient wiht a projected life of 30 years and a current need for 50 reducing to 30 over the 30 year time frame, allowing for the inevitable operator error totaled 10 in the first decade wear and tear of initial ones and continued replacement requirements filled from stock held) that sort of thing would see procurement made far better, things like getting to handelling and endurance trials should be achieved wiht the minimum of time frame (10 >20 months from contract) with any major design flaws removed by initial internal protatypes, the problem we see time and again is someone dreams up what they want, the contractor says sure i can give you that, then they allow the ever changing staff to constantly revamp things and the contractor trys to oblige but having already started producting the knock on effect of the changes spirals the cost and time frame of completion into oblivion, faster UOR style purchasing would be better, wiht additional things being added to the standard framework platoform, not tweaking major things from day one and constantly changign it all to suit some imaginary bogyman.

thats why civi industry manages to build stuff in months rather than decades to far superiour standards wiht longer life spans (carrgo ships and planes) than supposed high end military systems that do the same job in a more tardy fashion.
 
#12
what we need is to rein in the dreams of those in the procurement loop, stop the constant fiddeling wiht major design features and get on with production so we see things in service far faster, with proper realistic project life maintenance provisions (like we buy a 100 chasis of mkI varient wiht a projected life of 30 years and a current need for 50 reducing to 30 over the 30 year time frame, allowing for the inevitable operator error totaled 10 in the first decade wear and tear of initial ones and continued replacement requirements filled from stock held) that sort of thing would see procurement made far better, things like getting to handelling and endurance trials should be achieved wiht the minimum of time frame (10 >20 months from contract) with any major design flaws removed by initial internal protatypes, the problem we see time and again is someone dreams up what they want, the contractor says sure i can give you that, then they allow the ever changing staff to constantly revamp things and the contractor trys to oblige but having already started producting the knock on effect of the changes spirals the cost and time frame of completion into oblivion, faster UOR style purchasing would be better, wiht additional things being added to the standard framework platoform, not tweaking major things from day one and constantly changign it all to suit some imaginary bogyman.
I meant the best in breed at any given time, not something inferior, or at least the best in breed that we can foresee against a given and relatively near-term cut-off date. (It does mean being very supplier-agnostic, however.)

The quoted paragraph of yours is pretty much what I was driving at. I've seen it right across UK government procurement, though: we try and procure at a mid-range price something which will still be best in breed in 30 years' time, rather than accepting that 'the best' is only the best for so long (especially in the IT domain), being realistic about those lifespans, and adapting accordingly.
 
#13
The bits which are going pear shaped at high speeds, melting, bubbling and otherwise reacting like IKEA furniture tossed into hell. Would that be perchance the bits made by BAE?
 
#14
A well known Aviation magazine I get every month just ran an article on the F-35 and it's many problems, again. I fail to see why we have to buy into this programme when a blind man and the dog can see the howlers it will continue to throw up. I can remember 20+ years ago the issues with eurofighter and only now are the RAF finally getting it to do the re-badged job it was never designed to do. Now that the Royal Navy wants to put catapults onto their carriers, my personal viewpoint would be to ditch JSF, and go with the Super Hornet. (I'm sure we could do a deal with the septics seeing as they are buying our Harriers for spares.) Does the UK really need a 4th generation aircraft?
We don't even have any 1st gen a/c in the Navy at the moment, so anything would better than that...

JSF is a monumental **** up, but thanks to the unique way that our military is now funded, we'd better hope to god that it gets sorted out, as we've thrown all of our other options into the bin.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#15
the proble is those guys knew how to do the design work by hand so once they learnt how to use the package available there design would of just taken far less time to evolve from sketch to drawing, not to mention rather than choosing the bits to include first they started with the overall external look and moved onto what went where inside and what could be put where without causing the risks to the overal objective.

the curent crop fill ashopping basket with what will go inside or be mkounted on the outside and thenwork out how do meet the overal briefe of it will do xyz in an undetectable manner whilst still being the b2 abrams of the sky, that fundamental differance is where they fall apart in using and relying on new engineering methods to build computer modles based on what looks really cool and not very agressive but still is able to trun multiple grid sqaures into mist at the flick of a switch.

immage consulting in design work is never a good idea, unless your like BAE and build the iuggly plane then give it a nice coat of paint to try and disgues the uglyness (like they used to do)
Are you still using BATCO?
 
#16
Are you still using BATCO?
why would i in my day we had secure voice comms, none of that outdated clansman junk to playwith i think the different systems were motorla spectra and courger pin/pan/walkon with some stuff thats still denied as existing...

clansman was only for those who wernt able to justify the need for the good stuff and too daft to use a nokia wiht the scrambler device XD

actually i didnt attend a batco course untill after bowman was delivered to most units funny how posting from advanced units to backwater dives happen, and just as funny how they all have extreamly **** falling apart hovels were meant to call houses.
 
#17
For procurement, would we not be better off letting others such as the Hermans and Septics or Israelis do the work and buy things that work ? Paying to manufact under licence has still got to be cheaper than doing all the R&D and procurement totally in house.

The old SA80 springs to mind. A Galil or G3 or M16 would have been cheaper. The Hornet has already been mentioned too. Oh, and charging our mates across the Pond a LOT more money to mkae the AV8 under licence.

We really are going backwards.
 
M

Mr_Tigger

Guest
#18
So these latest problems arise the day after the final Raptor rolls off the production line. At $150 million dollars (Flay-Away FY'07) for the Raptor, what are the odds that F35 will end up even more expensive?
 
#19
For procurement, would we not be better off letting others such as the Hermans and Septics or Israelis do the work and buy things that work ? Paying to manufact under licence has still got to be cheaper than doing all the R&D and procurement totally in house.

The old SA80 springs to mind. A Galil or G3 or M16 would have been cheaper. The Hornet has already been mentioned too. Oh, and charging our mates across the Pond a LOT more money to mkae the AV8 under licence.

We really are going backwards.
the problem withthat thinkingisnt so much the procurement and manufacture side as it is the acceptance testing and trials side, our testing of the g3 and m16 ( both of which could of been made under licence) found them to have serious flaws either in operation or in handeling given the trial constraints, opting for an as yet unmanufactured weapon in the 4.85 experimental (5.56 was when the real problems became aparent) to be re bored into 5.56 as it achieved the most faverable reports was plain stupidity, they should of just re done them with it in the remodled size.

ypou knevr know they might of just picked up the flaws and given us the A2 from the start instead of spunking away billions on converting the old into the new


but yes buying ots is often far cheaper than trying to buy as yet undesigned unproved items dreamed up by a bunch of generally nearsighted fools whos only concern is there tiny part of the big picture, thats where the whole ipt thing came from so someone who could ask each different part of the user spectrum what they needed and see it provided, and caused more problems wiht the dream vision for each part changing everytime confirmation was sought untill the final product came on the original base frame but looked nothing like anything originally asked for..

thats where the idea of using consultants to lead the entire lifetime of the project came in and also proved ot be a monumental fiasco, since the comapanies changed there staff just as often as the defnce system, what should of happened is a procurement team took over once the intial round of ideas had been gathered and refused permission to change the overall order if it could be modified in house after entering service, that would reduce the entire time frame and costing side of any project and may even see things coming in under budget for once
 

Latest Threads