All's not well with the F-35… again.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by sunnoficarus, Dec 14, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It sure ain't looking good for it.......
  2. 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 ..... ?
    • Like Like x 3
  3. 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)
  4. 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.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. 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?
  6. Why is it that in politics and Govt procurement we seem to have the people least competent to do the job properly ?
    • Like Like x 1
  7. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    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.
  8. 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.
  9. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    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...
  10. 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.
  11. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    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.
  12. 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?
    • Like Like x 1
  13. 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.
  14. Are you still using BATCO?
    • Like Like x 4