JSF Flawed

#2
Yes and no. You'll observe that it's not the actual MPs who made thre decision who have 'admitted' it was wrong. They obviously don't watch enough episodes of Grand designs and the like, or they would have worked out that repeatedly changing your mind about the scope of a project is a sure fire way to widdle the maximum amount of time and money up the wall.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Hm. It's not too late to do something about it, though. We could still go with the -C or even F-18. The first carrier's not finished and the airframes are far from started.

We'd have to get past some things which cost even more than money, mind - such as politicians admitting they****ed up.
 
#4
true t-m, I just assumed the defence committee now would've been the same people as at the start of the coalition. Definitely a lot cheaper to stick with the product they originally wanted, bought and designed for. So if they had built the carrier for the F35C in the first place then there wouldn't be the £2bn conversion costs and they could buy a few more planes? I meant too late in regard to cost. Anything that did get changed would surely cost more than the initial price. :)
 
#5
I stand corrected. For some reason I thought the decision to switch was a last-gasp Labour intervention rather than a coalition knee-jerk. Either way an obvious self made money pit.
 
#6
I beg to differ - we are trialling F35 Lightnings now - so I reckon we[d be liable to some sort of penalty payment if we backed out. The US will be hanging certain costs onto our piece of the project, even if it is tiny by comparison to theirs.

Not just a lack of Grand Design watching, a lack of inspecting their own history books - every big project they bring in gets delayed, amended, altered and added to, therefore delayed more. When they realise it's been in development for about 10 years, they fold it into something else, which makes it more complicated. Then they bring it into service late, outdated and without a clear through life plan, or cancel it, leaving us with a capability gap.

Mein gott - as I read that back, it depresses me even more. I need to change jobs, schnellmachen!
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
I beg to differ - we are trialling F35 Lightnings now - so I reckon we[d be liable to some sort of penalty payment if we backed out.
We lose workshare for Rolls-Royce if the -B goes west but beyond that the decision to go with it compromises CVF even further in terms of what else can be flown off it (a proper-sized carrier allows more than just a STOVL/whatever it's called this week aircraft and helicopters to be used). The shift to -C was the correct one in terms of options for our own flexibility and cooperation with allies. The shift back to -B was an appalling choice.

I suspect that LockMart really doesn't give a shit which model we buy, so long as we buy. But the compromise that the -B represents is an example of why we spend so much money and get so little for it.
 
#8
Im beginning to wonder if politicians are so incompetent at everything they do, that perhaps it'd be a better use of funds to pay them to stay home and do nothing.
 
#9
The plane simply don't work.

The helmet don't work, the software don't work, and the plane is experiencing structural cracking before it's even entered service.
It's supposed, and that was years late, IOC was 2012, now the IOC is 'event driven'… LM/DOD Translation: 'Fucked if we know, things keep going wrong'.
The operational software is Block 3, they're flying with Block 1, still testing Block 2A, and Block 2B is around somewhereish.

And a plane called the Lightning that can't fly in lightning?
You couldn't make it up.
 
#14
The plane simply don't work.

The helmet don't work, the software don't work, and the plane is experiencing structural cracking before it's even entered service.
It's supposed, and that was years late, IOC was 2012, now the IOC is 'event driven'… LM/DOD Translation: 'Fucked if we know, things keep going wrong'.
The operational software is Block 3, they're flying with Block 1, still testing Block 2A, and Block 2B is around somewhereish.

And a plane called the Lightning that can't fly in lightning?
You couldn't make it up.
I wonder if Lockheed was up to it's old dirty tricks again a la F104 during the initial selection process and that the Boeing was really the better choice.
 
#18
I often wonder what the hype and hysteria would have been like if the media coverage that we have now, was allowed and around in previous procurements.
Good point. Makes you wonder how many things would never have made service. I think the Hercules and Nimrod crash enquiries, for example, have forced the re-thinking of things that were once deemed luxuries... such as the fitting of foam to aircraft fuel tanks and a realisation that the sign-off on something has to come at the end of a proper development process, not because (in the case of aircraft) some senior airman says, 'It shall be so.' (Realisation into practice, mind...)

I also think that the imposition of H&S legislation on the military, whilst guilty of some absurdities, has also made sure that people have to be properly equipped for fear of there being sanction rather than needless deaths and injuries being written off/buried.

Would we have had Bowman or SA80? You have to remember that the MOD is VERY good at spin when political pressure is put upon it.

On the other hand, many weapons systems and other equipment can perform adequately if people know and work within their limitations.

But there's not getting away from it: to put it mildly, the F-35 is in trouble.
 
#20
Well said Coal Collation. And take it one step further. Neither of those inquiries was initiated by anyone in MoD which kind of makes you wonder about those who caused the problems and the system that encouraged them.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top