tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post8746376281257447556..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: One For OneComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68105923145970874422014-09-24T06:43:45.107-07:002014-09-24T06:43:45.107-07:00Scott & GAB, realistically, we can't avoid...Scott & GAB, realistically, we can't avoid the pitfalls. If we could, we would have learned lessons from the F-22 and the F-35 would have been a successful program. We seem incapable of learning lessons related to design and acquisition.<br /><br />That said, in theory could we learn lessons? Sure. The best way to avoid the pitfalls is to design to the mission (GAB's tight requirements, to an extent) not to a vague, overkill standard that can't be met without huge cost overruns and schedule slippages. As we've discussed, numbers matter and the more advanced the aircraft design, the fewer the numbers you'll be able to buy. Hence, the need to design to just the level required to meet the projected missions and no more. Add the rest of GAB's requirements control to avoid design creep and you've got a shot at an affordable and effective aircraft.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50472159370157363852014-09-24T06:03:56.053-07:002014-09-24T06:03:56.053-07:00Scott: "When it comes to thinking about a USA...Scott: "When it comes to thinking about a USAF/USN joint version of a manned F/A-XX, it has been rightly pointed out that pursuing such a project has all the potential pitfalls of the F-35 program. How could these pitfalls be avoided?"<br /><br />xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br /><br />Great question Scott.<br /><br />My take is you tightly control the requirements from the start.<br /><br />It may be that the unique requirements of carrier landings will drive the requirement for two different airframes, but the main components, engines, avionics, sensors, etc can and should be the same.<br /><br />GAB<br /><br />GAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19492999664732893462014-09-22T11:10:26.459-07:002014-09-22T11:10:26.459-07:00Greg, you say "There [are] a couple of things...Greg, you say "There [are] a couple of things to remember with any system model, you can't always predict what will happen next year, let alone the three years required to predict life time cost. Therefore I suggest we forget the concept of a 'true' 5th generation fighter, and go with an best available technology fighter. mixed with a best price limits."<br /><br />Greg, making future predictions about cost and schedule is in fact equivalent to building a Limited Scope System Engineering Model of a kind which focuses on the cost/schedule facets of the project. It is this model which eventually finds its way into the Project Control Baseline. <br /><br />One of the current trends in Systems Engineering theory and practice is to better marry SE concepts with Project Management / Project Control concepts in order to produce cost & schedule models in which Project Baseline Total Work Scope is heavily influenced by the technical and administrative complexities and risks of the platform or the product that is being analyzed.<br /><br />What I am suggesting here was done to a limited extent by Boeing in the mid-1990s in producing the original 777 airliner, with good results in successfully predicting cost & schedule to initial roll-out. To my knowledge, this kind of analysis was not done with the 787 project in the mid 2000s, with the kinds of results for the accurate prediction of 787 cost and schedule that we have seen to date. <br /><br /> In creating the advanced SE model I am suggesting for F/A-XX, I am pushing current SE thinking to its maximum possible extent in analyzing how F/A-XX performance requirements might impact future F/A-XX cost & schedule. Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75376882783914276912014-09-20T15:16:28.085-07:002014-09-20T15:16:28.085-07:00There is a couple of thing to remember with any sy...There is a couple of thing to remember with any system model, you can't always predict what will happen next year, let alone 5the three years require to predict life time cost. Therefore I suggest we forget the concept of a "true" 5th generation fighter, and go with an best available technology fighter. mixed with a best price limits.<br /><br />The path to get this will also require some thinking outside the box.<br /><br />I going to suggest that the Navy have Boeing design and build F-22N developed from LM current F-22A design, but with improvements not only for carrier operation, but to reduce the production and lifetime costs of this aircraft. This will give us two import <br /><br />1) It provides an true competitor to Lockheed-Martin in tactical jet fighters<br /><br />2) it givens the Navy Carries need air defense, which it has not had since the last TomCat retired..G Lofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12173539484067666822014-09-20T10:31:00.959-07:002014-09-20T10:31:00.959-07:00B.Smitty, it was said of the F-22 in 2008 that by ...B.Smitty, it was said of the F-22 in 2008 that by 2020, the performance capabilities embodied in its specification would become the minimum required specification for any true 5th generation air superiority fighter in placed in service by any nation. <br /><br />As General Hostage has noted, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can do, meaning that the F-35 doesn't even come close to what is needed for a true 5th-generation air superiority fighter in the decade of the 2020s and beyond.<br /><br />When it comes to thinking about a USAF/USN joint version of a manned F/A-XX, it has been rightly pointed out that pursuing such a project has all the potential pitfalls of the F-35 program. How could these pitfalls be avoided?<br /><br />My own thinking on that score is to develop a complete Systems Engineering model for the F/A-XX program in which past technical and project management lessons learned from the F-22 and the F-35 are used to build a complete end-to-end lifecycle model for acquisition and deployment of a true 5th generation fighter carrying the proposed F/A-XX specification. This SE model would assess every nook and cranny of the interactions between the F/A-XX acquisition process requirements and the F/A-XX technical and performance specification. <br /><br />If this Systems Engineering model indicated that the cost and schedule was achievable, and a decision was made to move forward, the SE model would then be used as the starting point for creating the F/A-XX cost & schedule integrated project baseline.Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26973754174649861542014-09-19T18:58:49.949-07:002014-09-19T18:58:49.949-07:00hmm numbers.. personally i think the US military ...hmm numbers.. personally i think the US military are infected with the victory disease (like the japanese in WW2) when they easily won the Gulf War 1 by their Stealth Suprise and lightning ground campaign (the preparation took months , the air war also months but the ground war practically over before anything bad happened)..<br /><br />It seems this disease also influenced US decision makers into thinking superiority of technology will destroy the enemy in short time.. i guess they forgot the lesson of vietnam defeat , where a non-technological nation with high fighting spirit defeated the great superpower of the day.. The exceses of vietnam war still lingers today (ex : Using B52 saturation bombing on NVA infantry and the total dependent on airpower by US ground forces)..<br /><br />i think you are right to raise these issues comnavops, the hubris and arrogance will certainly backfired when US military faced a near-peer or enemy that do not afraid death (like ISIS or fanatics)..buntalanlucuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02058846205282464955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63425099330426847282014-09-19T09:11:38.938-07:002014-09-19T09:11:38.938-07:00Simpler, lower cost, and not chasing technology al...Simpler, lower cost, and not chasing technology allows you to have 1,000s of airplanes (195 F-22s?).<br /><br />Again, go back to what makes a great fighter (or any thype of airplane). It is small size, high manuverability, long range, thrust to weight, limited mach speed (it is not used in ACM).<br /><br />We have chased Stealth as the great answer while there is evidence that the F-117 could not stand alone penetrate AD systems, as shown by the Serbia shoot down, and the large jamming support during Iraq missions.<br /><br />Now we see that lower frequency radars are starting to be able (due to processing advances) to provide targeting data. With the lower frequency the currently existing stealth approaches do not work.<br /><br />So now we have the F-22 and F-35 basing on a high tech that may not prove viable in the near term future. <br /><br />I have to ask how does the F-22 stack up against the F-16 in an ACM environment? Did the AF allow this test?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15439415464487928012014-09-19T06:56:19.958-07:002014-09-19T06:56:19.958-07:00Funny/strange thing here is UAE already payed for ...Funny/strange thing here is UAE already payed for the development. So the most logical thing for the US to do is to jump in and buy some . <br />Yes, the UAE expected royalties but c'mon .<br />Well, the russians did this kind of thing right, in the mid/late 90ties india and china started buying advanced modifications of SU-30s, <br />Of course russia now manifactures this same modifications for they're own AF with slightly modifications ( maybe to avoid royalty fees ;)<br /><br />What im saying is that the AF was dumb not to get some block 60s, imgine they could have between 200 or 300 by now.Storm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49730063589779321292014-09-19T06:22:47.677-07:002014-09-19T06:22:47.677-07:00F-35 was supposed to cost the same as an F-16. In...F-35 was supposed to cost the same as an F-16. In essence it was a one-for-one super F-16, well atleast until the bills and delays starting coming in. Now it is a 4X cost to acquire and 2X cost to maintain super science experiment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90030187288748581762014-09-19T05:40:26.128-07:002014-09-19T05:40:26.128-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34494782932877556572014-09-19T05:26:55.448-07:002014-09-19T05:26:55.448-07:00B.Smitty, someone should have listened to you!
I ...B.Smitty, someone should have listened to you!<br /><br />I would strongly disagree with you about the evolutionary aspect of the F-35. The 360 degree sensor integration and magic helmet had never been done and after two decades of development, still hasn't. That pretty much demonstrates the revolutionary nature of that technology.<br /><br />One could even make a fair argument that the ALIS maintenance system is revolutionary. Nothing on that scale of software-maintenance had ever been attempted and, again, after two decades still hasn't.<br /><br />I'd be inclined to dismiss this discussion as semantics except for the fact that the revolutionary aspect is the heart of the post. Trying to categorize truly revolutionary technologies as evolutionary risks missing the point of the post and risks repeating the problems and ignoring the lessons.<br /><br />As a matter of logic gymnastics, one could downgrade anything into evolutionary, I guess. Attempting to incorporate anti-gravity into the next thing we procure is simply an evolutionary advance since we already know about gravity and anti-gravity is nothing more than the reverse. No need to heed the lessons in this post since it's just evolutionary!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5727364560294687802014-09-19T05:06:58.533-07:002014-09-19T05:06:58.533-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61577089324840841322014-09-18T16:05:36.938-07:002014-09-18T16:05:36.938-07:00This points toward high/low. A high end that push...This points toward high/low. A high end that pushes the technology envelope that we build at least initially in small numbers and a low end based on existing and proved technology that we build in large numbers. There are some threat scenarios like all-out war with Russia or China where we need every bit of technology we can muster, and others like pirate patrol in the IO where a basic frigate or CoastGuard cutter probably has all the capability needed.<br /><br />Having a mix of technologies is a strategic and tactical advantage. I think back to the Falklands where the RN top of the line anti-air destroyers were vulnerable to close-in attack because their radars lost incoming Argies in the ground clutter when they were flying over land, so they had to pair them with cheaper frigates with point defense systems to protect them. CDR Chipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77676505135421384262014-09-18T15:33:50.223-07:002014-09-18T15:33:50.223-07:00There have been programs whereby risky, revolution...There have been programs whereby risky, revolutionary Russian designs (Typhoon class sub, Kirov class cruiser and the Kamov Ka 50 helicopter) have been offset by less radical solutions. Perhaps future US programs that are revolutionary could implement this path with both designs being produced in low numbers to begin with. The less risky program could instad focus on afforability and maintainability.<br /><br />Dave PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60441379463565317912014-09-18T13:10:12.301-07:002014-09-18T13:10:12.301-07:00ComNavOps, we should note here that all the necess...ComNavOps, we should note here that all the necessary historical data, and all the necessary prior historical experience which was needed to accurately predict the F-35 program's cost growth issues was available a decade ago in the form of technical lessons-learned and project management lessons-learned from the USAF's experience with the F-22. <br /><br />A realistic and honest review of the sources of these F-22 cost growth issues done in 2004 would have revealed the F-35 program as being one that would inevitably produce a 4-1/4th generation fighter at a 5th generation fighter unit cost. <br /><br />The smartest move we could have made in 2004 would have been to do an objective evaluation of the F-35's known developmental issues and its known project risks, and also to do an honest evaluation of the F-22's existing problems to see if that airplane's operational and maintenance costs could be improved, with the idea that follow-on blocks of F-22s might better serve the needs of long-range strike. <br /><br />An honest appraisal done in 2004 might have revealed that the best course of action was to cancel F-35 altogether and transfer its assigned strike missions to an evolved version of the F-22, one that incorporated the technical and operational lessons-learned from the initial F-22 production block.<br /><br />Suppose such an honest evaluation were be performed today in 2014, what might it reveal? I have to speculate it would reveal that we should cancel F-35 altogether and move smartly forward with a manned USAF/USN joint service F/A-XX which incorporates all the technical and operational lessons-learned from the USAF's experience with the F-22. Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12633881194145003502014-09-18T12:39:31.046-07:002014-09-18T12:39:31.046-07:00Scott, it gets plenty of attention here!Scott, it gets plenty of attention here!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60252870872400921032014-09-18T12:38:47.802-07:002014-09-18T12:38:47.802-07:00Storm, thanks for the info. I don't follow AF...Storm, thanks for the info. I don't follow AF matters that closely so I appreciate the explanation.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4467189629258234022014-09-18T12:33:14.505-07:002014-09-18T12:33:14.505-07:00Charley, it is my great fear that we will also pri...Charley, it is my great fear that we will also price ourselves out of unmanned aviation by ignoring the very significant R&D development work that must go into UCAV Artificial Intelligence software and into UCAV secure data communication links. <br /><br />It is the elephant in the room standing in the way of the long term success of UCLASS, but it is something which gets next to no attention in the military press or in the debates over UCLASS mission and operational requirements. Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85659779303593153212014-09-18T12:16:50.109-07:002014-09-18T12:16:50.109-07:00The problem with "leap-ahead" technology...The problem with "leap-ahead" technology is that the last 20% of the tech is very, very expensive to achieve. Which makes the unit cost of those exquisite aircraft unaffordable in the numbers needed to replace legacy aircraft on a one-for-one basis. The hyperbole expressed by USAF et al about the "game-changing capabilities" of the F-35, and how fewer JSFs can be exponentially more effective than legacy platforms is ludicrous - the SH coming off the line today has its own pretty awesome technology (at 1/3 the price.) There is a quality in quantity that should not be ignored. The biggest danger I see is that we are pricing ourselves out of manned aviation, which is not a good thing. Common sense needs to be rediscovered.Charleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16497605288886434369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67455703540525203442014-09-18T12:05:10.011-07:002014-09-18T12:05:10.011-07:00Mainly because the USAF is all-in on stealth, at t...Mainly because the USAF is all-in on stealth, at the expense of everything else.Charleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16497605288886434369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18888980186516547132014-09-18T09:01:52.875-07:002014-09-18T09:01:52.875-07:00"would it have been better to replace the F-1..."would it have been better to replace the F-16 with a Super F-16"<br /><br />As many people know that super F-16 already exist in the form of the Block 60.<br />The wonder here is why did not the airforce by small amounts of this jet every year, say less than 20.<br /><br />The question here is the airforce knows at best the structural limitations of the F-16 , so why did not anyone in the early 2000s sugest to replace the older versions at a slow rate.<br />BTW the block 60 was the first time the US sold a technological superior version of a type of fighter then they had in inventory.<br />Never before did that occur even.. durring the cold war ?!<br /><br /><br />Storm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.com