|Quoting connies4ever (Reply 11):|
In the real world contractors normally pay penalties when they can't meet spec or sked.
They don't get rewarded with more cash.
I don't see why LockMart shouldn't be held to the same standard here.
And to think in 1984 I was poised to take a job in Sunnyvale, California, with ..... Lockheed.
You mean like McDD when the F-15 failed to hit the original target speed of Mach 2 armed? Wait, that never happened, the Pentagon just revised the specs.
Or when Boeing failed to hit a weight specification of 30,000 pounds empty weight on the F/A-18E/F, or when severe wing-drop problems occured that defied resolution, despite the use of every aerodynamic analytical tool available? Not to mention the Super Hornet did not meet a sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration specification. They just revised the specs on that by declaring that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters for the Super Hornet.
The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter. But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.
Having said that, similarly configured F-35As, Bs and Cs have significantly better transonic acceleration than does the Super Hornet - even with the changes.
My entire point was that the previous generation fighters has been successful despite its much-discussed warts. There is no reason to believe the F-35 will not also be successful. Pure aerodynamic performance is always nice to have, but it isn't be any means the sole determinant of fighter effectiveness.
|Quoting kanban (Reply 8):|
then there is another structural cracking problem.. I think it's time for a manufacturing break until they finish designing and testing the planes already out there.
singed elevators? didn't we have singed flaps as well.. or are they testing material flammability? If it's the stealth coating burning off, there goes any surprise.
So what? We have initial production Super Hornets that were life-limited at ~1,500 hours initially, until they received structural mods that gave them the full 6,000 hour service life.
An interesting 'study' is to go back through each of the Annual Reports and read the report sections on Super Hornet. Almost like public service announcements from CHINFO or Boeing compared to our most recent 18-page tome on F-35. Also on SH
, they broke out the AESA development from the air vehicle, report-wise, and took a long time to get around saying how bad APG-79 was after having said how good it was before they actually tested it. (Failed OT
miserably and has taken years to fix it).