Skinner67

You think they would have learned from the outsourcing problems encountered during production of the Typhoon and the Boeing 787. Even the Tornado had problems.

The development costs are just so high that the traditional method of prototype competition may no longer be feasible for the manufacturers. I rather doubt this though, when I look at their profits.

PBRStreetgang

Pick the bigger scandal.

Lockheed and the F35 or

Lockheed and the F104.

Lockheed has some game.

17275

The outsourcing part was probably the Unique Selling Point of the JSF. By getting as many companies on board as possible, in even more US states and lots of countries, they can play the political card when there are any (budgetary) problems. Politicians will fight for local employment so the divide and conquer tactics should always work in LMs favour.

And yeah, Lockheed has been great at causing a scandal...

But at least the Starfighter was a stunner....

Comco

There's an interesting article quoted on The Aviationist in which two former Skunkworks employees of Have Blue and the F-117 (among others) talk about the problems with the F-35 project. It's an interesting read - The Aviationist Two former Skunk Works members seem to know why the F-35 program is a mess

From the article:

PBRStreetgang

I wonder if they are referring to the F111B??

I am not quite sure 1960s methods and rationals are appropriate to demonstrate where Lockheed and the US department of Defence have done wrong other than questioning the practicality of such roles in the same or similar airframe. Clearly technology, engine power to eight ratios, lighter stronger materials, computer technology to keep the aircraft stable in all flight modes blah blah blah.

Dunno, but the F35 is the culmination of the steady decline of types in service since the Cold War years, in the most Air Forces around the world, inparticular the USAF and USN.

Interesting article though........I'd recommend Reading Boyds biography to really get into power to weight ratios of fighters and E-M theory in the 60s and 70s. The F111B being one of the characters of the book........the villian if you like.

Weight and the struggle for reducing weight has been an ever present battle in all aircraft design, let alone fighters.

Comco

I agree with your scepticism that the factors involved in calculating some of the cost/benefit figures is anywhere near the same as it was back in the 60s, but one thing does ring true - something I've personally felt for a long time...That trying to make a swiss-army-knife aircraft that can do everything is not going to work as well as having a number of fit-for-purpose airframes. The question really is - is it cheaper to combine them and do it this way?

The F-111B seems to be a great example of where completely divergent requirements doomed the aircraft from the start. In the early days, the Navy was after a long range interceptor. If that's all they'd wanted, the F-111B probably would have done the job, but later the decided they needed an air-superiority fighter as well. It's a great example of "scope creep", and how, committing yourself to a design for economic reasons - not design requirements - can severely hamper a project.

Have you guys seen The Pentagon Wars? Not particularly close to reality, but it's a good tongue-in-cheek look at the development of the M2 Bradley and how "building by committee" is fraught with danger.

dathoangcsg

F35A Lightning II JSF (USAF, 461st FLTS, 412 TW, Spring 2013) - AviationMegastore.com

17275

I think you have already answered the question: looking at the 20 odd years of developing the F-35, the steady explosion of cost and the concessions to payload, weight and so on and so on, it would have been much cheaper and it would have resulted in far better and more effective aircraft if they had not tried to make a one-size-fits-all fighter.

Your Swiss army knife comparison is actually a good one. The more tools you try to put into it, the more bloated it gets.