X-32 vs F35

nauga said:
suuuure it would :rolleyes:

Nauga,
who survived the development of 'a hawk with a hook'
Click to expand...

It has a tail hook. What more do you need? Paint VFA-1 on the side and call it done.:D
 
nauga said:
suuuure it would :rolleyes:

Nauga,
who survived the development of 'a hawk with a hook'
Click to expand...

Well they haven't managed to do the F-35 for all yet. You add weight to the F-22 to get it to work a carrier, but at least it will still have greater performance than the 35. Isn't the 22 more fuel efficient as well?
 
Henning said:
You add weight to the F-22 to get it to work a carrier, but at least it will still have greater performance than the 35.
Click to expand...
I see. It's all so simple you gotta wonder why LMTAS didn't propose that for JSF to begin with. :rolleyes:

Nauga,
who still has a bunch of NATF zappers
 
ktup-flyer said:
Why not the F-15 STOL/MTD with 3d vectoring? That's more of the direction the Russians are going...
Click to expand...
Because the TD stood for 'technology demonstrator'. It was a research platform and was never intended to be an operational airplane. Results of the SMTD/ACTIVE/IFCS programs have certainly influenced airplanes that followed.

Nauga,
the dynamic inverter
 
nauga said:
I see. It's all so simple you gotta wonder why LMTAS didn't propose that for JSF to begin with. :rolleyes:

Nauga,
who still has a bunch of NATF zappers
Click to expand...

Because the system is designed to feed the maximum amount of money into the weapons procurement process, not to achieve the best result. This is definitely funneling the maximum amount of money for the result.
 
Henning said:
Because the system is designed to feed the maximum amount of money into the weapons procurement process, not to achieve the best result.
Click to expand...
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Nauga,
and the new world order
 
nauga said:
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Nauga,
and the new world order
Click to expand...

When you have an $800 hammer, you have the military industrial complex producing the hammer.
 
Henning said:
When you have an $800 hammer, you have the military industrial complex producing the hammer.
Click to expand...

And when you see the requirements documents and the 1000's of pages of documents required to be delivered to prove the hammer was developed in accordance with the requirements you know why it cost the producer $800 to build.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
jsstevens said:
And when you see the requirements documents and the 1000's of pages of documents required to be delivered to prove the hammer was developed in accordance with the requirements you know why it cost the producer $800 to build.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...
Part of our problem is that we absolutely SUCK at writing good requirements. Some of the stuff we have to work with in testing is so f'n vague it's ridiculous. You could sum it up by saying we "consistently set low expectations and fail to meet them".

There are times where I swear only 10 percent of the requirements of some new systems are specified and we (T&E authority) have to derive the rest so that we can test the damn thing.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Part of our problem is that we absolutely SUCK at writing good requirements. Some of the stuff we have to work with in testing is so f'n vague it's ridiculous. You could sum it up by saying we "consistently set low expectations and fail to meet them".

There are times where I swear only 10 percent of the requirements of some new systems are specified and we (T&E authority) have to derive the rest so that we can test the damn thing.
Click to expand...
we could go on and on with just this topic. And yes, SOWs are written like that on purpose....partly because the folks in the program office don't know what they're getting....and because they don't want contract failure.

From a program perspective....it's much easier to fix something that is "not" failing to perform contractually and expand the scope. Politics runs thick through this....:goofy:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
From a program perspective....it's much easier to fix something that is "not" failing to perform contractually and expand the scope. Politics runs thick through this....:goofy:
Click to expand...
Oh I believe it. It's a common theme in our disagreements with the Program Office.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Oh I believe it. It's a common theme in our disagreements with the Program Office.
Click to expand...
years ago (early 90's)....I worked as a support contractor in a TNE office and wrote SOWs and source selection criterion for the program office.....but, I'm sure things haven't changed much since then. :D
 
X-32 had the "Death Blossom" button. It was determined to be cost prohibitive in maintaining that feature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top