F-16 beats F-35 in a dog fight

<THIS is the part of government politics that needs to be fixed asap, and we should be demanding it from our politicians. Every single aspect of government should be encouraged to SAVE money, there should be bonuses given to each manager that succeeds in doing so and at the end of their fiscal year any leftover monies should roll right into the following years budget without penalty.

FTFY...... And yet, an enormous amount of people STILL think they got all the answers and our best interests at heart.

:up:

 

That's only 1.5 Seawolf attack subs.

 

I certainly can't disagree with you on that.

One thing I would like to note, not that I am making an argument either way with this, just pointing it out, is a lot of high tech government contracts also end up directly influencing industrial and consumer technology. GPS, night vision, firearms, commercial airplanes, tons of stuff that we do really well in this country today would not be where it is if it weren't for government contracts to get it going. This is an added benefit to the economy and our status in the world that isn't usually considered when looking at the cost of government contracts.

 

I was thinking about this while walking my dogs this morning - completely unrelated to this thread.

What you're suggesting just isn't possible with a bureaucracy. When you're not in a position to create (be profitable), the only way to grow is to prove that you're necessary, and the only way to do that is to spend every penny you have, always working at a deficit. Saving money means you have too many people. Too many people means not enough work, which leads to layoffs. Great for the taxpayers, terrible for the employees, managers, etc that make up the bureaucracy. In essence, a lot of government work has become a form of welfare.

 

The F-35 was doomed from the get-go. One size fits all designs don't work.

Go back and look at the F-111. It was such a cluster that the Navy bailed and developed the F-14

 

This I think is applicable

 

Col. Robert Laurel Smith: In summation, what you have before you is...

Sgt. Fanning: A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance...

Lt. Colonel James Burton: And a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snow-blower, but carries enough ammo to take out half of D.C.

 

Bradley IFV??

 

Yup. Its from the movie The Pentagon Wars.

 

Have you ever been in a meeting with a DoD rep, trying to convince them that the approach used in the RFI/RFP is "less than optimal"?

From experience, that never goes well.

I'm reading on my work screen a RFI that is incredibly overreaching, is not attainable with equipment available today nor in design at any manufacturer, and for which, by the time we actually could design/build it, would be obsolete. Yet we will try to win the contract, then try to get them to come to their senses as the project progresses.

 

BWaahhahahahahaha


Good luck with that.

 

Papa, a huge portion of budget overruns is the direct result of the powers that be (Dept of Defense) asking for a product that is advanced beyond what's ever been built before then changing the criteria in the middle of the process. Partly it has to do with the fact that the HMFIC is often not in charge during the whole development period. Any new HMFIC that comes into that project brings a bunch of new rules and methods with him.

This doesn't even take into consideration all the minute changes that the DOD decides to make to the plane. As most people understand, on a project of this magnitude a small change on one part of the plane will generally require changes to other parts of the plane. Time, time, time. Money, money, money. Add in the screwups that the contractor makes and you end up with more of the same. Time and money.

One old story is that when you have a committee building something you often come out with something like a giraffe. The parts just don't fit with each other very well.

 

It funny how alike our two businesses are while being so different.

I sell to government entities based on a spec they created but that has been muddied by legislators, pundits, and end users. I know the solutions they want are flawed but if I offer anything else they will get bent. While I have competitors there are only 4 or 5 of us so the buyer really cant completely escape. We recycle the same employees around the industry. I make money off their dysfunction and the taxpayer spigot just keep flowing. God Bless America, its wars, and public schools.

 

At least with some of our previous projects, eventually reality does settle in and we get to help them conform their wants to reality.

It takes a lot of time, though.

 

That's something about weapons systems in particular. They're going to be in use for 40-50 years. Look at the F-15, designed in the 70's, and still top of the heal now. My phone has more computing power than the best tech used in the first F-15.

 

What market/sector are you guys in?

 

True story...quoting a heat exchanger that we had done an almost exact copy of for a civilian client. We're talking less than a 5% change. I bid it (with a HUGE margin) and lost the bid because we were "unrealistically low and high probability of non-performance at the submitted price". So the DOD paid 75% more to the next lowest bidder.

 

the expected response in defense of the f35

 

Don't forget the F35 also is slated to replace the Harrier and A-10 roles. It does have some cool tech on it but the project as a whole smacks of ego driven "my legacy to the US will be the most advanced plane the world has ever seen" by some pentagon planners.

There's some cool tech on it such as the spherical pilot view and threat assessment through the helmet -- look at your feet and see what's beneath the plane.

Then there's a whole lot of stupid as well -- we'll need to add external munition pods for X role. Of course that will negate all stealth advantage for that role...

Keep the A-10 and evolve it. The F-16 is an international sales winner. Not sure on the F-22 vs the F15 overall performance wise but the F22 line is shut down as the F35 is slated to replace it. Not smart. If I remember correctly the thrust vectoring on the F22 makes it a pretty potent dog fighter.

The Harrier replacement? Does the Marine Corps really have a need for VSTOL / VTOL capability that justifies them not relying on the Navy for air power or is Marine Corp fixed wing aviation a boondoggle?

F/A 18 -- works well and the evolutions just keep making it better. No need to mothball that fleet any time soon.

And for the hell of it, bring back the T-38. Best looking jet ever.

 

Why does the A-10 need to evolve. 30mm DU slugs seem to work just fine. Avionics maybe, but otherwise its like the B-52....it does exactly what it was designed for better than any other aircraft in history.