Guest Scribe Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Following SECDEF's speech/proposal to end F-22 production as of FY2010 with small buy, SECAF and CSAF have co-authored an article supporting the same position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) The title of the article should have benn "Please Don't Fire Us!" Edited April 13, 2009 by Butters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. And when it doesn't we're Fvcked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Yes, the F-35 will be delayed because the Test and Evaluation system in all of DOD is underfunded and poorly led. The only system that looked like it was going to get up and running quick and cheap was the 767 tanker.. and that was deemed to be illegal and unfair to the broken current acquisition process. Oh, and before anyone tries to defend the T&E process tell me how the V-22, P-8, Super Cobra, Huey Upgrade, ect are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scribe Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Yes, the F-35 will be delayed because the Test and Evaluation system in all of DOD is underfunded and poorly led. The only system that looked like it was going to get up and running quick and cheap was the 767 tanker.. and that was deemed to be illegal and unfair to the broken current acquisition process. Oh, and before anyone tries to defend the T&E process tell me how the V-22, P-8, Super Cobra, Huey Upgrade, ect are going. I think you're referring to the R&D portion of RDT&E. The "Testers", both Developmental folks (SPO/PMA control) at Edwards, Eglin, Pax and China Lake usually do a decent job as do the Operational Testers (AFOTECH/COMPOPTEVFOR control) at Nellis and Pax/China Lake. If what they're given (or not given on time) doesn't measure up or OEM can't even get it right and out of the chocks, then your problem is on the R&D side of the equation. T&E is where you find out that R&D didn't produce what the SPEC call for (DT) or the respective JCIDS doc (OT). BTW - P-8 was cancelled before anything was tested in Peace Dividend massacre so wouldn't count. V-22 and H-1 upgrades suffered R&D lapses in producibility issues at OEM as did Comanche, Crusader (plus gross requirements creep), ACS (buffoonry btwn program office and OEM in picking wrong airframe and spending mega millions to figure that out) and more recently ARH, which should have been easy. Lots of Army and Bell commonality. As to alternative title, yeah budday. There's a reason and message in both of them signing! Message to SECDEF, "we get your message and are singing your tune!" ("No need to make any John Boyd speeches at Maxwell; we got that message, too!") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fud Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 As to alternative title, yeah budday. There's a reason and message in both of them signing! Message to SECDEF, "we get your message and are singing your tune!" ("No need to make any John Boyd speeches at Maxwell; we got that message, too!") Thanks for clearing up this side of the process for me, as I always found it confusing. I was reading "The Pentagon Wars" by Colonel James Burton, and it suggested a committee that would approve designs that were the best for the services, and they could not take any type of compensation from defense contractors. Ideally, this would seem to work because it would enforce an objective mindset with the appointed individuals. I was wondering if a committee like this already exists, or if you think that would be a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiFlyer Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Thanks for clearing up this side of the process for me, as I always found it confusing. I was reading "The Pentagon Wars" by Colonel James Burton, and it suggested a committee that would approve designs that were the best for the services, and they could not take any type of compensation from defense contractors. Ideally, this would seem to work because it would enforce an objective mindset with the appointed individuals. I was wondering if a committee like this already exists, or if you think that would be a bad idea. Personally, I think this idea is dangerous...it sounds good in theory but usually doesn't work! In almost every bad acquisition example I can think of, one of the biggest problems was that somebody had a good idea, then 20 other people who didn't have that mission requirement started adding extra stuff onto it until the original hardware couldn't possibly do any of it worth a damn. Almost all acquisition disasters can be traced to either a lack of a firm requirements document (new Presidential helicopter is a good example), or failure to execute a good program R&D effort for any number of reasons, including lack of funding, poor assumptions about the project's baseline technology, or "concurrent development" schemes (FIA comes to mind). Design by committe is how horse racers wind up with camels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 BTW - P-8 was cancelled before anything was tested in Peace Dividend massacre so wouldn't count. V-22 and H-1 upgrades suffered R&D lapses in producibility issues at OEM as did Comanche, Crusader (plus gross requirements creep), ACS (buffoonry btwn program office and OEM in picking wrong airframe and spending mega millions to figure that out) and more recently ARH, which should have been easy. Lots of Army and Bell commonality. As to alternative title, yeah budday. There's a reason and message in both of them signing! Message to SECDEF, "we get your message and are singing your tune!" ("No need to make any John Boyd speeches at Maxwell; we got that message, too!") The P-8 was canceled? Well, someone better tell Boeing and Pax River. They are still building the thing and Pax is still slow rolling the testing. My point about T&E is especially towards the P-8. Here is a 737 Airframe, the most widely produced aircraft in existence and the Navy plans to take 3 years testing the damn thing. They also want Boeing to figure out how to De-Ice the tail in flight (without an increase in weight) because Turbo-Prop guys do not understand how larger jet aircraft work. BTW The Boeing P-8 Poseidon (formerly the Multimission Maritime Aircraft or MMA) is rplacement for the P-3. It is intended to conduct anti-submarine warfare, shipping interdiction, and to engage in an electronic intelligence (ELINT) role. This will involve carrying torpedoes, depth charges, Harpoon anti-shipping missiles, and other weapons. It will also be able to drop and monitor sonobuoys. It is designed to operate in conjunction with the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle. The P-8 is to be built by Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems division from the 737-800. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf424 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Thanks for clearing up this side of the process for me, as I always found it confusing. I was reading "The Pentagon Wars" by Colonel James Burton, and it suggested a committee that would approve designs that were the best for the services, and they could not take any type of compensation from defense contractors. Ideally, this would seem to work because it would enforce an objective mindset with the appointed individuals. I was wondering if a committee like this already exists, or if you think that would be a bad idea. Great read... If you haven't seen the HBO movie version with Kelsey Grammer, you are missing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) Wow... thats a 180 from what the two of them have been preaching ever since they got a chance at the wheel. Where are the Mitchells and LeMays of this Air Force? None of them can get promoted. Edited April 13, 2009 by leadeagle05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCO Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Wow... thats a 180 from what the two of them have been preaching ever since they got a chance at the wheel. Where are the Mitchells and LeMays of this Air Force? None of them can get promoted. They can't disagree or they are out. Plus the CSAF was brought in specifically because SECDEF wants more spec ops focus and less fighter focus. As long as that is policy, going against it at that level just means early retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQZip01 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 They can't disagree or they are out. Plus the CSAF was brought in specifically because SECDEF wants more spec ops focus and less fighter focus. As long as that is policy, going against it at that level just means early retirement. You have to pick your battles. You can't fall on your sword every fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CAVEMAN Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Oh, and before anyone tries to defend the T&E process tell me how the V-22, P-8, Super Cobra, Huey Upgrade, ect are going. Upgrade on existing platform; T&E cost will probably be less than the price of (3) F-22. Remember they are existing platforms and not a new concept. It is time we put this F-22 shenanigan's to rest. Let us save the tax payers a few trillion's. All other service Chief's better take caution and start aligning. More programs will follow. I think Gates will do such a fantastic job that President Obama will keep him for his entire first term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slacker Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Upgrade on existing platform; T&E cost will probably be less than the price of (3) F-22. Remember they are existing platforms and not a new concept. It is time we put this F-22 shenanigan's to rest. Let us save the tax payers a few trillion's. All other service Chief's better take caution and start aligning. More programs will follow. I think Gates will do such a fantastic job that President Obama will keep him for his entire first term. Re-engine the tweet. That's pretty close to the F-22, I mean, they both have wings... I say no need for any new satelite launches or rocket/missles for that matter. Think of all the pay/retirement/benefit money we can save from all of those out of work misslers. Enough to re-engine the entire tweet force. Let's put this space shenanigan to rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilgore Trout Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 The P-8 was canceled? Well, someone better tell Boeing and Pax River. They are still building the thing and Pax is still slow rolling the testing. My point about T&E is especially towards the P-8. Here is a 737 Airframe, the most widely produced aircraft in existence and the Navy plans to take 3 years testing the damn thing. They also want Boeing to figure out how to De-Ice the tail in flight (without an increase in weight) because Turbo-Prop guys do not understand how larger jet aircraft work. BTW The Boeing P-8 Poseidon (formerly the Multimission Maritime Aircraft or MMA) is rplacement for the P-3. It is intended to conduct anti-submarine warfare, shipping interdiction, and to engage in an electronic intelligence (ELINT) role. This will involve carrying torpedoes, depth charges, Harpoon anti-shipping missiles, and other weapons. It will also be able to drop and monitor sonobuoys. It is designed to operate in conjunction with the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle. The P-8 is to be built by Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems division from the 737-800. The P-8 has run into more problems than "turbo prop guys not understanding how larger jet aircraft work". The P-3 flies real low and slow because it has to release torpedoes, maverick missiles, and other munitions and get positive returns from its buoys and other equipment. The 737 airframe does not fly as well at 200' and slow to release weapons. There's a reason for props on low altitude aircraft. The next problem is the 737 was not designed to have a bomb bay and they are having a lot of problems with fatigue and service life of the doors on the bomb bay. It would be nice if an aircraft designed to search and destroy could destroy more than a couple targets before its bay doors ripped off. If the commercial 737 was better designed for low altitude operations and weapons employment then the Navy wouldn't have to spend so many years testing and having it redesigned. Sometimes the most widely produced aircraft in the world isn't necessarily the best answer or the 737 would have replaced C-130s and B-52s and stuff a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 If the commercial 737 was better designed for low altitude operations and weapons employment then the Navy wouldn't have to spend so many years testing and having it redesigned. Sometimes the most widely produced aircraft in the world isn't necessarily the best answer or the 737 would have replaced C-130s and B-52s and stuff a long time ago. I wonder why Boeing didn't think of that sooner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fud Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Great read... If you haven't seen the HBO movie version with Kelsey Grammer, you are missing out. I've seen it, and it is extremely funny. The wikipedia article said that it was a black comedy, so I ordered it on netflix. Soon after, I ordered the book off of Amazon.com. I do think a committee for design is a terrible idea, but a committee for approval of a weapon system is a different story. If we had a group that could say "No" to all of the brass, SECDEF, and POTUS, then we could get somewhere. I really don't care about all of the "jobs" that it takes away from US citizens, because the end result is key. Burton proposed a blitzfighter similar to the A-10, and it was shot down even though it was a great design. The best aircraft in the USAF have come through tremendous infighting in the Pentagon (F-15/F-16/A-10), and I think these discussions need to take place. Unfortunately, the current administration has really set bad precedent by firing the SECAF and CSAF previous to the present leaders. The reason being that leaders will now have a CYA mentality, and really not want to rock the boat. I know I always quote Boyd and his counterparts, but he is right every time. I'd love to see more people who could give two shits about their careers, and want more for the USAF than the current mentality. It (this mentality) permeates every career field, and the shoe-clerks are winning. I'm just glad that the shoe mentality has not reached the AFSOC community, because we would be in for real trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scribe Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 The P-8 was canceled? Well, someone better tell Boeing and Pax River. They are still building the thing and Pax is still slow rolling the testing. My point about T&E is especially towards the P-8. Here is a 737 Airframe, the most widely produced aircraft in existence and the Navy plans to take 3 years testing the damn thing. They also want Boeing to figure out how to De-Ice the tail in flight (without an increase in weight) because Turbo-Prop guys do not understand how larger jet aircraft work. BTW The Boeing P-8 Poseidon (formerly the Multimission Maritime Aircraft or MMA) is rplacement for the P-3. It is intended to conduct anti-submarine warfare, shipping interdiction, and to engage in an electronic intelligence (ELINT) role. This will involve carrying torpedoes, depth charges, Harpoon anti-shipping missiles, and other weapons. It will also be able to drop and monitor sonobuoys. It is designed to operate in conjunction with the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle. The P-8 is to be built by Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems division from the 737-800. My bad, I was thinking the aborted P-7. As you have observed, the P-8 is based on the tried and true 737-800 airframe, but has considerable amount of mission equipment that will have to be integrated and tested as well as a bomb bay and external stores. The C-40 transport that is in Navy service is also based on the 737 and did not go through extensive testing because they are used as designed. Not so with P-8 so they have to go through the kabuki dance to generate and verify the NATOPS content and make sure all the equipment is up to Spec before doing the Operational Testing that includes tactics development. 3 years is actually pretty quick relative to other military platforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Upgrade on existing platform; T&E cost will probably be less than the price of (3) F-22. Remember they are existing platforms and not a new concept. It is time we put this F-22 shenanigan's to rest. Let us save the tax payers a few trillion's. All other service Chief's better take caution and start aligning. More programs will follow. I think Gates will do such a fantastic job that President Obama will keep him for his entire first term. A few trillions? for less than half of AIG's share of the bailout, we could have finished production at 300 Raptors. Maybe the USAF needs to start taking on more debt so we can get a bailout too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEWingsMN Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 i got nothing wrong with giving the auto makers some money from the gov't..... as long as they do what they used to do in times of war when the gov't gave them some money... build us some damn airplanes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slacker Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 i got nothing wrong with giving the auto makers some money from the gov't..... as long as they do what they used to do in times of war when the gov't gave them some money... build us some damn airplanes! I'd like Onstar on my next plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I'd like Onstar on my next plane. "Hi this is Onstar... how may I be of assistance today?" "Uh ya... This is Capt Joe, I'm at Al Udeid and our C-5 is stuck in a forward kneel... " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Just put CAVEMAN on ignore it'll save you irritation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Krabs Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Just put CAVEMAN on ignore it'll save you irritation One man's irritation is another man's hilarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEWingsMN Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 One man's irritation is another man's hilarity. so... you're laugh at what the new guy picked up from your ex-wife? J/K. What i don't get is that the army is getting their "all-in-one" system canceled while the air force is being told "Cut the 22, take more 35's and do the same thing you woulda done with the 22... just do it with 35s".... seems like an expensive version of hypocrisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now