Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 39 of 44 FirstFirst ... 29353637383940414243 ... LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,170 of 1298

Thread: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread

  1. #1141
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,206
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Plug in the actual performance of the F-35 and it has no problem meeting the spec.
    Tell that to Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff &
    members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  2. #1142
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,012
    They are basing the official estimates on the hobbled F135 numbers... unless you think LM and members of the Australian Defense department lied (under penalty of perjury) to the AU Parliament?
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  3. #1143
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    596
    The engine is not "hobbled". Performance calculations include a normal margin for deterioration between overhauls, which LM hopes can be whittled away.

    Aurcov - AESA development has been continuing in a healthy manner outside the JSF program, as witness APG-63, RACR and the Selex range.

    And the F-15 DEWS may share some technology with the JSF fit, but will have an active mode and different antennas.

  4. #1144
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
    The engine is not "hobbled". Performance calculations include a normal margin for deterioration between overhauls, which LM hopes can be whittled away.
    As Spud mentioned, the engine penalties used by LM were something different than the 5 % penalty in combat radius, that LM self-imposed. As already mentioned here, the often mentioned "584 miles" sub-KPP figure, is in reality 613 Nmiles, so it is > 600 Nmlies (the KPP), even with + 5% fuel consumption and -2 % thrust.

    Aurcov - AESA development has been continuing in a healthy manner outside the JSF program, as witness APG-63, RACR and the Selex range.
    Of course, the AESA development is not linked to JSF. But the tile T/R elements that form the arrays of the APG 79, APG 63 (V)3 , the APG 63 (V)82, RACR, despite being Raytheon products, are in a sense linked to JSF, because the R&D money was provided to both Raytheon and NG (they built the elements in a 50%-50 % JV) specifically for JSF' APG 81. Also, NG offers some mode of the APG 81 in the SABR AESA plug-in upgrade for F 16.

    And the F-15 DEWS may share some technology with the JSF fit, but will have an active mode and different antennas.
    Of course, the DEWS/Barracuda commonality is for RWR/ESM side.

  5. #1145
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    83
    Will the full production APG-81 still be utilising GaA modules? I know theres talk of GaN module production starting soon for the APG-77v2

  6. #1146
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    This mini-thread started when I said that the F-35's avionics are mostly done, which they are. TR2 hardware has been flying for a while, 80% of the software is flying, and more than 80% of the software is written. I am not saying that 80% of the sotware is verified, far from it. A majority of the work left to do is verification, not creation of the software/hardware.

    The first aircraft for Japan will be stateside trainers and will be Block3 (just not complete with the USAF's IOT&E). If they wanted to they could takeoff and go into combat just fine.
    From my experience, writing that last 20% of the software is what's going to take 80% of the effort. Beside as someone said already, writing software isn't a linear process. There is a cycle where you must constantly restart from almost the beginning if you find major issues, and that is when at least half the cost of the software is going to come from. It require long hour of engineering work to check and recheck million of lines, write new one and not go crazy. The longer it takes, the higher the chances the engineers that'll write the last lines won't be the same as those who started it. Delays, funding trouble, changing requirement... That's where things get very messy. It's like trying to sort out a family garage after 10 years...
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  7. #1147
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,012
    If you ever have to go back to the beginning, it's time to stop being a programmer

    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  8. #1148
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    There are many software development methodologies out there. But the one that is increasingly in use follow that path with many variations, but still with that general order in mind.

    software development methodology

    The most important thing is to get requirements right and clear. Then you start the design process. If something is wrong there, you often need to go back to requirements. Then you move to implementation. If something goes wrong there you need to go back to the design process that may in turn send you back to the requirement process. This is also true for verification. Now on a program as complex as the JSF, the verification process is going to last a very long time, requiring many modifications to the implementation and design process that in turn may often demand a change in the requirements.

    The necessity for high sensor fusion is going to make all these thing even more complicated since every-time a single piece of software goes wrong, there is a chance for the entire system to bug. Finding out the problem can be time intensive (just ask LM why they haven't find the problem with the oxygen generation equipment). LM need to find out whether the problem come from them, if not which of their supplier has messed up, and then according to the contract find out whether the requirements were wrong, or the design, or the implementation and who is supposed to pay for the changes. In a context of high economic pressure, subcontractor can sometime go bankrupt, or change management etc.

    There is a reason why the JSF is getting ever so expansive, and trust me, they're not out of the wood yet. If we're to believe some reports, Chinese cyber activities have made the JSF program even more complicated than its already is.
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  9. #1149
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    596
    It's also an architecture issue.

    The F-35 inherited the F-22 architecture, with peripherals (remember them?) controlled by an integrated central processor (ICP). Through the mid-1990s, that was how you could put all the horsepower needed for EMCON and sensor fusion on a fighter - through shared processing.

    The drawback is that everything is related and integrated, so changing things involves tons of regression testing.

    Today, you can (and prefer to) stick all the processing, and indeed all the memory, you could ever want right behind all the sensors and feeds, and you make them talk to one another. If you notice, the Super H has quite a high degree of sensor fusion, but it runs through the display processor.

  10. #1150
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,012
    You are mistaken. The F-35 learned it's lesson from the F-22 problem and segregates a lot of the processing of the sensor information. The processing of the sensors and the integration of the resulting data is handled separately. This is why you can have multiple testbeds flying with different hardware configurations all testing the same code (its modular).
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  11. #1151
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    You are mistaken. The F-35 learned it's lesson from the F-22 problem and segregates a lot of the processing of the sensor information. The processing of the sensors and the integration of the resulting data is handled separately. This is why you can have multiple testbeds flying with different hardware configurations all testing the same code (its modular).
    You are well aware that the claim modular is far fetched by that. It is nothing like "plug and play" and the software of each hardware is interacting with the core-system. Not so much a problem by a limited system, but to fusion that becomes a real hardship. What will work in one hardware configuration will not in another one for undetected reasons. All that becomes a real problem to verify something for flight level in general. A "blue screen" in a F-35 is the end of every mission contrary to an ordinary fighter were the pilot may loose a known item not interacting with the whole system and he can decide to continue or abort that.
    Despite repairs/upgrade every wednesday my Windows 7 has "reboots" from time to time forced by system errors and is no problem when on the ground by that.

  12. #1152
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,012
    If the F-35 software was not modular, then they would not be able to build and develop pieces of Blk3 before Blk 2 was done.

    On the "Blue Screen" front, the F-35's software is designed to process independently, ie if the EODAS part takes a dive, it does not affect the rest. The main display is even split in two parts so you can put a bullet in one side and functionality switched to the other. There is even a small central display below the main one that can give basic CNI functionality in case both main displays go down.

    Even if the process that integrates the data goes down, the display can be reconfigured to show each sensor's data and the F-35 can still prosecute the mission.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  13. #1153
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    If the F-35 software was not modular, then they would not be able to build and develop pieces of Blk3 before Blk 2 was done.

    On the "Blue Screen" front, the F-35's software is designed to process independently, ie if the EODAS part takes a dive, it does not affect the rest. The main display is even split in two parts so you can put a bullet in one side and functionality switched to the other. There is even a small central display below the main one that can give basic CNI functionality in case both main displays go down.

    Even if the process that integrates the data goes down, the display can be reconfigured to show each sensor's data and the F-35 can still prosecute the mission.
    Not really. You have fall back options for safety reasons but your mission is gone in general. Despite your claim a F-35 pilot has no idea what affected his system really and how long it will last in such a situation.

  14. #1154
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    You are mistaken. The F-35 learned it's lesson from the F-22 problem and segregates a lot of the processing of the sensor information. The processing of the sensors and the integration of the resulting data is handled separately. This is why you can have multiple testbeds flying with different hardware configurations all testing the same code (its modular).
    I don't have the details about the F-35 achitecture but from what I know it's indeed different from the F-22, although how much is the question. They are not testing the same code on every hardware however, there is the core system that is probably tri or quadri redundant for security reason then you have each sensors with its own code acting like a peripheral on your computer that will likely be designed to work as close from a plug and play as possible. While simulator and simulation can help big time with testing and verification of the software that still leave a big work to be done considering the scope of the program. The software will still need calibration every time the hardware is changed or redesigned etc. There is a reason why they decided to delay the purchase of the plane until it reach some maturity and given all the different parteners, with all the different versions, with each variant or version needing to comply to the complex US's bureaucracy, there is still plenty of work to be done, expansive and complex work. And we won't know the real cost of the development until its over. I would not be surprised of a 4th restructure of the program....
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  15. #1155
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,012
    Sens, you might want to do a little research on the F-35's systems and how it deals with software error detection and fault tolerance before making such claims.

    Here are a few presentations (with audio) to get you started.
    (You have to advance the slides to follow the audio)

    http://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-...g-ii-software/

    http://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-...-systems-avio/

    They require you to signup, but its free.

    btw, the F-35 runs on segregated "virtual machines" to give you an idea of its fault tolerance.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 4th April 2012 at 06:16.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  16. #1156
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    Not really. You have fall back options for safety reasons but your mission is gone in general. Despite your claim a F-35 pilot has no idea what affected his system really and how long it will last in such a situation.
    Well that should only happen during the first few years while the major bugs are found out and corrected. If later on you have a computer problem you should in theory have back up systems, though because they're trying desperately to reduce cost, they might not develop as much redundancy as they probably should. Some systems will likely automatically reboot and try to switch to emergency procedure etc. It would take the failure of a major system for the mission to be aborted or if the mission is too dangerous to fly in like if your bay door stays open compromising manoeuvrability and stealth.

    The point is whether you look at F-22, EFT or Rafale recent jets takes time to mature and it's not because they're declared operational that they're. Sometimes it takes more than 8 years for basic systems to reach enough maturity and reliability in order to be used as front line fighter in enemy territory with the same trust than legacy fighters...
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  17. #1157
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    btw, the F-35 runs on segregated "virtual machines" to give you an idea of its fault tolerance.
    So ? "virtual machines" allow you to run more software with the same set of hardware and can provide some level of redundancy. If there is a serious bug in the system though it won't do you any good. It usually add more complexity, and complexity brings lots of problems and cost.
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  18. #1158
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,012
    VMs allow for a higher level of error detection and automatic fail-over than traditional embedded systems. They also allow you to upgrade capability by simply adding or upgrading ICP cards. Instead of a few processors running complex groups of functions, you have many VMs running simple groups (or singular) functions. VMs lower cost by allowing for standardized processors instead of specialized processors.

    As an example of the F-35's software stability, not a single one of the 1800+ test flights was aborted due to a software issue.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 4th April 2012 at 06:30.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  19. #1159
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    VMs allow for a higher level of error detection and automatic fail-over than traditional embedded systems. They also allow you to upgrade capability by simply adding or upgrading ICP cards. Instead of a few processors running complex groups of functions, you have many VMs running simple groups (or singular) functions. VMs lower cost by allowing for standardized processors instead of specialized processors.

    As an example of the F-35's software stability, not a single one of the 1800+ test flights was aborted due to a software issue.
    Of cause not because the fbw software is something like blk 1 tested and verfied before the first flight after roll-out will be done. Just with blk 2 further capabilities are introduced not affecting flight safety. From blk 3 it will change a lot. You sensor-suit will affect the flight-path and flight-behavior to avoid mission threads f.e. Something similar will happen from weapons-release f.e.
    When I remember well the blk 2 is not full certificated and pose a problem to start training missions with the F-35s this year. The optimistic ones claim they can start training flights without that when the pessimistic ones stick to the security rules and demanded the full certification first.

  20. #1160
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,012
    You need to do more research as your basic knowledge on the F-35's capabilities is lacking.

    A majority of the software is in Block 0.1 and 0.5 (a total of 67%). Blk 1 only adds another 19% (86% total), Blk 2 adds 10% (96% total) and finally, Blk3 adds only 4% to the software total.

    btw, Blk0.5 has most of the sensor integration, so it's far beyond just fbw. Here is a chart that shows what Blk0.5 is (LRIP1&2 are Blk1).



    Blk 3 is the smallest block (only about 4% of the software). It seems large due to it being mostly dedicated to weapons integration, but the real workhorse Blks are 0.5 and 1 due to the integration issues (both of which are flying).

    btw, They have started training on Blk 1, not Blk2A. The original plan was to start training on Blk0.5, but decided on Blk1 instead. It was never Blk2A.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 4th April 2012 at 08:25.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  21. #1161
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    To cut your claim short. With blk 2 software we have a combat mission ready F-35. Just for curiosity and surplus money at hand there are a blk 3a followed by blk 3b some years later?!

  22. #1162
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    48
    I've got to wonder *why* exactly the F-35 on the heavy side of things compared to earlier specifications? If I recall, earlier figures listed a target maximum empty weight of 26,500 lbs for the F-35A and 30,000 lbs for the F-35B and F-35C.

    In terms of dimensions the F-35 is smaller than the F-105, F-106, and other large single engine fighters, yet even the F-35A is a good deal heavier.

    Indeed there are many more avionics in the F-35 than these '60s era aircraft, but surely the use of a high percentage of composite materials makes up for that.

    I trust that Lockheed will correct the problems encountered thus far in development, and from a materials perspective I don't see why costs can't be made comparable to the Super Hornet or other 4.5 generation aircraft. But if anything about the F-35 has me nervous it's the sheer weight. With the powerful F135 engine and advancements in aircraft design, I fully believe the F-35 can meet performance specifications and compare well to the F-16 and F/A-18. But what about future growth? Won't we want this aircraft carrying internal ECM systems at a later date for example?

  23. #1163
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by F/A-XX View Post
    I've got to wonder *why* exactly the F-35 on the heavy side of things compared to earlier specifications? If I recall, earlier figures listed a target maximum empty weight of 26,500 lbs for the F-35A and 30,000 lbs for the F-35B and F-35C.

    In terms of dimensions the F-35 is smaller than the F-105, F-106, and other large single engine fighters, yet even the F-35A is a good deal heavier.

    Indeed there are many more avionics in the F-35 than these '60s era aircraft, but surely the use of a high percentage of composite materials makes up for that.

    I trust that Lockheed will correct the problems encountered thus far in development, and from a materials perspective I don't see why costs can't be made comparable to the Super Hornet or other 4.5 generation aircraft. But if anything about the F-35 has me nervous it's the sheer weight. With the powerful F135 engine and advancements in aircraft design, I fully believe the F-35 can meet performance specifications and compare well to the F-16 and F/A-18. But what about future growth? Won't we want this aircraft carrying internal ECM systems at a later date for example?
    Weight margins have not been a problem for some time now, although you may be told otherwise by some. It is a very simplistic way to make comparisons and has no bearing on the ability of the JSF. Future growth ? only time will tell that, but the JSF is not the only aircraft in history to have thin margins for weight, and they all seemed to have a good life

  24. #1164
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,845
    Quote Originally Posted by F/A-XX View Post
    In terms of dimensions the F-35 is smaller than the F-105, F-106, and other large single engine fighters, yet even the F-35A is a good deal heavier.
    Shorter but a lot fatter. The internal volume is greater. Even discounting the internal bay, it's bigger, despite being shorter.

    I think F-35A is about 800kg heavier than an F-105. F-4 was also heavier than F-105, but no longer - and a fair bit heavier than F-106, despite being several feet shorter. Number of engines doesn't matter. Size of those engines does.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  25. #1165
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    To cut your claim short. With blk 2 software we have a combat mission ready F-35. Just for curiosity and surplus money at hand there are a blk 3a followed by blk 3b some years later?!
    You are over simplifying the issue. While Blk2 adds official combat capability, Blk1 could drop JDAMs and launch AMRAAMs if it wanted to.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  26. #1166
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    You are over simplifying the issue. While Blk2 adds official combat capability, Blk1 could drop JDAMs and launch AMRAAMs if it wanted to.
    Really and not just for testing purposes only. By all your claims we would have seen dozens of F-35s in frontline units for some time already. That are all built to a common standard and to load a new higher blk software is just a matter of minutes. At least LM and the DoD do not stick to the former advertisement claims any longer.

  27. #1167
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,012
    Where did I say that? All I stated was what is included with each block and to progress of those blocks.

    The majority of the work to be done is the VALIDATION of the work that has been completed, not the work itself.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  28. #1168
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Monitoring the Replacement of the Dutch F-16 Fleet
    We concluded that the minister has not reviewed the programme to replace the F-16. The government has reserved €4.5 billion to replace the F-16. The minister will spend €0.5 billion of this amount before the end of 2015. We concluded that the involvement in and the possible cost of withdrawing from the JSF programme to replace the F-16 will increase further. The American Department of Defense's failure to take a decision in 2011 has created extra uncertainty about the planning and the costs of the Dutch JSF programme and the consequences for Dutch industry.
    @ SpudmanWP: Verification is part of the work...
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  29. #1169
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    F-35 Decisions Unfolded Without A Plan to Manage Unique Factors
    The audit found that National Defence did not establish an appropriate plan with other federal entities for managing the unique procurement aspects of the JSF program. When it recommended that the government purchase the F-35, it applied the traditional procurement rules to an acquisition that in effect had already been decided by a sequence of earlier actions.

    As a result, the process was redundant, with key approvals obtained after decisions were made. Public Works and Government Services Canada was not engaged in its role as the government’s procurement authority until late in the process, and it endorsed the decision to sole source the acquisition of the F-35 without required documentation and completed analyses.

    The audit also found that National Defence did not develop full life-cycle costs for the F-35. The budget for acquiring the jet and operating it over 20 years is capped at $25 billion, and it does not include significant cost elements such as replacement jets. The Department did not provide parliamentarians with complete cost information or fully inform decision makers about risks created by problems encountered in the program.

    “National Defence did not exercise the diligence that would be expected in managing a $25 billion commitment,” said Mr. Ferguson. “It is important that a purchase of this size be managed rigorously and transparently.”
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  30. #1170
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    A important reminder about why we may see strong political support despite constant rising cost...

    Buying the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Caucus

    The rhetoric emanating from these Members of Congress shouldn’t be surprising given their ties to the companies benefitting from the billions of taxpayer dollars spent yearly on the JSF.

    JSF Contractor Contributions Flow to Members of the JSF Caucus

    The primary contractors building the JSF—Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt & Whitney—have contributed $326,400 to Members of the JSF Caucus in the first year of the 2012 election cycle, according to a joint analysis of campaign finance data by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). These firms’ political action committees (PACs), which distribute campaign contributions to promote the contractors’ political goals, gave the average Member of the JSF Caucus $6,094—nearly double what they gave to the average representative not in the caucus ($3,077).

    And, it’s not just the corporate PACs that are funneling money to these legislators; individuals working for these firms also disproportionately direct their campaign contributions to these representatives. In fact, thus far in the 2012 election cycle, the average member of the JSF Caucus has received nearly twice as much money ($706) from employees of the top four JSF contractors than the average representative who is not in the JSF Caucus ($387).

    Even more telling is that the largest recipients of campaign contributions from JSF contractor PACs and individuals have gone to the co-chairs of the caucus, Granger and Dicks. Dicks has received $29,500 and Granger’s been given $45,700 from the JSF contractors, which, in JSF pricing, might roughly equate to one screw. (That may sound like a bit of an exaggeration, but given overcharges we’ve seen in other contracts, it might not be too far off.)
    [...]
    The JSF Caucus has another, perhaps more significant reason to lock in support for the JSF program: its Members’ home states receive a disproportionate share of JSF dollars, and, in turn, jobs for their constituents. In the face of seeing the JSF program cancelled, even the most impassioned supporters of unfettered markets, like JSF Caucus Member Scott Tipton (R-CO), will, without irony, raise the specter of mass layoffs as a defense of the program.

    According to Lockheed Martin’s “Domestic Impact” estimates, the JSF has more than 1,000 suppliers spread over all but three states, and the program’s direct economic impact on these states is more than $6 billion annually.

    But, this return of taxpayer dollars isn’t dispersed equitably amongst the states; it flows disproportionately to states represented on the JSF Caucus. In fact, more than 92 percent of the JSF’s “Domestic Impact” goes to the 18 states with Members on the JSF Caucus. It’s also telling that 12 representatives on the JSF Caucus, a quarter of all caucus members, hail from Texas—the second largest recipient of JSF money, behind only California.

    Lockheed also provides figures for the amount of indirect monetary impact the JSF program creates in different states. But there have been questions about how Lockheed calculates both these and the direct impact amounts, with some evidence that their estimates have been overblown. Specifically, as journalist David Axe has pointed out, Lockheed arrived at its inflated figure of more than 95,000 American jobs being lost if F-22 production ended by making the erroneous assumption that all employees at F-22 subcontractors, many of which work on a variety of other projects, were working on the F-22.

    Furthermore, it’s clear that lots of taxpayer money is being spent on the JSF and that JSF contractors have used the jobs argument as one of the main reasons to keep the money flowing for it. But some economists have found that defense spending is a poor way to create jobs compared to other types of government stimulus, be it spending on education or clean energy or tax cuts.
    Until they get a serious threat of the program been cancelled LM will not make any serious effort to reduce cost. They only stopped lobbying for the F-22 because they knew they could play catch up with the F-35.
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES