GAO on VH-71 (too heavy); V-22 (better design need); JSF (need knowledge-based approach), etc

[Mike[_7_]]

see
from http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07406sp.html or http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf
GAO report number GAO-07-406SP entitled 'Defense Acquisitions:
Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs' which was released on March
30, 2007.


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-406SP
entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon
Programs' which was released on March 30, 2007.

[Borderline]

On Apr 8, 7:36 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> see
> fromhttp://www.gao.gov/htext/d07406sp.htmlorhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf
> GAO report number GAO-07-406SP entitled 'Defense Acquisitions:
> Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs' which was released on March
> 30, 2007.
>
> This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-406SP
> entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon
> Programs' which was released on March 30, 2007.

What a surprise...not really...

Robert

[[email protected]]

I wonder how the F-35C slip may influence F/A-18E/F orders. It dropped
from initial 548 aircraft or more to around 460, but now I've heard
the proposal is to increase it again to 494....

Best regards,
Jacek


On 9 Kwi, 02:36, "Mike" > wrote:
> see
> fromhttp://www.gao.gov/htext/d07406sp.htmlorhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf
> GAO report number GAO-07-406SP entitled 'Defense Acquisitions:
> Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs' which was released on March
> 30, 2007.
>
> This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-406SP
> entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon
> Programs' which was released on March 30, 2007.

[Pat Flannery]

wrote:
> I wonder how the F-35C slip may influence F/A-18E/F orders. It dropped
> from initial 548 aircraft or more to around 460, but now I've heard
> the proposal is to increase it again to 494....
>
>
If they can't fix the weight problem with the V/SOTL version for the
Marines, then this plane is a waste of time.
The whole thing is designed around using that front lift fan in the
Marine version, and if you drop that as an aspect of its design, then
you can build a conventional takeoff/landing aircraft with equal stealth
and superior performance at lower overall price per airframe.
The JSF program resembles the F-111 project; trying to shoehorn to many
mission requirements into a single aircraft.
If all versions of it - Air Force, Navy, and Marine, had the same V/STOL
requirement in their design, then it would make sense.
But what we have now is an aircraft designed for the the Marine V/STOL
requirement which is modified for the Navy and Air Force.
This doesn't make sense.
Total numbers of an aircraft delivered to the Air Force and Navy to meet
their mission requirements shall dwarf those that the Marines need.
The Marines need a Harrier replacement; and neither the Air Force or
Navy use Harriers.
It should be a separate aircraft, optimized to the Marine's needs.

Pat

[[email protected]]

Not only U.S. Marines, also Royal Navy, but looking what they did with
their Sea Harriers, it is difficult to tell what their next move can
be if serious problems about F-35B arise...


On 15 Kwi, 07:19, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>
> If they can't fix the weight problem with the V/SOTL version for the
> Marines, then this plane is a waste of time.
> The whole thing is designed around using that front lift fan in the
> Marine version, and if you drop that as an aspect of its design, then
> you can build a conventional takeoff/landing aircraft with equal stealth
> and superior performance at lower overall price per airframe.
> The JSF program resembles the F-111 project; trying to shoehorn to many
> mission requirements into a single aircraft.
> If all versions of it - Air Force, Navy, and Marine, had the same V/STOL
> requirement in their design, then it would make sense.
> But what we have now is an aircraft designed for the the Marine V/STOL
> requirement which is modified for the Navy and Air Force.
> This doesn't make sense.
> Total numbers of an aircraft delivered to the Air Force and Navy to meet
> their mission requirements shall dwarf those that the Marines need.
> The Marines need a Harrier replacement; and neither the Air Force or
> Navy use Harriers.
> It should be a separate aircraft, optimized to the Marine's needs.
>
> Pat