Ditch the B-1s and B-2s for the B-21s

[TGS]

It is cool to have people posting in this thread who know their shit. Much better than reading Wikipedia articles.

After reading so many negative things about the F-35 program it's good to hear a more positive assessment from people in the know.

One thing I can add without getting totally out of my lane -- I've been involved in some complicated software projects though not to the same scale, and complex software is very hard to get right. Mostly because the more complicated it is the more difficult it is to thoroughly test. The most advanced code in the world is still being created by human minds, so the potential for error is pretty much built in.

And not only that, just imagine how much redesigning has to happen throughout the project, and then making such improvements work with all the other systems?

When the JSF project started, Gouroud shading had just hit the market for our computer games we used a set of 12 floppy disks to install, and listening to the sound of a 56k modem dialing in was the mark of a well-to-do computer nerd.

Yet people are angry and call everyone incompetent that we can't develop and produce 10,000 of them in the same time span of a WWII fighter which uses a pretty straight forward gasoline engine and avionics stamped out by shower drain companies.......

[gtae07]

I want to say that the contributions from you and our other Viper driver are really eye opening. It's awesome getting a glimpse of the backstory and details that are (purposely) left out from hit pieces that explain so much.

Just to be clear--I am not, nor have I ever been, a fighter pilot of any kind. I just fly little propeller planes

But, I am an aerospace engineer with experience on in-service aircraft and on new program development, and I am a private pilot. I know a few fighter pilots and several engineers who have worked on this program in particular, and my mind vacuums up information on stuff like this, both from public sources and things like journal articles and reports that I have access to. I've run some rough numbers based on the data I do have to give me reasonable estimates--it would surprise a lot of people what you can do with public statements of single performance points and public comparisons to other aircraft you do have good data for. I've also been following this program since high school, since for a while I'd intended to go work on it.

Between open information, industry experience, and education, I have a decent BS detector on stuff like this. I've seen way too much in the way of sky-is-falling the-program-is-catastrophically-flawed stories, like "ZOMG there's a crack on the fatigue test article!!!1!one! the program is DOOMED!!!"... and anyone with any experience in structural design, testing, or repair will know that of course you're going to find cracks on the fatigue test article. That's kind of the point. It's when you don't find any cracks, that you need to worry--either you massively overbuilt the thing, or (more likely) you're not testing properly or not looking hard enough. Or articles essentially reading as "we have computers now so the design should be perfect, but it's not, so there must be something really really wrong". It's frustrating from a professional standpoint.

And not only that, just imagine how much redesigning has to happen throughout the project, and then making such improvements work with all the other systems?

When the JSF project started, Gouroud shading had just hit the market for our computer games we used a set of 12 floppy disks to install, and listening to the sound of a 56k modem dialing in was the mark of a well-to-do computer nerd.

Yet people are angry and call everyone incompetent that we can't develop and produce 10,000 of them in the same time span of a WWII fighter which uses a pretty straight forward gasoline engine and avionics stamped out by shower drain companies.......

Something to keep in mind on the testing... a single test flight on a modern aircraft, whether civil or military, probably generates more data than an entire test program did up through the 60s. Heck, the FDR ("black box") on the newest airliners probably records more things than most test programs did back then. We advance through the test programs very methodically, not just due to lower risk but to help validate all the computer models we use in designing these aircraft. That's not even getting into the systems testing aspects, with all the software and interconnected functions. A 50's style test program would be considered downright reckless and dangerous today, if you could even find a test pilot cocky and stupid enough to do it.

[Drang]

Fighters, not bombers, but maybe of interest: US Fighter Pilots Brush Up on Old School Skills

[Trigger]

I know some of those guys, have flown with them. OHANG is a a good bunch of folks. Article is accurate, in that we can expect a lot of our toys to be degraded in the next fight: Comms, GPS, datalink and more. It is good to train how to put bombs/weapons on target when some systems are degraded. Carries some parallels to shooting and training, imagine that.

[Robinson]

Fighters, not bombers, but maybe of interest: US Fighter Pilots Brush Up on Old School Skills

See that's what I was trying to bring up earlier. Now, I am in no way capable of arguing this matter with some of the folks who've posted in this thread. But I honestly think the USAF (and the Navy too) needs to keep skills like those discussed in the article as well as dogfighting alive and well even when the next generation technology is put into production. Having the ability to shoot down the other guy before he even knows we are there is great and is a capability we should develop, but technology can fail and enemies will always try to come up with ways to defeat more advanced tech with less advanced tech.

It seems the F-22 sort of hits a sweet spot using advanced technology and capabilities (for current day anyway) along with supreme air combat capabilities. We should retain that balance in future generations of air superiority fighters and continue to train pilots to utilize it.

[Trigger]

See that's what I was trying to bring up earlier. Now, I am in no way capable of arguing this matter with some of the folks who've posted in this thread. But I honestly think the USAF (and the Navy too) needs to keep skills like those discussed in the article as well as dogfighting alive and well even when the next generation technology is put into production. Having the ability to shoot down the other guy before he even knows we are there is great and is a capability we should develop, but technology can fail and enemies will always try to come up with ways to defeat more advanced tech with less advanced tech.

It seems the F-22 sort of hits a sweet spot using advanced technology and capabilities (for current day anyway) along with supreme air combat capabilities. We should retain that balance in future generations of air superiority fighters and continue to train pilots to utilize it.

We would love to have enough budget money/flying hours to stay current and qualified in all the skillsets. But money has been cut over the years, that 'ol Peace Dividend again. I went from over 250+ hours per year as a young punk to 100 hrs per year later. And when I was getting 100, the new guys were only getting 130-150 per year. Lots of IMHO critical skills were not trained to due to lack of funding (flying hours, parts, ranges, people, maintainers, you name it -- it takes a big team).

And the Political Correctness movement sucked all the fun and allure out of being a fighter pilot. Flying went down, qweep went up, BS got worse. The airlines did not hire for 10 years, so the USAF thought things were normal. Now the airlines are re-hiring, and the bottom has fallen out of the market. We are 1100 fighter pilots short of what we need in the USAF. And its not about the money! Nobody I know got out because they said they were not getting paid enough. But if you make it un-fun, and insist it is just a J.O.B. then talented folks will go elsewhere. That what we are seeing now. (Please don't ask me to get on my soap-box)

[Robinson]

We would love to have enough budget money/flying hours to stay current and qualified in all the skillsets. But money has been cut over the years, that 'ol Peace Dividend again. I went from over 250+ hours per year as a young punk to 100 hrs per year later. And when I was getting 100, the new guys were only getting 130-150 per year. Lots of IMHO critical skills were not trained to due to lack of funding (flying hours, parts, ranges, people, maintainers, you name it -- it takes a big team).

And the Political Correctness movement sucked all the fun and allure out of being a fighter pilot. Flying went down, qweep went up, BS got worse. The airlines did not hire for 10 years, so the USAF thought things were normal. Now the airlines are re-hiring, and the bottom has fallen out of the market. We are 1100 fighter pilots short of what we need in the USAF. And its not about the money! Nobody I know got out because they said they were not getting paid enough. But if you make it un-fun, and insist it is just a J.O.B. then talented folks will go elsewhere. That what we are seeing now. (Please don't ask me to get on my soap-box)

Well yeah that blows. Combat effectiveness and political correctness have little to do with each other it seems to me. </me preaching to the choir>

[OldRunner/CSAT Neighbor]

I want to say that the contributions from you and our other Viper driver are really eye opening. It's awesome getting a glimpse of the backstory and details that are (purposely) left out from hit pieces that explain so much.

Agreed w/ TGS big time.

[Trigger]

Here is an article that provides a good summary of the current USAF fighter pilot retention problems. Its not about the money.

https://warontherocks.com/2018/02/ai...ers-right-now/

[JTQ]

Here is an article that provides a good summary of the current USAF fighter pilot retention problems. Its not about the money.

https://warontherocks.com/2018/02/ai...ers-right-now/

Good article.

I will note one point not brought up, and interestingly so since the author is a WSO (wears Navigator wings and not Pilot wings for those wondering), is I suspect this shortage is (which I'll assume is similar to the others mentioned) a shortage of pilots for pilot coded "billets". Not all those billets are cockpit billets. At least in a couple of those past shortages, some of those pilot billets at various places such as Headquarters, Joint Staff, etc., were merely recoded to a non-pilot position freeing up a pilot, usually an experienced one, to get back into the cockpit.

It is not a long term, good-idea solution, but it has been used in the past to get through short term shortages.