This argument is totally specious for two simple facts: We are not “buying software” i.e. waiting for x-milliion lines of code to be delivered and indtalled in a computer(s). In fact, the software is totally proprietary - owned and controlled by Lockheed. The Government will never touch it, except as directed for maintenance and upgrade, by Lockheed. Additionally, on a program like this, time “is” money, with schedule slips reverberating through an entire industrial base, literally across the planet.
I think what Melbourne meant was that in commercial software sales, the specific scenario of death spiral by increasing unit costs vs. the customer’s effectively fixed budget just doesn’t happen.
Instead commercial software fails in the marketplace in a different way.
He’s not speaking even a little bit about F-35 software as if it was commercial software, was developed like commercial software, or was/is sold like commercial software.
The F-35 may in fact be entering into a traditional DoD/Congress budgetary death spiral. And if so software-related delays will be / have been a major driver.
But that’s not the same issue.
That’s why there is no comparison from a software standpoint in terms of any perceived “death spiral.” Flight software is a fundamentally different animal in many respects, including how it is developed, how it is managed and how it is delivered. Integration issues are many orders of magnitude more difficult than most people’s concept of the term software. It’s apples vs. oranges comparing the F-35 software to OTS-ware.
That’s NOT what he’s doing. At least that’s not how I read it.
He merely was saying that he originally misunderstood the term “death spiral” in this thread. He was applying his knowledge of slang in commercial IT and couldn’t figure out how his understanding of the term could map to what folks were talking about here.
Once somebody explained what “death spiral” means in the context of DoD procurement he had an “aha” moment. He was explaining to us the source of his confusion. Nothing more was meant.
Aha!
Wouldn’t call this a death spiral, but Canada is buying Super Hornets as an interim measure and re-thinking the F-35 buy altogether. Super Hornets were always more sensible for Canada; the vast distances and expanses make a twin-engine jet better in case of one engine’s failure, the greater commonality with the CF-18s, and a lower price tag. For that matter, Super Hornets would work better for Norway, Australia, etc.
One customer for whom the F-35B would make a great deal of sense would be Taiwan. It’s a small island with numerous airfields, so the engine-failure issue isn’t as big of a concern, and runways are likely to be targeted in wartime, making a STOVL aircraft highly valuable. The only issue is cost and also the United States’ reluctance to sell. But if many other countries canceled on the F-35, Taiwan would be a logical customer to pick up the slack.
Essentially, the best customers of the F-35 are small countries that have a need for an advanced fighter.
Canada sucks. Some new F-15s would be way better than F-18s in their situation, but they’re too cheap to do national defense properly. It wouldn’t surprise me if they cancel the F-18 order in the future and go with Gripens, or downgrade it further to some turbo-prop drug interdiction plane like the Super Tucano.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
-
Buying F-15s would make far, far less sense than Super Hornet. The F-15 is an absolutely nonsensical idea. Super Hornet at least is similar to the existing fleet of CF-18s.
-
The interim purchase of CF-18s is not Canada being cheap. It’s exactly the opposite; it’s the government spending FAR more than it should for political purposes. This allows them to delay the inevitable purchase of a more advanced fighter.
Let’s pretend that you were in charge of a large, sparsely-populated fictional country, something like Canada or Australia. If you’re building an Air Force from the ground up for your country, and you had a choice between the latest-and-greatest F/A-18E/F or a similar number of F-15SA fighters, you’d have to be nuts to pick the Superbugs over the Strike Eagles. You’d be buying the slower, shorter-ranged, lower-ceiling, smaller-payload jet. The only reason you’d do it is to save some money because F-15’s are expensive. Agreed?
Those can’t intercept. Canada needs jets capable of greeting Russian bombers that like to drop by to say hi, or intercepting a hijacked airliner, etc.
You don’t buy bestest and fastest for the sake of bestest and fastest. You buy what you need and makes sense for you.
You buy the faster, longer-range jet for exactly the reasons you said: sometimes Canadians have to intercept Russian bombers that are, inconveniently, located a long ways from their air bases. Would it better to get there slower and have less fuel for escorting them, or get there faster and have more fuel for escorting them?
It makes sense for Canadians (and Australians), which have to cover huge expanses of territory, to purchase the faster, longer-range jet, unless they’re just too expensive.
That’s great, but you’re buying a completely different platform from your existing fighters, and an old jet that’s not being made past 2019. It would be a stupid decision, which is why the F-15 wasn’t even one of the options the RCAF considered for competition. The Super Hornet is a superior choice either as an interim solution or a long term solution. The F-15 would have been a ridiculous choice.
The correct aircraft is, regrettably, the F-22, which the USA won’t sell. Failing that, probably the F-35, but politics won’t presently allow that. What is for sure is the F-15 is a silly choice (and you certainly would not want the Strike Eagle variant if your priority is interception.) We’re talking real life, not video games.
That’s great, but you’re buying a completely different platform from your existing fighters, an old jet that’s not being made past 2019, and one with limited interoperability with our allies. It would be a stupid decision, which is why the F-15 wasn’t even one of the options the RCAF considered for competition. The Super Hornet is a superior choice either as an interim solution or a long term solution. The F-15 would have been a ridiculous choice.
The correct aircraft is, regrettably, the F-22, which the USA won’t sell. Failing that, probably the F-35, but politics won’t presently allow that. What is for sure is the F-15 is a silly choice (and you certainly would not want the Strike Eagle variant if your priority is interception.) We’re talking real life, not video games.
I seem to recall that the CF-18 had some desirable performance attributes in relation to operating from airfields in the more frosty, northern parts of Canada. I believe they need the CF-18’s arresting hooks to operate in icy conditions on shorter runways. An F-15 wouldn’t be a good choice if my memory is correct and that is what is required.
Perhaps you’re right, but it’s worth mentioning here that F-15s also have tailhooks, as do F-22s (and probably other USAF jets), although I believe their primary use is in emergency situations (and for that matter, I’m not sure how often Canadian CF-18s use an arresting hook either).
Do you have a cite that either the F-15 or F-22 have hooks? I’ve read a lot about both over the years, seems tons of pictures and videos, and have never heard anyone say this, certainly never saw one deployed.
F-15s and F-16s do. As did prior USAF fighters back for decades. F-22 and F-35 do also.
A quick google image search for [F-22 tailhook] will show some pics. Plus a bunch of other aircraft, but the F-22 pix are obviously there and obviously real.
Fighters have a lot less systems redundancy and the tail hook is considered a backup braking system. It’s also used to land semi-safely with various gear malfunctions. A USAF standard runway will have one arresting wire near each end of the runway. For gear problems you land at the start of the runway and catch the first wire (called a “barrier”). For braking problems you roll to the far end and engage that one. See here for more: Arresting gear - Wikipedia
The big difference between USAF and Navy tailhooks (besides the groping 
) is USAF designs are intended for only very occasional use whereas the Navy stuff is built to withstand all day every day use.
Here is an article describing the hook and its operational use http://flyingwithfish.boardingarea.com/2012/12/26/reader-mail-why-do-air-force-jets-have-tailhooks/