The point still stands:
Internet forumites =/= military r&d.
This might doesn't apply to small arms and other armaments available to general populace - as seen in the example I've mentioned and certainly, numerous others - where modifying your gun and experimenting with it is done at your own risk and for your own entertainment/use. With a fifth generation stealth multi-role fighter costing $104 million, one does not have such freedom.
It can be discussed about, speculated about, theorised - but not taken as something that would actually work and be implemented.
I don't know... military r&d still needs humans generating ideas... The main difference is probably filters in place to keep most of the stupid out... and the given fact that military r&d simply ain't just out there for the public to witness.
Internet forumites have no filter in any way whatsoever.
That and the fact that, or so I would hope, the engineers doing R&D have a better understanding of engineers than random forumites, and the military staff giving the requirements have a better understanding of what needs they have for their military to perform. That I would consider entirely distinct from just stupid; after all, you can be educated and still have a surfeit of stupidity.
Heck, half the problem with the JSF has been that the branches of the military all definitely know what needs they want it to fill. They just don't agree between each other on what those needs are. For instance, the Air Force needs something that can outfight anything in the air, and the F-35A is born. The Navy needs to operate these things off carriers, so the F-35C better be CATOBAR-compatible. The Marines need something with VTOL capabilities, so the F-35B ended up with STOVL capabilities. The Army needs it to be able to blow up stuff on the ground, so say hello to an ordinance retrofit. As for why you need one fighter to do all of this, that's the politics of peace. Let's say we end up with a Warthog-successor, a Hornet successor, an F-16 successor, and a Harrier successor, and specialize each for its particular roles. That would make military and engineering sense; each one will end up optimized for its role. The problem is that you now have four fights in Congress, one to get each funded. One JSF to rule them all? It suffers for being a JOAT, but it's much easier to push one project through Congress than four, especially if you sell Congress on it being more "efficient." As for how that has panned out, we can all see just how efficient the F-35 has been so far. :3
EDIJT:
Yes I do realise that, but once again, they have stuff that works and something like this would be completely needless. A long range, high speed, stealth aircraft with low carrying capacity doesn't really fill out any role connected to naval landings and operations. What they usually need is stuff that's sturdy and has a high carrying capacity because you need to get as much shit on the ground in as little time as possible. The F-35 couldn't really do any of that.
Well, the problem is that the stuff that works now is getting a bit long in the tooth; the "opponents" (whichever enemy of the week is being discussed now) are also advancing, and there are concerns that equipment like the A-10 will start to show its age if it ever ends up in a fight against anyone stronger than a Third World army. The whole purpose behind the JSF was to preempt that obsolescence by building something that could handle exactly what they needed. The problem, as you note, is that what came out of it was not what they wanted; the Marines hopped on, but the Army demurred when it actually came to deciding whether to replace the A-10 with the F-35B or not.
EDIT 2:
Actually, this reminds me a lot about the Pentagon Wars' depiction of the
Bradley's development. Just for a lark.
Poll
Author
Topic: Sheb's European Megathread: Remove Feta! (Read 1775540 times)