• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

JUSTAS: the project to buy armed Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAVs

Dumpster Fire GIF by MOODMAN

Who's not smiling? Look of awe 2.jpg
 
FWIW the J-SAR implementation is a bit of a shit show too. TEF still has its work cut out. Crews need to learn how to plan on the go vice on the ground.
 
4 to 6 years to get to Initial Operational Capability. WW2 lasted 6 years. For reference.
WW2 timelines were also compressed. If a Gen 1 fighter (Spitfire, let’s say the plentiful Mk.XI developed to counter the FW190) were to fly over the same lifetime (so far) as Canada’s Gen 4 fighter (CF-18), then that Spitfire would have still been flying when the Hornet entered service. One might consider that WW2 time references might not directly apply to today… 😉

What does this word “deliver” mean?
1668264554773.gif
 
WW2 timelines were also compressed. If a Gen 1 fighter (Spitfire, let’s say the plentiful Mk.XI developed to counter the FW190) were to fly over the same lifetime (so far) as Canada’s Gen 4 fighter (CF-18), then that Spitfire would have still been flying when the Hornet entered service. One might consider that WW2 time references might not directly apply to today… 😉


View attachment 74800
I am not talking about aircraft flying in WW2 but the fact that a world war was started, fought and won in about a quarter of time it takes to acquire a less than desirable aircraft that is essentially unfit for the role it is meant to fill.
 
I am not talking about aircraft flying in WW2 but the fact that a world war was started, fought and won in about a quarter of time it takes to acquire a less than desirable aircraft that is essentially unfit for the role it is meant to fill.
And I wasn’t just talking about the aircraft either, it was an example to demonstrate the difference in timelines over the years, while you were trying to juxtapose current activities near directly to a time over half a century ago. Process, including specification, procurement, in-service use and sustainment, has dramatically increased since WW2.
 
And I wasn’t just talking about the aircraft either, it was an example to demonstrate the difference in timelines over the years, while you were trying to juxtapose current activities near directly to a time over half a century ago. Process, including specification, procurement, in-service use and sustainment, has dramatically increased since WW2.
Ok
 
I am not talking about aircraft flying in WW2 but the fact that a world war was started, fought and won in about a quarter of time it takes to acquire a less than desirable aircraft that is essentially unfit for the role it is meant to fill.
Agreed. 4 to 6 years just to get an IOC is actually pretty unambitious.

At the rate tech improves, especially out of the R&D chambers of Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, etc - if we take 6 years to get to the IOC stage, that tech is already way behind what else is coming out.

I don’t know all the processes, but I’m with Max on this one. 4-6 years just to get to IOC stage seems long, especially when you plug WW2 into that timeline.
 
So what is an acceptable schedule from contract signing to IOC (as formally defined by the project sponsor) for a complex aerospace capability?
 
Process, including specification, procurement, in-service use and sustainment, has dramatically increased since WW2.

And that all boils down to risk - acceptance and management.

Some Spitfire Marks worked. Others didn't do as well. Kind of like the Sabre.
 
Back
Top