Air Force tests two turboprops as potential A-10 “replacements”

Re:Air Force tests two turboprops as potential A-10 “replace... by rbanffy on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @09:27AM (#17346347)

This is an organizational culture problem and needs a serious push from multiple levels of leadership to adjust. The F-35 started as an idea to actually save money by consolidating multiple missions onto one plane, which proved a terrible idea for multiple reasons and that wasn't cancelled because there would be no other option for some of the roles it should cover.

A simplistic solution would be to design weapons around common, proven components and, if possible, interchangeable ones - designing engines and weapons to have similar mount-points, avionics that can be used on multiple vehicles and be field-upgraded and build everything about as much incremental improvements as possible (yes, I know nothing will make an F-14 a stealth fighter so some big steps are needed, but if the follow-up plane could use similar engines, that'd make logistics much simpler)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Air Force tests two turboprops as potential A-10 “replace... by zentiggr on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @12:20PM (#17348029)

And would only cost about ten trillion to prototype and agree on design specs since every three-star+ and every design team/think tank would have a thumb in the pie and design-by-committee would have to market it with the slogan "2100 or Bust!"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Air Force tests two turboprops as potential A-10 “replace... by rbanffy on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @07:26PM (#17351118)

That's why it'd need to be pushed from top to bottom with a "unless you have something valuable to add, stick your thumbs somewhere else" message from the top.

[ Parent | on HN ]