The US
procurement problem for big ticket ships and airplanes is a vicious circle. We
don't get to buy many platforms because they are too expensive. So we try to
pack every single capability we ever wanted onto each platform, which makes the
platform too expensive to buy in quantity. This leaves us with fewer platforms.
And repeat as long as possible.
I'm a USAF Vietnam Era veteran, so I mainly
watch airplane development. I would have to call the F-35 the second coming of
the F-111. The F-111 was a Vietnam era fiasco. After a lot of expensive
bureaucratic bumbling, it ended up in service only with the Air Force
Just like the F-111, the F-35 is a
multi-service airplane that costs too much and requires 3 services to sign off
on design changes. That many admirals and generals with their fingers in the
pie just has to be prone to management delays, which delay the project. The
F-35 is a jack of all trades, master of none. It should have been developed for
one service, probably the Air Force, before any of the other services had any
input. After IOC, the Navy and Marines should have had their turn to modify the
design into something they could use.
But I think the biggest problem with US
development of big ticket items like ships and airplanes is "systems
thinking." We design and develop new everything for most new designs. Not
just a new platform and engines, but new electronics, new software, new
ejection seats, new cockpit displays and, in the case of the F-35, a new on
board logistics system, which isn't working right now. Having all of these new
things increases risk tremendously. In integration testing, there are an
exponential number of combinations of new elements which may not be working
together correctly.
I think the solution is to separate the
platform development from the electronics and the software. Develop the new
platform with as much off the shelf electronics and existing other standard
parts as possible. Don't pick a completely new part unless you have to. This
makes debugging problems in the new platform a lot easier. It's either the
software specific for the new platform or it's the platform itself.
Electronics and revolutionary new software
should be deployed after IOC, Initial Operating Capability. We definitely know
how to do this. We upgrade existing platforms routinely. Those B-52's on
missions over Syria are not using vacuum tube electronics from when they were
originally built in the early 1960's. Even the A-10 Warhogs have upgraded
electronics and the Air Force doesn't even like them. New weapons systems, like
the small diameter bomb, can also be integrated after IOC.
I'm sure the Navy can do this with ships. When
the battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor were repaired and refitted for service in
World War II, their secondary armaments were changed to feature a lot more
anti-aircraft guns and they also got fitted with radar. There’s no reason
similar upgrades can’t be fitted into modern ships after their Initial
Operating Capability.
It’s a lot cheaper to go from a platform that
works to an improved platform that works than it is to debug a completely new
system over the course of several years. If it takes several extra years to
debug a new ship or airplane, you get no benefit from your investment while
you’re debugging. The platform is useless.
The whole idea is to get something that works
ASAP, then improve it with additional capabilities or variants. This is the way
World War II aircraft were developed. The P-40 was an adaptation of the P-36
with a better engine. The P-51A used the same engine as the P-40. The
subsequent P-51s used the same engine as the British Spitfire.
Similar component sharing and variants are
possible today. For example, there was a proposal to build a stretched F-22 as
a bomber.
Starting with off the shelf capability with
everything but the platform and engines will make it harder to allow scope
creep, the repeated inclusion of “just one more requirement.” If only the
platform and engines are developmental items, it's not feasible to make a Swiss
Army plane or ship that’s designed to do everything. This will hold down
costs. You have to tell the people asking for additional features that it will
be fixed in the next release.
Original article: