In WWII, the first versions of warplanes brought out problems and errors that turned up during operations, and later versions incorporated corrections and upgrades based on comments by the pilots and crews that flew and maintained the aircraft. Eventually, the plane simply became obsolete, and was burdened down with so many changes and modifications that the original design concepts were compromised, (many simply tacked on to give the aircraft new capabilities and missions never planned for by their designers). But by then, the airplane had developed a constituency, and it was too cumbersome to retool and introduce a new model, with all its probable bugs and kinks and training for its users that a new system made necessary.
Even highly successful and adaptable designs like the Bf 109 and the Spitfire were designed in the 30s, but fought though the entire war constantly upgraded and improved. But the pilots and crews still missed the earlier versions (although not necessarily the earliest) simply because they flew and fought better.
Flame » in reply to Pentagon lowers F-35 performance bar
The development cycle.
The whole thread (22 posts)
- The F-35 - Why other countries are bailing out.
- Here is a link that might shed some light
- Pentagon lowers F-35 performance bar
- It is true there has been alot of cost over runs, but it is a very complicated program.
- The big train that could...
- American Foxbat