F-32 vs F-35

[The Raven]

We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the strategic
development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept rather
than push forward with it.

For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward with the X-32
into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the competition that
potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign nations?
Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it could be more
cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit unlikely) of
F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second JSF-like
aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?

For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have had a market
for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or eroded some
of it's competitors market. Additionally, it could upset the supposed
superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar in
capability to the F35 than anything else.

So the question is, could there have economically been a market for the F32
outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing to produce
such an aircraft?

My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow Boeing to do
such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring that other
nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect US
"security".

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Kevin Brooks]

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
> We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
strategic
> development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
> announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
rather
> than push forward with it.

I suspect some of their X-32 technology is making its way into their UCAV
conceptual vehicle.

>
> For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward with the
X-32
> into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the competition that
> potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign nations?
> Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it could be more
> cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit unlikely)
of
> F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second JSF-like
> aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?

Imagine the cost of development. No company has the resources required to
develop a first-line combat aircraft today independent of governmental
financing. When that governmental financing goes down, pace of development
also takes a nosedive--take the Rafale as an example.

>
> For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have had a
market
> for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or eroded
some
> of it's competitors market. Additionally, it could upset the supposed
> superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar in
> capability to the F35 than anything else.

Ain't gonna happen without governmental R&D support.

>
> So the question is, could there have economically been a market for the
F32
> outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing to produce
> such an aircraft?

No and yes (but a meaningless yes as it just was not a possible outcome).

>
> My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow Boeing to
do
> such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring that other
> nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect US
> "security".

Then that would be an incorrect assumption. The fact is that the development
costs for such advanced aircraft are extremely expensive, and the US could
only afford to back one horse, just as it could only afford to field one of
those horses itself.

Brooks

>
> --
> The Raven
> http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
> ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
> ** since August 15th 2000.
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 01:01:26 +1100, "The Raven"
> wrote:

>We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the strategic
>development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
>announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept rather
>than push forward with it.
>
>For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward with the X-32
>into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the competition that
>potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign nations?


Why would anybody buy the loser? The STOVL version barely was able to
do a vertical takeoff and landing at all. They had to strip it down
and go down to sea level to pull it off. God help them if they
actually put some payload on it. Also the X-32 would be WAY more
expensive because of the few numbers bought. Between the USAF, USN,
and Marines the requirement is for several thousand aircraft (whether
they'll get all they want is a differnet question).



>Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it could be more
>cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit unlikely) of
>F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second JSF-like
>aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?

Imagine if the F-22 only cost fifty bucks. Look how many we could
buy. No offense but just about everything about the idea of Boeing
producing the X-32 is a bad idea.



>
>For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have had a market
>for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or eroded some
>of it's competitors market.

Like who? Just about every potential buyer has already bought into
the F-35. The X-32 didn't exactly cover itself in glory during the
competition.


>Additionally, it could upset the supposed
>superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar in
>capability to the F35 than anything else.

It isn't supposedly superior, it is superior. There was really no
debating it, unlike the F-22/F-23 competition.



>
>So the question is, could there have economically been a market for the F32
>outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing to produce
>such an aircraft?

Nope and the only reason the government would be against it is because
it could be financially devestating to the company.



>
>My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow Boeing to do
>such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring that other
>nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect US
>"security".


Why would they want to protect Lockhed's interest? They didn't say
"Look Boeing, you can't sell F-15s anymore and you can't offer Super
Hornets to anybody else".

[Paul F Austin]

"The Raven" wrote
> We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
strategic
> development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
> announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
rather
> than push forward with it.
>
Money of course. Both aircraft were very far from final production designs.
LM didn't get a $24B (that's Billion) FSD contract for nothing and Boeing
would be betting the company in staggering fashion...just to try and
duplicate Northrop's F-20 strategy.

[The Raven]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> > We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
> strategic
> > development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
> > announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
> rather
> > than push forward with it.
>
> I suspect some of their X-32 technology is making its way into their UCAV
> conceptual vehicle.

No doubt a lot of the technology will be used but the platform itself was
pretty impressive despite not winning the JSF contest.

>
> >
> > For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward with the
> X-32
> > into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the competition that
> > potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign
nations?
> > Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it could be
more
> > cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit
unlikely)
> of
> > F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second JSF-like
> > aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?
>
> Imagine the cost of development. No company has the resources required to
> develop a first-line combat aircraft today independent of governmental
> financing.

Hence look for governments outside the US that are willing to do it. I'm not
suggesting the F32 would end up with the exact same capability and fitout as
planned but it could be built with the commitment of several governments.

> When that governmental financing goes down, pace of development
> also takes a nosedive--take the Rafale as an example.

Sure.

>
> >
> > For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have had a
> market
> > for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or eroded
> some
> > of it's competitors market. Additionally, it could upset the supposed
> > superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar in
> > capability to the F35 than anything else.
>
> Ain't gonna happen without governmental R&D support.

There are more governments in the world than the US government.

>
> >
> > So the question is, could there have economically been a market for the
> F32
> > outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing to
produce
> > such an aircraft?
>
> No and yes (but a meaningless yes as it just was not a possible outcome).

Why not possible. Not all aircraft developments hinge on funding from Uncle
Sam.

>
> >
> > My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow Boeing to
> do
> > such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring that
other
> > nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect US
> > "security".
>
> Then that would be an incorrect assumption. The fact is that the
development
> costs for such advanced aircraft are extremely expensive, and the US could
> only afford to back one horse, just as it could only afford to field one
of
> those horses itself.

To the spec they had set, probably. Without those constraints it *may* be
possible to bring the X-32 into production but obviously in a somewhat
different form (which may be at a lesser cost than the proposed F-32).

There's obviously a market for this type of aircraft or the competition
wouldn't have taken place. Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something similar
and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds to see the
X32 developed into something.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[The Raven]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 01:01:26 +1100, "The Raven"
> > wrote:
>
> >We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
strategic
> >development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
> >announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
rather
> >than push forward with it.
> >
> >For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward with the
X-32
> >into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the competition that
> >potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign
nations?
>
>
> Why would anybody buy the loser?

Because not everyone can afford the winner nor do they have the specific
requirements set out for JSF?

> The STOVL version barely was able to
> do a vertical takeoff and landing at all.

While that was a critical requirement, it was directly aimed at providing a
replacement for the Harriers. How many nations really need, or can afford,
VTOL? Of course STOL is another thing.

> They had to strip it down
> and go down to sea level to pull it off.
> God help them if they
> actually put some payload on it.

It was a prototype and that specific requirement was technically
challenging. Not everyone will be able to master it but that shouldn't rule
out the aircrafts other capabilities.

It's primarily the Harrier operators that want the VTOL capabilities, which
aren't numerous.

> Also the X-32 would be WAY more
> expensive because of the few numbers bought.

Depends on final spec doesn't it. You build to a capability/budget/market,
it's a balance. I'm not suggesting the X32 be developed exactly to the
original requirements of JSF, it might be possible to build it to a less
stringent requirement.

The VTOL requirement is a big cost driver, drop that and the aircraft
development becomes more affordable.

> Between the USAF, USN,
> and Marines the requirement is for several thousand aircraft (whether
> they'll get all they want is a differnet question).

Between all the partner nations it's approx 4000.

I'm sure other nations/forces would be interested in something that may not
be a JSF equal but is close enough and cheaper.

>
> >Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it could be more
> >cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit unlikely)
of
> >F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second JSF-like
> >aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?
>
> Imagine if the F-22 only cost fifty bucks. Look how many we could
> buy.

An extreme example that doesn't hold up because it's totally unrealistic.
What if the F32 could be made to near JSF requirements (minus VTOL for
example) for $10M cheaper per copy? That would heat up the competition and
get the interest of buyers. I'm sure Boeing would find a market for that,
possibly big enough to make it viable.

> No offense but just about everything about the idea of Boeing
> producing the X-32 is a bad idea.

I concede it may not be economically viable (has Boeing done the numbers?).
However if you've already developed a prototype, you think it will succeed
and, theres a markets for it why not investigate those other markets? Sure,
Boeing missed the "A" market but perhaps can they trim the X32 down for a
"B" market?

> >For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have had a
market
> >for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or eroded
some
> >of it's competitors market.
>
> Like who? Just about every potential buyer has already bought into
> the F-35.

IIRC Japan and Israel are making overtures that they want JSF and they want
it first, despite not being partners. Taiwan has expressed some interest,
reportedly.

> The X-32 didn't exactly cover itself in glory during the
> competition.

Specific competition, specific rules. Run a competition (eg. Tender) with a
different set of rules and the F35 may not win. Australias AIR6000 project
had numerous contenders including JSF (at least until the politicians
over-ruled the process)

If Australia, for example, had the choice of the F35 or a slightly cheaper
(and somewhat lesser capable) F32 they would probably go down the F32 route
(ignoring US-AUS politicing). Australia tends to buy the closest match to
their requirement for the lowest cost. Rarely do they spend the extra for
the "A+" option, they buy the B+ or A-.

> >Additionally, it could upset the supposed
> >superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar in
> >capability to the F35 than anything else.
>
> It isn't supposedly superior, it is superior.

Superior to the type of aircraft it is planned to face. Make the F32 a
reality and the superiority gap could narrow significantly.

> There was really no
> debating it, unlike the F-22/F-23 competition.

I don't disagree that the X32 didn't perform as well as the X35 during the
JSF competition.

>
> >
> >So the question is, could there have economically been a market for the
F32
> >outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing to produce
> >such an aircraft?
>
> Nope and the only reason the government would be against it is because
> it could be financially devestating to the company.

I see several possible reasons, even assuming the F32 would be less capable:

1. It potentially competes against the F35 when considered by customers with
smaller budgets.
2. A lower cost F32 that could sway existing JSF partners from full
acquisition.
3. It provides others access to stealth capability etc, narrowing the
superiority gap.
4. Less sales of F35 drives up final unit costs.
5. Political pressure from vested interests (eg. LM)

> >My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow Boeing to
do
> >such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring that
other
> >nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect US
> >"security".
>
>
> Why would they want to protect Lockhed's interest? They didn't say
> "Look Boeing, you can't sell F-15s anymore and you can't offer Super
> Hornets to anybody else".

See above. The US has an interest in LM succeeding and selling lots of F35s,
lower unit costs and sustainable production being two obvious reasons.

How does an F-15 or Super Hornet compare against an F35? It doesn't, for the
JSF requirements, otherwise the US would be buying more of those rather than
funding JSF.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Kevin Brooks]

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
> > strategic
> > > development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
> > > announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
> > rather
> > > than push forward with it.
> >
> > I suspect some of their X-32 technology is making its way into their
UCAV
> > conceptual vehicle.
>
> No doubt a lot of the technology will be used but the platform itself was
> pretty impressive despite not winning the JSF contest.

Not really--that was why it lost to the LMCO bid. It was a dog. And it was
danged ugly, with a capital U, to boot--danged thing looked like a pregnant
cow with wings strapped on its back. Hell, it made the old EE Lightning look
like a true beauty, and that is saying something (not knocking the
Lightning, which was a capable and fine aircraft for its day, but it was not
looking to win any beauty contests).

>
> >
> > >
> > > For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward with
the
> > X-32
> > > into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the competition
that
> > > potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign
> nations?
> > > Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it could be
> more
> > > cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit
> unlikely)
> > of
> > > F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second JSF-like
> > > aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?
> >
> > Imagine the cost of development. No company has the resources required
to
> > develop a first-line combat aircraft today independent of governmental
> > financing.
>
> Hence look for governments outside the US that are willing to do it. I'm
not
> suggesting the F32 would end up with the exact same capability and fitout
as
> planned but it could be built with the commitment of several governments.

All of which would be much happier just piggybacking on the massive R&D
funding that the USG is placing in the winning F-35 program. Note that a lot
of other nations HAVE ponied up R&D money to participate in this program,
and none of them have come forth saying, "Hey, can we buy into that Boeing
dog instead?" That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill. Note
that the consortium of major European nations developing the Eurofighter
have had their hands full funding that program (and now have the added
challenge of funding the A-400); given that situation, how likely is it that
you could find any group of "other" friendly nations that would be willing
to come up with the many billions of dollars required to make the X-32
viable? Not very, IMO.

>
> > When that governmental financing goes down, pace of development
> > also takes a nosedive--take the Rafale as an example.
>
> Sure.
>
> >
> > >
> > > For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have had a
> > market
> > > for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or
eroded
> > some
> > > of it's competitors market. Additionally, it could upset the supposed
> > > superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar in
> > > capability to the F35 than anything else.
> >
> > Ain't gonna happen without governmental R&D support.
>
> There are more governments in the world than the US government.

And outside of Europe how many (in the "friendly to the US category") are in
a financial position to fork over the $30 billion or more required to make
the X-32 a real F-32? Japan springs to mind...but they are already fully
committed to their own F-2 project. Recall that one of the reasons Boeing
came up short in this competition was that their X-32 was apparently quite a
bit further from being a workable fighter than the competing LMCO X-35 was;
Boeing had already had to admit that some *major* redesign would be required
based upon flight test results of the X-32. In comparison, the F-35 has so
far undergone relatively little external change from the X-35 article (some
increased dimensions, i.e., a slightly larger cross section of the fuselage
behind the cockpit IIRC) during the period before the design outline was
frozen a year or more ago.

>
> >
> > >
> > > So the question is, could there have economically been a market for
the
> > F32
> > > outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing to
> produce
> > > such an aircraft?
> >
> > No and yes (but a meaningless yes as it just was not a possible
outcome).
>
> Why not possible. Not all aircraft developments hinge on funding from
Uncle
> Sam.

Look, get the "anything said has to relate to some kind of superiority
complex regarding the US" chip off your shoulder, OK? The fact of the matter
is that (a) the X-35 was the better platform, by most accounts; (b) the X-32
had some significant design flaws requiring major redesign before it was
ready to move into the fighter realm; and (c) the plain fact of the matter
is that there are not any nations out there that both have the available
capital to manage such an expensive proposition and are not ALREADY
committed to other major development projects, and who fall into that vital
"friendly to the US" category. All of that adds up to this being a
completely unworkable proposition.

>
> >
> > >
> > > My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow Boeing
to
> > do
> > > such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring that
> other
> > > nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect US
> > > "security".
> >
> > Then that would be an incorrect assumption. The fact is that the
> development
> > costs for such advanced aircraft are extremely expensive, and the US
could
> > only afford to back one horse, just as it could only afford to field one
> of
> > those horses itself.
>
> To the spec they had set, probably. Without those constraints it *may* be
> possible to bring the X-32 into production but obviously in a somewhat
> different form (which may be at a lesser cost than the proposed F-32).

Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from being an
F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35. Even doing all of the expensive
redesign to make the F-32 a reality would still leave you with an aircraft
that is inferior to the LMCO product, and you'd have dumped beaucoup bucks
into making *that* a reality. Not a good way of doing business, even at the
governmental level.

>
> There's obviously a market for this type of aircraft or the competition
> wouldn't have taken place.

No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
competitor for further development. The fact that two companies competed to
the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market--it
could have just as well been handled on the basis of selecting the best
proposal from one of the firms without having developed flight-capable
demonstrators, but that would not have been wise given that the basic
aircraft is asked to do quite a lot more than any other current or planned
fighter project under development anywhere in the world (demanding the same
basic aircraft design be capable of conventional land based use, CTOL
carrier use, and STOVL was quite a tall order).

Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
> current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something similar
> and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds to see
the
> X32 developed into something.

OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations who (a)
are on our good guys list, (b) are not already committed to other expensive
R&D efforts, and (c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly cost
more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than the F-35
(which not only required less redesign but also enjoys the largesse of Uncle
Sugar handling the majority of the R&D funding, and enjoys a large base
order from the US which drives the unit cost down) and is a less capable
platform than the F-35 is to boot. If you find any, let me know; I can get
them some prime beachfront property in Nevada for a small finders fee, and
if they are gullible enough to support this proposal they will surely find
that real estate very attractive.

Brooks

>
> --
> The Raven

[The Raven]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
> > > strategic
> > > > development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner
was
> > > > announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
> > > rather
> > > > than push forward with it.
> > >
> > > I suspect some of their X-32 technology is making its way into their
> UCAV
> > > conceptual vehicle.
> >
> > No doubt a lot of the technology will be used but the platform itself
was
> > pretty impressive despite not winning the JSF contest.
>
> Not really--that was why it lost to the LMCO bid.

It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several technological
areas.

> It was a dog. And it was
> danged ugly, with a capital U, to boot--danged thing looked like a
pregnant
> cow with wings strapped on its back. Hell, it made the old EE Lightning
look
> like a true beauty, and that is saying something (not knocking the
> Lightning, which was a capable and fine aircraft for its day, but it was
not
> looking to win any beauty contests).

I didn't know that the main criteria for selecting any piece of military
hardware was that it had to look good.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward with
> the
> > > X-32
> > > > into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the competition
> that
> > > > potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign
> > nations?
> > > > Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it could be
> > more
> > > > cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit
> > unlikely)
> > > of
> > > > F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second
JSF-like
> > > > aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?
> > >
> > > Imagine the cost of development. No company has the resources required
> to
> > > develop a first-line combat aircraft today independent of governmental
> > > financing.
> >
> > Hence look for governments outside the US that are willing to do it. I'm
> not
> > suggesting the F32 would end up with the exact same capability and
fitout
> as
> > planned but it could be built with the commitment of several
governments.
>
> All of which would be much happier just piggybacking on the massive R&D
> funding that the USG is placing in the winning F-35 program. Note that a
lot
> of other nations HAVE ponied up R&D money to participate in this program,
> and none of them have come forth saying, "Hey, can we buy into that Boeing
> dog instead?"

The Boeing platform wasn't a "dog" otherwise it would never have gotten as
far as it did into the competition.

The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing hasn't
proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going ahead
anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar capabilities
for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out what
this may be.

> That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill.

As major buyer, who also has a vested interest in LM selling heaps, you'd
expect that.

> Note
> that the consortium of major European nations developing the Eurofighter
> have had their hands full funding that program (and now have the added
> challenge of funding the A-400);

A good point.

> given that situation, how likely is it that
> you could find any group of "other" friendly nations that would be willing
> to come up with the many billions of dollars required to make the X-32
> viable? Not very, IMO.

Naturally Boeing would have to offer something very attractive in the form
of capability and cost to garner enough financial interest to go ahead. Who
funds Boeings development of any commercial aircraft today?

> >
> > > When that governmental financing goes down, pace of development
> > > also takes a nosedive--take the Rafale as an example.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have had
a
> > > market
> > > > for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or
> eroded
> > > some
> > > > of it's competitors market. Additionally, it could upset the
supposed
> > > > superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar in
> > > > capability to the F35 than anything else.
> > >
> > > Ain't gonna happen without governmental R&D support.
> >
> > There are more governments in the world than the US government.
>
> And outside of Europe how many (in the "friendly to the US category") are
in
> a financial position to fork over the $30 billion or more required to make
> the X-32 a real F-32?

Is it really 30B or is that the forecast for the F35?

> Japan springs to mind...but they are already fully
> committed to their own F-2 project.

There are lots of asian nations looking for replacements, most friendly.
However, it would obviously need some careful thought and serious
committment.

> Recall that one of the reasons Boeing
> came up short in this competition was that their X-32 was apparently quite
a
> bit further from being a workable fighter than the competing LMCO X-35
was;
> Boeing had already had to admit that some *major* redesign would be
required
> based upon flight test results of the X-32.

Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?

> In comparison, the F-35 has so
> far undergone relatively little external change from the X-35 article
(some
> increased dimensions, i.e., a slightly larger cross section of the
fuselage
> behind the cockpit IIRC) during the period before the design outline was
> frozen a year or more ago.

Fair enough, the X35 is superior to the X32 but I wouldn't rule out that the
X32 could not be developed into something very capable. The crux of the X32
development is, who would fund it and whether enough could be built to make
it viable. I think it's a shame to see the X32 be discontinued merely
because it didn't meet a specific specification yet shows promise.


> > >
> > > >
> > > > So the question is, could there have economically been a market for
> the
> > > F32
> > > > outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing to
> > produce
> > > > such an aircraft?
> > >
> > > No and yes (but a meaningless yes as it just was not a possible
> outcome).
> >
> > Why not possible. Not all aircraft developments hinge on funding from
> Uncle
> > Sam.
>
> Look, get the "anything said has to relate to some kind of superiority
> complex regarding the US" chip off your shoulder, OK?

Sorry, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the US. I was responding to
your use of the word "government" implying the US government. I took it that
you ruled out all other governments as a possible source of funding.

> The fact of the matter
> is that (a) the X-35 was the better platform, by most accounts;

Agreed

> (b) the X-32
> had some significant design flaws requiring major redesign before it was
> ready to move into the fighter realm; and

I don't know if there were significant design flaws but I appreciate that a
prototype is a prototype and not expected to be perfect. Obviously, the X32
didn't perform as well as teh X35. Some redesign may be necessary but I
don't think the aircraft is inherently bad. If it was so bad, it would never
have made it into the competition or remained there until the end.

>(c) the plain fact of the matter
> is that there are not any nations out there that both have the available
> capital to manage such an expensive proposition and are not ALREADY
> committed to other major development projects, and who fall into that
vital
> "friendly to the US" category.

I concede it's a tough ask but it isn't impossible.

> All of that adds up to this being a
> completely unworkable proposition.

I not so certain it's completely unworkable. Difficult yes, viable maybe.
Certainly it would be better than someone embarking on another all new
aircraft design.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow
Boeing
> to
> > > do
> > > > such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring that
> > other
> > > > nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect US
> > > > "security".
> > >
> > > Then that would be an incorrect assumption. The fact is that the
> > development
> > > costs for such advanced aircraft are extremely expensive, and the US
> could
> > > only afford to back one horse, just as it could only afford to field
one
> > of
> > > those horses itself.
> >
> > To the spec they had set, probably. Without those constraints it *may*
be
> > possible to bring the X-32 into production but obviously in a somewhat
> > different form (which may be at a lesser cost than the proposed F-32).
>
> Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from being an
> F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35.

I agree it's less mature but that doesn't mean it's so bad it should be
scrapped.

> Even doing all of the expensive
> redesign to make the F-32 a reality would still leave you with an aircraft
> that is inferior to the LMCO product,

Depends on the final capability requirements, which may not be the same as
the F35. Where not even certain of what all the final capabilities of the
F35 will be. Just because it doesn't beat an F35 doesn't mean it's inferior.

> and you'd have dumped beaucoup bucks
> into making *that* a reality.

I'm not suggesting that the X32 be developed into a direct competitor with a
100% match in capability to the F35. The suggestion is that the X32
development not be wasted and that it could be developed into something
viable. Not everyone wants the full JSF capability or can afford it. The X32
has the potentional to fill that market.

>Not a good way of doing business, even at the
> governmental level.
>
> >
> > There's obviously a market for this type of aircraft or the competition
> > wouldn't have taken place.
>
> No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
> competitor for further development.

Which was decided by the government and their end users who had specific
requirements in mind. These requirements do not necessarily reflect those of
everyone else but, they may come close.

> The fact that two companies competed to
> the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market

Obviously it did. No use bidding to produce and aircraft which has such a
limited market the customer won't be able to afford it and you wont be able
to sell it elsewhere.

>--it
> could have just as well been handled on the basis of selecting the best
> proposal from one of the firms without having developed flight-capable
> demonstrators, but that would not have been wise given that the basic
> aircraft is asked to do quite a lot more than any other current or planned
> fighter project under development anywhere in the world (demanding the
same
> basic aircraft design be capable of conventional land based use, CTOL
> carrier use, and STOVL was quite a tall order).

Several points here.

Why would anyone go to this effort if there was no return in it for them? If
you knew you had no chance of winning you'd save your R&D budget and bow out
of the competition.

You state that the basic aircraft was set requirements that no other
aircraft currently has. If those requirements are so valuable then there is
potentially a market for more than one offering. Sure, the market may be
limited in size but buyers will always prefer two options over one. Hence,
an F32 could provide an alternative even allowing that it may be less capabl
e than an F35. Of course, to do this an F32 would need to be attractive in
some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities not
required by most customers - VTOL).

>
> Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
> > current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something
similar
> > and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds to see
> the
> > X32 developed into something.
>
> OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations who (a)
> are on our good guys list,

I suggested a few but there would be others.

>(b) are not already committed to other expensive
> R&D efforts, and

Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.

>(c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
> the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly cost
> more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than the
F-35

You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for, which
reduces the cost somewhat.

> (which not only required less redesign but also enjoys the largesse of
Uncle
> Sugar handling the majority of the R&D funding, and enjoys a large base
> order from the US which drives the unit cost down)

Yes, it's not going to be easy to generate the funding but that doesn't mean
it's as impossible as you suggest. Aircraft have been designed before with
the US funding it and I don't dispute that the benefit of a large base
order.

> and is a less capable
> platform than the F-35 is to boot.

Less capable than the F35 means nothing if you don't want all the
capabilities of an F35.

> If you find any, let me know; I can get
> them some prime beachfront property in Nevada for a small finders fee, and
> if they are gullible enough to support this proposal they will surely find
> that real estate very attractive.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Scott Ferrin]

>It was a prototype and that specific requirement was technically
>challenging. Not everyone will be able to master it but that shouldn't rule
>out the aircrafts other capabilities.

The thing is, history is litered with losers in competitions who
*were* generally regarded as excellent aircraft. The Boeing TFX was
judged by everybody who viewed the design and specs to be superior to
the General Dynamics TFX (F-111) yet MacNamara overuled everybody and
told them to buy GD's version. The Crusader III was an excellent
aircraft but the Navy decided they wanted two men in the cockpit so it
got the hatchet. The F-23 was designed according to what the airforce
asked for instead of what they wanted so it got the axe. The F-107
lost out to the F-105 though it would have made a better air-to-air
fighter. The YF-14 lost out to the YC-15 for the AMST program even
though it was a superior design. The technology developed on the
YC-15 was eventually incorporated into the C-17. Anyway there are
lots of truely excellent aircraft that for one reason or another never
went into service. I'm sure a lot of countries would have jumped at
the chance to buy Crusader 3s and F-23s but they couldn't afford the
developement costs and neither could the manufacturers. The X-32
wan't even in the ball park. And not only would Boeing have to foot
the bill for developement, somebody would have to foot the bill for
the engine too because it used a different version than the X-35. And
there is a lot to be said for perception. Meaning if the US judged it
lacking why would someone else want to buy it? The YF-17 lost out to
the F-16 but it was radically modified to become the F/A-18 with the
main reason for the Navy taking it was because it had two engines.
Anyway there really isn't a compelling reason for anybody to buy the
X-32 even in it's third itteration.

[Scott Ferrin]

>It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several technological
>areas.
>

Such as?


>> It was a dog. And it was
>> danged ugly, with a capital U, to boot--danged thing looked like a
>pregnant
>> cow with wings strapped on its back. Hell, it made the old EE Lightning
>look
>> like a true beauty, and that is saying something (not knocking the
>> Lightning, which was a capable and fine aircraft for its day, but it was
>not
>> looking to win any beauty contests).
>
>I didn't know that the main criteria for selecting any piece of military
>hardware was that it had to look good.


Not especially but the saying "if it looks good it'll fly good" didn't
come about for nothing.




>The Boeing platform wasn't a "dog" otherwise it would never have gotten as
>far as it did into the competition.

Two things. 1. Boeing didn't deliver what it promised. That's part
of the reason they lost. In hindsight they might have chosen the
McDonnel/Northrop design to go forward had they known the trouble
Boeing was going to have. 2. There are dogs that get to the
prototype stage. And actually it was emphasized that these *weren't*
prototypes (even though nobody was fooled by that). The A-9 comes to
mind as a dog. The Cutlass and the Demon are up there too and they
actually made it into service. Then there's the jet/turboprop
Thunder-something. Those two turboprop tailsitters. And so on and
so forth.




>
>The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing hasn't
>proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going ahead
>anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar capabilities
>for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out what
>this may be.

How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
numbers than the F-35?



>
>> That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill.
>
>As major buyer, who also has a vested interest in LM selling heaps, you'd
>expect that.

Why? Why would it care if LM sells heaps? Hell if Boeing had won
with the X-32, LM could have upgraded and sold F-16s until the cows
came home. There's a ton more that could be done to the F-16 to make
it competitive and even better than the X-32 albeit in the Air Force
role only. Take an F-16XL with a 36k engine with a 3D nozzle,
conformal tanks, a low RCS inlet like they tested on one F-16, and all
the electronic goodies and you'd be just about there at a lower cost
than the F-32 would be.



>Naturally Boeing would have to offer something very attractive in the form
>of capability and cost to garner enough financial interest to go ahead. Who
>funds Boeings development of any commercial aircraft today?

Boeing. And let's not forget they have a LOT of experience building
commercial aircraft.




>> a financial position to fork over the $30 billion or more required to make
>> the X-32 a real F-32?
>
>Is it really 30B or is that the forecast for the F35?

$30 billion is quite a bit too much but even if it was only five
billion it would still be unsupportable. Take manufacturing aside and
consider that each F-32 would be 100% profit. At five billion you'd
have to sell 167 aircraft just to break even. That's if they cost $0
to build and if it was only $5 billion more to develope it and Boeing
making $0 dollars in the end. Factor in cost of materials and
manufacturing and a reasonable profit and the number of aircraft you
have to sell to make it viable climbs dramatically. And those are
sales in concrete before you even start. You can't just do all the
work and gamble that someone will want some. Northrop did that with
the F-20 and it was basically an upgraded F-5 and they *still* took it
in the shorts.



>
>> Japan springs to mind...but they are already fully
>> committed to their own F-2 project.
>
>There are lots of asian nations looking for replacements, most friendly.
>However, it would obviously need some careful thought and serious
>committment.


Take China, South Korea, and Japan out of the equation and who does
that leave you? Singapore? They're already in the market for a new
fighter *now*. Many of those asian countries you are thinking of are
already buying Flankers because that's all they can afford and they
aren't buying many of those. So they won't have any money for F-32s.
South America is out because all they can afford are last generation
hand-me-downs or the occasional newly built old aircraft. And as far
as serious commitment goes, as I pointed out Boeing would have to
essentially say "give us the money up front and we'll build you
something". They couldn't take the chance that the country(s) would
say "uh, we changed our mind" which EVERY country does. Who in the
last twenty years has EVER bought as many as they thought they were?




>
>> Recall that one of the reasons Boeing
>> came up short in this competition was that their X-32 was apparently quite
>a
>> bit further from being a workable fighter than the competing LMCO X-35
>was;
>> Boeing had already had to admit that some *major* redesign would be
>required
>> based upon flight test results of the X-32.
>
>Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?


Boeing? Nope. Which *definitely* doesn't inspire confidence. Sure
they have McDonnel Douglas that they incorporated but I'd be willing
to bet most of those employees were saying "hell no we didn't design
that POS".




>Fair enough, the X35 is superior to the X32 but I wouldn't rule out that the
>X32 could not be developed into something very capable.


Lots of aircraft could. The F-14 was going to be an ASS kicking
machine before they threw it to the dogs. The F-14D was just the
beginning.


>The crux of the X32
>development is, who would fund it and whether enough could be built to make
>it viable. I think it's a shame to see the X32 be discontinued merely
>because it didn't meet a specific specification yet shows promise.


Look at the F-23 and it *did* meet spec. and had a hell of a lot more
promise.



>Sorry, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the US. I was responding to
>your use of the word "government" implying the US government. I took it that
>you ruled out all other governments as a possible source of funding.


Who could fund it? What combination of likely countries could fund
it?



>I don't know if there were significant design flaws but I appreciate that a
>prototype is a prototype and not expected to be perfect.

Well the fact that the only thing the prototype had in common with
their proposed production model was that they were both ugly suggest
that there were significant design flaws. They went from a swept
forward intake to a swept back. They went from a delta wing to a
conventional tailed aircraft. After they did those they later found
out "uh wait, things are going to get too hot" so they added another
significant vent on each side of the cockpit. Who knows what else
they'd have tripped over on their way to a production aircraft.



>Obviously, the X32
>didn't perform as well as teh X35. Some redesign may be necessary but I
>don't think the aircraft is inherently bad. If it was so bad, it would never
>have made it into the competition or remained there until the end.

What made it that far was what Boeing promised. What they delivered
was something else.





>I not so certain it's completely unworkable. Difficult yes, viable maybe.
>Certainly it would be better than someone embarking on another all new
>aircraft design.

You mean like the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen? Once the F-35 enters
production it's very likely going to clean up the market. I wouldn't
be at all suprised if no more Typhoons or Rafales were sold after
that. Maybe some Gripens if the price is right. Lots of last
generation aircraft will still be sold IMO but the F-35 will be the
one to have for new designs. Mind you, I'm not saying it's BETTER
than the Typhoon but that the difference in capability isn't worth the
difference in cost.



>> Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from being an
>> F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35.
>
>I agree it's less mature but that doesn't mean it's so bad it should be
>scrapped.

The F-23 was far better than the X-32 and one of those prototypes is
in a friggin CLASSROOM and the other is in a dirt lot out in back of a
hanger somewhere.


>I'm not suggesting that the X32 be developed into a direct competitor with a
>100% match in capability to the F35. The suggestion is that the X32
>development not be wasted and that it could be developed into something
>viable. Not everyone wants the full JSF capability or can afford it. The X32
>has the potentional to fill that market.

That market is already being filled by late model F-16s, F-15s,
Flankers, Gripens, Rafales, Typhoons, Super Hornets and so on.



>> No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
>> competitor for further development.
>
>Which was decided by the government and their end users who had specific
>requirements in mind. These requirements do not necessarily reflect those of
>everyone else but, they may come close.

So do a lot of aircraft that are already on the market.




>
>> The fact that two companies competed to
>> the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market
>
>Obviously it did. No use bidding to produce and aircraft which has such a
>limited market the customer won't be able to afford it and you wont be able
>to sell it elsewhere.


YF-22 & YF-23. 'nuff said.



>
>>--it
>> could have just as well been handled on the basis of selecting the best
>> proposal from one of the firms without having developed flight-capable
>> demonstrators, but that would not have been wise given that the basic
>> aircraft is asked to do quite a lot more than any other current or planned
>> fighter project under development anywhere in the world (demanding the
>same
>> basic aircraft design be capable of conventional land based use, CTOL
>> carrier use, and STOVL was quite a tall order).
>
>Several points here.
>
>Why would anyone go to this effort if there was no return in it for them? If
>you knew you had no chance of winning you'd save your R&D budget and bow out
>of the competition.

Boeing thought they did have a chance although by the looks on their
faces they clearly didn't think it was much of one as the competition
progressed and the X-35 showed it's stuff.


>
>You state that the basic aircraft was set requirements that no other
>aircraft currently has. If those requirements are so valuable then there is
>potentially a market for more than one offering.

But the X-32 failed to meet those requirements.



>ure, the market may be
>limited in size but buyers will always prefer two options over one. Hence,
>an F32 could provide an alternative even allowing that it may be less capabl
>e than an F35.

Why would they want something that was less capable and more
expensive?



>f course, to do this an F32 would need to be attractive in
>some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities not
>required by most customers - VTOL).

It wouldnt' be cheaper and if they wanted to trade off VTOL they'd buy
the F-35A instead of B.

>
>>
>> Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
>> > current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something
>similar
>> > and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds to see
>> the
>> > X32 developed into something.
>>
>> OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations who (a)
>> are on our good guys list,
>
>I suggested a few but there would be others.
>
>>(b) are not already committed to other expensive
>> R&D efforts, and
>
>Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.

Austraila is signed up on the F-35, Israel is buying more F-15s and
F-16s and Taiwan isn't in the market at the moment IRC.




>
>>(c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
>> the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly cost
>> more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than the
>F-35
>
>You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for, which
>reduces the cost somewhat.

Not as much as you'd think. Boeing's final design was completely
different than the X-32, and the engine would need more developement.
Basically all Boeing got out of the experience was "I think our code
works sort of, a plastic wing doesn't, and the engine might be good if
it was more powerful and our plane was lighter".


>
>> (which not only required less redesign but also enjoys the largesse of
>Uncle
>> Sugar handling the majority of the R&D funding, and enjoys a large base
>> order from the US which drives the unit cost down)
>
>Yes, it's not going to be easy to generate the funding but that doesn't mean
>it's as impossible as you suggest. Aircraft have been designed before with
>the US funding it and I don't dispute that the benefit of a large base
>order.

I assume you meant to say "without the US funding it". If Boeing
decided to continue with the X-32 it's very unlikely they'd even get
the time of day from the government let alone any money. And what
aircraft have been developed that weren't funded by a major country?
Taiwan came up with one. I think it's South Korea that's doing the
one with Lockheed and I think that's about it. Sweden is sortof in
there with the Gripen but IIRC they have more money to spend that any
of the third string asian nations that might be in the market for an
F-32.



>
>> and is a less capable
>> platform than the F-35 is to boot.
>
>Less capable than the F35 means nothing if you don't want all the
>capabilities of an F35.

There are a plethora of alternatives already out there. If I was a
potential buyer would I want to fork out a bunch of money for an
aircraft that lost and whos "final" configuration has never flown? Or
would I want a nice shiny Block 60 F-16 or F-15K for less money?

[The Raven]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several
technological
> >areas.
> >
>
> Such as?

Construction techniques and various aspects of it's stealth design.

>
>
> >> It was a dog. And it was
> >> danged ugly, with a capital U, to boot--danged thing looked like a
> >pregnant
> >> cow with wings strapped on its back. Hell, it made the old EE Lightning
> >look
> >> like a true beauty, and that is saying something (not knocking the
> >> Lightning, which was a capable and fine aircraft for its day, but it
was
> >not
> >> looking to win any beauty contests).
> >
> >I didn't know that the main criteria for selecting any piece of military
> >hardware was that it had to look good.
>
>
> Not especially but the saying "if it looks good it'll fly good" didn't
> come about for nothing.
>
>
>
>
> >The Boeing platform wasn't a "dog" otherwise it would never have gotten
as
> >far as it did into the competition.
>
> Two things. 1. Boeing didn't deliver what it promised. That's part
> of the reason they lost. In hindsight they might have chosen the
> McDonnel/Northrop design to go forward had they known the trouble
> Boeing was going to have. 2. There are dogs that get to the
> prototype stage. And actually it was emphasized that these *weren't*
> prototypes (even though nobody was fooled by that). The A-9 comes to
> mind as a dog. The Cutlass and the Demon are up there too and they
> actually made it into service. Then there's the jet/turboprop
> Thunder-something. Those two turboprop tailsitters. And so on and
> so forth.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing hasn't
> >proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going
ahead
> >anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar
capabilities
> >for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out
what
> >this may be.
>
> How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
> footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
> numbers than the F-35?

I'm speculating that it could be cheaper once you drop certain JSF
requirements that aren't in high demand by other global military forces.
VTOL is one, sure people may desire it but few can justify it on cost and
practicality.

>
>
>
> >
> >> That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill.
> >
> >As major buyer, who also has a vested interest in LM selling heaps, you'd
> >expect that.
>
> Why? Why would it care if LM sells heaps?

Explained previously. Obviously unit price could drop.

> Hell if Boeing had won
> with the X-32, LM could have upgraded and sold F-16s until the cows
> came home.

But as another poster already pointed out, nothing comes close to the JSF
requirements. Thus the F-16 still wouldn't be in the same league.

> There's a ton more that could be done to the F-16 to make
> it competitive and even better than the X-32 albeit in the Air Force
> role only.

Can it be made as stealthy?

> Take an F-16XL with a 36k engine with a 3D nozzle,
> conformal tanks, a low RCS inlet like they tested on one F-16, and all
> the electronic goodies and you'd be just about there at a lower cost
> than the F-32 would be.

Then they should do it, assuming a market with enough bucks to buy them.

>
> >Naturally Boeing would have to offer something very attractive in the
form
> >of capability and cost to garner enough financial interest to go ahead.
Who
> >funds Boeings development of any commercial aircraft today?
>
> Boeing.

Exactly, and thus the whole argument about governmental funding becomes
weaker. If they can perform full R&D on very expensive relatively low
production aircraft they would be in a better position than most to fund
further R&D on a platform that has already been funded into existence.

> And let's not forget they have a LOT of experience building
> commercial aircraft.

And being one of the largest manufacturers of commerical aircraft would thus
would be in a better position than any other commercial manufacturer to step
into military aircraft production. Note that Boeing already plays a major
part in maintaining various military aircraft.

It's definitely a big and expensive step but if anyone could do it, it would
have to be Boeing.

>
>
> >> a financial position to fork over the $30 billion or more required to
make
> >> the X-32 a real F-32?
> >
> >Is it really 30B or is that the forecast for the F35?
>
> $30 billion is quite a bit too much but even if it was only five
> billion it would still be unsupportable.

$5B is unsupportable? I think that amount, while large, to be possible.

> Take manufacturing aside and
> consider that each F-32 would be 100% profit. At five billion you'd
> have to sell 167 aircraft just to break even.

167 wouldn't be that hard to sell when individual potential customers are
already looking at buying 100.

> That's if they cost $0
> to build and if it was only $5 billion more to develope it and Boeing
> making $0 dollars in the end. Factor in cost of materials and
> manufacturing and a reasonable profit

Most defence contracts do not have the "reasonable profit" that commercial
industry expects.

>and the number of aircraft you
> have to sell to make it viable climbs dramatically.

I don't think it would be that hard to sell a budget orientated stealth
fighter, noting statements currently produced comes close to JSF
requirements.

If we assume the initial partner orders were in the vicinity of 400 units @
30M there would be enough margin to cover manufacturing and profit.

How much profit is their in a military aircraft with a unit price of $30M
anyway? Not much, it's generated in the through life operational costs.

> And those are
> sales in concrete before you even start. You can't just do all the
> work and gamble that someone will want some.

Totally agree, the money must be upfront for development. Anyone joining
into this sort of scheme would have to be fully committed.

Interestingly, being a SDD partner to JSF doesn't tie you into buying
aircraft. Many partners have joined to hedge their bets on final purchase
whilst simultaneously getting access to some of the technology and contracts
to be awarded.

> Northrop did that with
> the F-20 and it was basically an upgraded F-5 and they *still* took it
> in the shorts.
>
>
>
> >
> >> Japan springs to mind...but they are already fully
> >> committed to their own F-2 project.
> >
> >There are lots of asian nations looking for replacements, most friendly.
> >However, it would obviously need some careful thought and serious
> >committment.
>
>
> Take China, South Korea, and Japan out of the equation and who does
> that leave you? Singapore? They're already in the market for a new
> fighter *now*.

As is Australia now but, they are holding off as long as possible. There are
also a number of lesser nations in the area who could do with a handful of
new aircraft. The same might apply for smaller European nations.

> Many of those asian countries you are thinking of are
> already buying Flankers because that's all they can afford and they
> aren't buying many of those.

Actually only a few nations are buying Flankers and those they are getting
are having some teething problems.

> So they won't have any money for F-32s.

Any idea on the price of the Flankers?

> South America is out because all they can afford are last generation
> hand-me-downs or the occasional newly built old aircraft. And as far
> as serious commitment goes, as I pointed out Boeing would have to
> essentially say "give us the money up front and we'll build you
> something". They couldn't take the chance that the country(s) would
> say "uh, we changed our mind" which EVERY country does. Who in the
> last twenty years has EVER bought as many as they thought they were?

Quite a few working with tight budgets and tighter contracts.

> >> Recall that one of the reasons Boeing
> >> came up short in this competition was that their X-32 was apparently
quite
> >a
> >> bit further from being a workable fighter than the competing LMCO X-35
> >was;
> >> Boeing had already had to admit that some *major* redesign would be
> >required
> >> based upon flight test results of the X-32.
> >
> >Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?
>
>
> Boeing? Nope. Which *definitely* doesn't inspire confidence.

Only if you ignore the fact that Boeing is one of the largest and most
successful manufacturers of aircraft in the world. If anyone other than a
pure defence contractor could produce a platform for military use, it would
have to be them.

> Sure
> they have McDonnel Douglas that they incorporated but I'd be willing
> to bet most of those employees were saying "hell no we didn't design
> that POS".

Guess who's keeping the F-111's flying? Sure, that's not manufacturing but
Boeing isn't a newbie to the defence industry either.

>
> >Fair enough, the X35 is superior to the X32 but I wouldn't rule out that
the
> >X32 could not be developed into something very capable.
>
>
> Lots of aircraft could. The F-14 was going to be an ASS kicking
> machine before they threw it to the dogs. The F-14D was just the
> beginning.
>
>
> >The crux of the X32
> >development is, who would fund it and whether enough could be built to
make
> >it viable. I think it's a shame to see the X32 be discontinued merely
> >because it didn't meet a specific specification yet shows promise.
>
>
> Look at the F-23 and it *did* meet spec. and had a hell of a lot more
> promise.

That may be true and perhaps it should have gone on to become something else
for another customer. It seems a shame that so many promising designs are
scrapped soley because they didn't finish first in a competition designed to
meet the requirements of a couple of specific customers.

> >Sorry, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the US. I was responding
to
> >your use of the word "government" implying the US government. I took it
that
> >you ruled out all other governments as a possible source of funding.
>
>
> Who could fund it? What combination of likely countries could fund
> it?

Based on the previously mentioned $5B and, the non-JSF partners are implying
they want F-35s, we can come back to Japan, Israel, possibly Taiwan, and
perhaps Singapore as possible buyers. Throw in some existing JSF partners
who haven't committed to F35 and you may be getting close, Australia needs
75-100 aircraft for example.

Now whether these countries could spring for both development and purchase
is the issue. Perhaps not, but if a few smaller nations opted in you may a
higher number of small sales which might get to a more economic number of
aircraft at a nominal $30M each.

> >I don't know if there were significant design flaws but I appreciate that
a
> >prototype is a prototype and not expected to be perfect.
>
> Well the fact that the only thing the prototype had in common with
> their proposed prouction model was that they were both ugly suggest
> that there were significant design flaws.

Ugly seemed to be related to that chin intake. From every other angle but
head and side on it didn't look that bad.

> They went from a swept
> forward intake to a swept back. They went from a delta wing to a
> conventional tailed aircraft. After they did those they later found
> out "uh wait, things are going to get too hot" so they added another
> significant vent on each side of the cockpit. Who knows what else
> they'd have tripped over on their way to a production aircraft.

Most of the heat problems were related to the VTOL requirement, if you
remove that hurdle the whole thing becomes a lot simpler.

>
> >Obviously, the X32
> >didn't perform as well as teh X35. Some redesign may be necessary but I
> >don't think the aircraft is inherently bad. If it was so bad, it would
never
> >have made it into the competition or remained there until the end.
>
> What made it that far was what Boeing promised. What they delivered
> was something else.

Defence Marketing 101

The buyers specification never matches their expectation.
The contractors initial marketing never quite matches the final item.

> >I not so certain it's completely unworkable. Difficult yes, viable maybe.
> >Certainly it would be better than someone embarking on another all new
> >aircraft design.
>
> You mean like the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen? Once the F-35 enters
> production it's very likely going to clean up the market.

Because it's the only option for that general capability. Perhaps if there
was a competitor it would be different.

> I wouldn't
> be at all suprised if no more Typhoons or Rafales were sold after
> that.

Australia's AIR6000 project were consider both, amongst others.

> Maybe some Gripens if the price is right. Lots of last
> generation aircraft will still be sold IMO

Always will be.

> but the F-35 will be the
> one to have for new designs. Mind you, I'm not saying it's BETTER
> than the Typhoon but that the difference in capability isn't worth the
> difference in cost.
>
>
> >> Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from being
an
> >> F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35.
> >
> >I agree it's less mature but that doesn't mean it's so bad it should be
> >scrapped.
>
> The F-23 was far better than the X-32 and one of those prototypes is
> in a friggin CLASSROOM and the other is in a dirt lot out in back of a
> hanger somewhere.

A shame isn't it? However I doubt the F-23 would have met the stealth
requirements. BTW what's the projected range for the F-23?

>
>
> >I'm not suggesting that the X32 be developed into a direct competitor
with a
> >100% match in capability to the F35. The suggestion is that the X32
> >development not be wasted and that it could be developed into something
> >viable. Not everyone wants the full JSF capability or can afford it. The
X32
> >has the potentional to fill that market.
>
> That market is already being filled by late model F-16s, F-15s,
> Flankers, Gripens, Rafales, Typhoons, Super Hornets and so on.

But none of those have the reported levels of stealth the JSF contenders
had.

>
> >> No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
> >> competitor for further development.
> >
> >Which was decided by the government and their end users who had specific
> >requirements in mind. These requirements do not necessarily reflect those
of
> >everyone else but, they may come close.
>
> So do a lot of aircraft that are already on the market.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> The fact that two companies competed to
> >> the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market
> >
> >Obviously it did. No use bidding to produce and aircraft which has such a
> >limited market the customer won't be able to afford it and you wont be
able
> >to sell it elsewhere.
>
>
> YF-22 & YF-23. 'nuff said.
>
>
>
> >
> >>--it
> >> could have just as well been handled on the basis of selecting the best
> >> proposal from one of the firms without having developed flight-capable
> >> demonstrators, but that would not have been wise given that the basic
> >> aircraft is asked to do quite a lot more than any other current or
planned
> >> fighter project under development anywhere in the world (demanding the
> >same
> >> basic aircraft design be capable of conventional land based use, CTOL
> >> carrier use, and STOVL was quite a tall order).
> >
> >Several points here.
> >
> >Why would anyone go to this effort if there was no return in it for them?
If
> >you knew you had no chance of winning you'd save your R&D budget and bow
out
> >of the competition.
>
> Boeing thought they did have a chance although by the looks on their
> faces they clearly didn't think it was much of one as the competition
> progressed and the X-35 showed it's stuff.

Lessons learnt, perhaps they should apply them to what they have now so they
can be better prepared for next time (other buyers).

>
>
> >
> >You state that the basic aircraft was set requirements that no other
> >aircraft currently has. If those requirements are so valuable then there
is
> >potentially a market for more than one offering.
>
> But the X-32 failed to meet those requirements.

I believe one of the biggest failings was STOVL. It was a key requirement
for those planning to replace Harriers, beyond that not many forces would
put such a high value on the VTOL element.

>
> >ure, the market may be
> >limited in size but buyers will always prefer two options over one.
Hence,
> >an F32 could provide an alternative even allowing that it may be less
capabl
> >e than an F35.
>
> Why would they want something that was less capable and more
> expensive?

We can't say it will be more expensive but if you drop the expensive and
technological difficult VTOL capability the costs are likely to be less.

> >f course, to do this an F32 would need to be attractive in
> >some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities not
> >required by most customers - VTOL).
>
> It wouldnt' be cheaper and if they wanted to trade off VTOL they'd buy
> the F-35A instead of B.

What is the price difference between the three F-35 variants? Quoted figures
never made the distinction on model type.

>
> >
> >>
> >> Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
> >> > current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something
> >similar
> >> > and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds to
see
> >> the
> >> > X32 developed into something.
> >>
> >> OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations who
(a)
> >> are on our good guys list,
> >
> >I suggested a few but there would be others.
> >
> >>(b) are not already committed to other expensive
> >> R&D efforts, and
> >
> >Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.
>
> Austraila is signed up on the F-35,

No, they have only signed up for the SDD phase. There is nothing more than a
vague committment to buy, nothing in writing yet.

> Israel is buying more F-15s and
> F-16s and Taiwan isn't in the market at the moment IRC.

Israel may be buying F-15 and F-16s but they've indicated a desire for F-35s
and a preference to get in early on the production...

Japan is rumoured to be looking at JSF to go on their proposed aircraft
carriers (which they prefer to call destroyers with helo decks). OK, if that
was the case then they'd want STOVL and I'm implying Boeing could drop
that....

NZ could do with a few, even a token number to keep some pilots/expertise,
considering they have nothing really left.

>
> >
> >>(c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
> >> the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly
cost
> >> more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than the
> >F-35
> >
> >You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for, which
> >reduces the cost somewhat.
>
> Not as much as you'd think.

Surely an equal amount to what has already been spent to get to this point.
That's nothing to sneeze at, even if it does leave a big amount still to be
spent.

> Boeing's final design was completely
> different than the X-32, and the engine would need more developement.

A more conventional engine may be practical if that STOVL is dropped.

> Basically all Boeing got out of the experience was "I think our code
> works sort of, a plastic wing doesn't, and the engine might be good if
> it was more powerful and our plane was lighter".

OK, but I think they learnt a bit more than that :-)

>
> >
> >> (which not only required less redesign but also enjoys the largesse of
> >Uncle
> >> Sugar handling the majority of the R&D funding, and enjoys a large base
> >> order from the US which drives the unit cost down)
> >
> >Yes, it's not going to be easy to generate the funding but that doesn't
mean
> >it's as impossible as you suggest. Aircraft have been designed before
with
> >the US funding it and I don't dispute that the benefit of a large base
> >order.
>
> I assume you meant to say "without the US funding it".

Yes, my oops.

> If Boeing
> decided to continue with the X-32 it's very unlikely they'd even get
> the time of day from the government let alone any money.

Hence the need to go direct to potential buyers rather than ask the US
Government for R&D.

> And what
> aircraft have been developed that weren't funded by a major country?

What's your definition of a major country?

> Taiwan came up with one. I think it's South Korea that's doing the
> one with Lockheed and I think that's about it.

Australia did seriously consider it several decades back but took the easier
option of buying Mirages.

> Sweden is sortof in
> there with the Gripen but IIRC they have more money to spend that any
> of the third string asian nations that might be in the market for an
> F-32.
>
>
>
> >
> >> and is a less capable
> >> platform than the F-35 is to boot.
> >
> >Less capable than the F35 means nothing if you don't want all the
> >capabilities of an F35.
>
> There are a plethora of alternatives already out there. If I was a
> potential buyer would I want to fork out a bunch of money for an
> aircraft that lost and whos "final" configuration has never flown? Or
> would I want a nice shiny Block 60 F-16 or F-15K for less money?

Depends on how much risk you're willing to face for the chance of having the
edge over potential enemies. Some might consider that a viable option.

Yes, I see that the idea of turning the X-32 into a production aircraft
isn't a walk in the park. There are some serious economic issues to be
considered. However, to consign it to the dustbin seems a huge waste of tax
payer funded R&D. I still believe there is sufficient market for this type
of aircraft even if it isn't up to the formal JSF competition spec. If any
commercial aircraft company could do it, it would have to be Boeing.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Susan VanCamp]

<<What is the price difference between the three F-35 variants? Quoted
figures
never made the distinction on model type.>>

About the time JAST became JSF, unit recurring flyaway was estimated in this
range (earlier years dollars, I've forgotten which) -- $30M USAF, $35M USMC,
$38M USN.

[Thomas Schoene]

The Raven wrote:
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
>> footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
>> numbers than the F-35?
>
> I'm speculating that it could be cheaper once you drop certain JSF
> requirements that aren't in high demand by other global military
> forces. VTOL is one, sure people may desire it but few can justify it
> on cost and practicality.

Let's imagine you could drive the development costs down for a non-VSTOL
single-configuration design. You're still talking about system complexity
comaprable to Eurofighter, which is costing tens of billions of dollars to
develop. Even the cheapest modern combat aircraft program, Gripen, is
costing around $5-8 billion for development. And that's a very basic
deasign comapred to this F-32.

Given the very limited potential export market, Boeing could not possibly
justify this cost. The simple fact is that overseas buyers are seldom
interested in aircraft types not adopted by the US military. For examples,
see the F-20 and F-18L.

>>> Who funds Boeings development of any commercial
>>> aircraft today?
>>
>> Boeing.
>
> Exactly, and thus the whole argument about governmental funding
> becomes weaker. If they can perform full R&D on very expensive
> relatively low production aircraft

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Boeing's commercial
developments are all predicated on very *large* production runs, at least in
comparison to possible exports of your notional F-32. For example, they
just launcheed development of the 7E7, at an estimated $7-10 billion, which
is not quite a "bet-the-company" program, but not far from it. They project
a market of 2,500-3,000 aircraft in this size class, and hope to take
significantly more than half of them. So they are talking about selling
over 1,500 aircraft to make this a viable project. The worldwde market for
a strike fighter like the F-32 would be far lower (hundreds at most), even
if it wasn't totally closed out by the F-35 and European competitors.

>> Take manufacturing aside and
>> consider that each F-32 would be 100% profit. At five billion you'd
>> have to sell 167 aircraft just to break even.
>
> 167 wouldn't be that hard to sell when individual potential customers
> are already looking at buying 100.

But as Scott poitns out, the real breakeven is much higher. I'd guess it's
probably pushing a thousand aircraft. The market is't big enough to support
this.

>> That's if they cost $0
>> to build and if it was only $5 billion more to develope it and Boeing
>> making $0 dollars in the end. Factor in cost of materials and
>> manufacturing and a reasonable profit
>
> Most defence contracts do not have the "reasonable profit" that
> commercial industry expects.

If Boeing launched development of a fighter as a commercial venture, they'd
have to expect commercial returns. If they didn't, thy'de be better off
spending the money on commercial aircraft ventures (like 7E7).

>
>> and the number of aircraft you
>> have to sell to make it viable climbs dramatically.
>
> I don't think it would be that hard to sell a budget orientated
> stealth fighter, noting statements currently produced comes close to
> JSF requirements.

This is a real problem area. Boeing cannot freely market stealth
technology. The government has a legitimate interest in maintaining control
over low-observable materials and techniques, which means that Boeing can
either offer their design to the exact same set of pre-selected countries
looking at the F-35 (with its much longer produciton runsand guaranteed US
product support) or they have to strip the stealth out and market a
second-rate alternative. That has not worked really well before (F-16/79
anyone?)

>
> If we assume the initial partner orders were in the vicinity of 400
> units @ 30M there would be enough margin to cover manufacturing and
> profit.

That's just covering likely development cosst with little left over for
manufacturing, much less profit. And a 400-plane run is wildy optimistic.
You are countnig on this plane winning all of the major non-US programs in
the next decade, basically.

> Interestingly, being a SDD partner to JSF doesn't tie you into buying
> aircraft. Many partners have joined to hedge their bets on final
> purchase whilst simultaneously getting access to some of the
> technology and contracts to be awarded.

But having invested significant money in F-35, how likely are they do spend
the same money again for another candidate? Especially since it would kill
their industrial involvement in the F-35 program.


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[noname]

Thomas Schoene wrote:


> I don't think you know what you're talking about. Boeing's commercial
> developments are all predicated on very *large* production runs, at least in
> comparison to possible exports of your notional F-32. For example, they
> just launcheed development of the 7E7, at an estimated $7-10 billion, which
> is not quite a "bet-the-company" program, but not far from it. They project
> a market of 2,500-3,000 aircraft in this size class, and hope to take
> significantly more than half of them. So they are talking about selling
> over 1,500 aircraft to make this a viable project. The worldwde market for
> a strike fighter like the F-32 would be far lower (hundreds at most), even
> if it wasn't totally closed out by the F-35 and European competitors.
>

Boeing doesn't have that kind of money. Half of the Boeing 7E7
development money comes from partners in Japan, Italy, USA etc. For
example Japanese companies are developing the wing for Boeing 7E7.

[Kevin Brooks]

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > >
> > > > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
> > > > strategic
> > > > > development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner
> was
> > > > > announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole
concept
> > > > rather
> > > > > than push forward with it.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect some of their X-32 technology is making its way into their
> > UCAV
> > > > conceptual vehicle.
> > >
> > > No doubt a lot of the technology will be used but the platform itself
> was
> > > pretty impressive despite not winning the JSF contest.
> >
> > Not really--that was why it lost to the LMCO bid.
>
> It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several
technological
> areas.

Name an area where its performance was superior to that of the X-35.

>
> > It was a dog. And it was
> > danged ugly, with a capital U, to boot--danged thing looked like a
> pregnant
> > cow with wings strapped on its back. Hell, it made the old EE Lightning
> look
> > like a true beauty, and that is saying something (not knocking the
> > Lightning, which was a capable and fine aircraft for its day, but it was
> not
> > looking to win any beauty contests).
>
> I didn't know that the main criteria for selecting any piece of military
> hardware was that it had to look good.

You need to turn on your humor switch, pardner. You take things much too
seriously, you hear?

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward
with
> > the
> > > > X-32
> > > > > into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the
competition
> > that
> > > > > potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign
> > > nations?
> > > > > Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it could
be
> > > more
> > > > > cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit
> > > unlikely)
> > > > of
> > > > > F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second
> JSF-like
> > > > > aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?
> > > >
> > > > Imagine the cost of development. No company has the resources
required
> > to
> > > > develop a first-line combat aircraft today independent of
governmental
> > > > financing.
> > >
> > > Hence look for governments outside the US that are willing to do it.
I'm
> > not
> > > suggesting the F32 would end up with the exact same capability and
> fitout
> > as
> > > planned but it could be built with the commitment of several
> governments.
> >
> > All of which would be much happier just piggybacking on the massive R&D
> > funding that the USG is placing in the winning F-35 program. Note that a
> lot
> > of other nations HAVE ponied up R&D money to participate in this
program,
> > and none of them have come forth saying, "Hey, can we buy into that
Boeing
> > dog instead?"
>
> The Boeing platform wasn't a "dog" otherwise it would never have gotten as
> far as it did into the competition.

Compared to the X-35 it was indeed a dog.

>
> The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing hasn't
> proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going ahead
> anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar
capabilities
> for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out
what
> this may be.

LOL! "Similar capabilities at a lower cost, and all without the benefit ogf
the US taxpayers' largesse!" What planet are you from? Since the X-32
airframe was further from being a fighter than the X-35 was, and the latter
is taking some $28 billion to develop, just how the heck do you figure the
major redesign of the X-32 (like adding that whole tail reconfiguration,
etc., into the mix) would be *cheaper*?!

>
> > That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill.
>
> As major buyer, who also has a vested interest in LM selling heaps, you'd
> expect that.

And without a major buyer, or combination thereof adding up to the fifteen
hundred or so the US is purchasing, your less-than-F-35-capable F-32 is
going to have a higher unit cost, even if you were to claim that the X-32
development cost just matched that of the X-35. Toss in the R&D funding that
the US would NOT be contributing to the X-32, and your unit cost just went
way up. Sorry, but you are using some serious voodoo budget planning if you
think you can get the X-32 sans USG R&D funding to match the cost of the
F-35.

>
> > Note
> > that the consortium of major European nations developing the Eurofighter
> > have had their hands full funding that program (and now have the added
> > challenge of funding the A-400);
>
> A good point.
>
> > given that situation, how likely is it that
> > you could find any group of "other" friendly nations that would be
willing
> > to come up with the many billions of dollars required to make the X-32
> > viable? Not very, IMO.
>
> Naturally Boeing would have to offer something very attractive in the form
> of capability and cost to garner enough financial interest to go ahead.
Who
> funds Boeings development of any commercial aircraft today?

But that would be impossible! For gosh sakes, the R&D costs don't just
amortize themselves, and you still need a massive order book to even bring
the unit cost down anywhere even NEAR that of the F-35, with its USG and
allied funding and already committed (more or less) order book.

>
> > >
> > > > When that governmental financing goes down, pace of development
> > > > also takes a nosedive--take the Rafale as an example.
> > >
> > > Sure.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have
had
> a
> > > > market
> > > > > for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or
> > eroded
> > > > some
> > > > > of it's competitors market. Additionally, it could upset the
> supposed
> > > > > superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar in
> > > > > capability to the F35 than anything else.
> > > >
> > > > Ain't gonna happen without governmental R&D support.
> > >
> > > There are more governments in the world than the US government.
> >
> > And outside of Europe how many (in the "friendly to the US category")
are
> in
> > a financial position to fork over the $30 billion or more required to
make
> > the X-32 a real F-32?
>
> Is it really 30B or is that the forecast for the F35?

It is some $28 billion for the F-35, which is one heck of a lot closer to
its X-35 ancestor than any F-32 would have been to the X-32, which
demonstrated some serious design shortfalls during the testing program--so
you can safely assume that the X-32-to-F-32 development cost would be
*higher* than that of the LMCO bid. That was one of the reasons the X-35
won -- Boeing had to go into final selection saying, "Well, we know there
are some major redesign requirements that have to be met before the X-32 can
be considered anywhere near being a viable JSF, but we are confident we can
acheive this..." (with the unsaid but obvious caveat, "...given enough
additional funding").

>
> > Japan springs to mind...but they are already fully
> > committed to their own F-2 project.
>
> There are lots of asian nations looking for replacements, most friendly.
> However, it would obviously need some careful thought and serious
> committment.

Most of those nations are struggling to come up with the funds to purchase a
comparitive handful of F-16C/D or F-18E/F's right now, but you think they
can magically come up with umpteen billions for R&D, not to mention the
subsequent unit purchase cost, of a couple of thousand F-32's, which would
be required in order to make its price competitive with that of the F-35? I
don't think so.

>
> > Recall that one of the reasons Boeing
> > came up short in this competition was that their X-32 was apparently
quite
> a
> > bit further from being a workable fighter than the competing LMCO X-35
> was;
> > Boeing had already had to admit that some *major* redesign would be
> required
> > based upon flight test results of the X-32.
>
> Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?

The last Boeing production fighter aircraft, outside the F-18E/F and F-15E
which it inherited from McD-D when it merged with that firm, was a piston
engined, open-cockpit monoplane known as the P-26 Peashooter IIRC.

>
> > In comparison, the F-35 has so
> > far undergone relatively little external change from the X-35 article
> (some
> > increased dimensions, i.e., a slightly larger cross section of the
> fuselage
> > behind the cockpit IIRC) during the period before the design outline was
> > frozen a year or more ago.
>
> Fair enough, the X35 is superior to the X32 but I wouldn't rule out that
the
> X32 could not be developed into something very capable. The crux of the
X32
> development is, who would fund it and whether enough could be built to
make
> it viable. I think it's a shame to see the X32 be discontinued merely
> because it didn't meet a specific specification yet shows promise.

It failed to meet specs because it had serious design problems. STOVL was
only one of the parameters it came up short in regards to. The fact that it
needed a whole new empennage design points to the difficulties it would have
faced.

>
>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So the question is, could there have economically been a market
for
> > the
> > > > F32
> > > > > outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing to
> > > produce
> > > > > such an aircraft?
> > > >
> > > > No and yes (but a meaningless yes as it just was not a possible
> > outcome).
> > >
> > > Why not possible. Not all aircraft developments hinge on funding from
> > Uncle
> > > Sam.
> >
> > Look, get the "anything said has to relate to some kind of superiority
> > complex regarding the US" chip off your shoulder, OK?
>
> Sorry, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the US. I was responding
to
> your use of the word "government" implying the US government. I took it
that
> you ruled out all other governments as a possible source of funding.

Realistically, yes I do rule out such sources. Because of those that are in
the firindly camp, none leap to mind that have the resources required, are
not already committed to other major R&D efforts, or are downright unwilling
to buy an aircraft that the USAF itself considered inferior (another poster
has alluded to the past F-20 saga at Northrop--the parallels would be
applicable).

>
> > The fact of the matter
> > is that (a) the X-35 was the better platform, by most accounts;
>
> Agreed
>
> > (b) the X-32
> > had some significant design flaws requiring major redesign before it was
> > ready to move into the fighter realm; and
>
> I don't know if there were significant design flaws but I appreciate that
a
> prototype is a prototype and not expected to be perfect. Obviously, the
X32
> didn't perform as well as teh X35. Some redesign may be necessry but I
> don't think the aircraft is inherently bad. If it was so bad, it would
never
> have made it into the competition or remained there until the end.

Why do you say that? The USG had already committed to seeing both aircraft
enter into the final competition stage. Boeing started having problems with
the X-32 design rather early in the production phase, and then found that
they had some major redesign required after it entered into flight test.
What nation would want to dump as much, or even nearly as much, capital into
developing and fielding the *losing* design when they could much more
easily, and more cheaply when you face facts, buy the winner?

>
> >(c) the plain fact of the matter
> > is that there are not any nations out there that both have the available
> > capital to manage such an expensive proposition and are not ALREADY
> > committed to other major development projects, and who fall into that
> vital
> > "friendly to the US" category.
>
> I concede it's a tough ask but it isn't impossible.

Well, I don't see any willing to meet that demand while also being willing
to accept an aircraft that would be inferior to the F-35.

>
> > All of that adds up to this being a
> > completely unworkable proposition.
>
> I not so certain it's completely unworkable. Difficult yes, viable maybe.
> Certainly it would be better than someone embarking on another all new
> aircraft design.

And who is even going to be able to do that? I am sorry, but yes, the
proposal is indeed just plain unwokable.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow
> Boeing
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring
that
> > > other
> > > > > nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect US
> > > > > "security".
> > > >
> > > > Then that would be an incorrect assumption. The fact is that the
> > > development
> > > > costs for such advanced aircraft are extremely expensive, and the US
> > could
> > > > only afford to back one horse, just as it could only afford to field
> one
> > > of
> > > > those horses itself.
> > >
> > > To the spec they had set, probably. Without those constraints it *may*
> be
> > > possible to bring the X-32 into production but obviously in a somewhat
> > > different form (which may be at a lesser cost than the proposed F-32).
> >
> > Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from being
an
> > F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35.
>
> I agree it's less mature but that doesn't mean it's so bad it should be
> scrapped.

Why should it not be? Are you really saying it would be advantageous to dump
*more* R&D funding into trying to make the X-32 a workable fighter than it
would be to just take advantage of the US committment to the F-35 and just
buy into the more capable aircraft (F-35)?

>
> > Even doing all of the expensive
> > redesign to make the F-32 a reality would still leave you with an
aircraft
> > that is inferior to the LMCO product,
>
> Depends on the final capability requirements, which may not be the same as
> the F35. Where not even certain of what all the final capabilities of the
> F35 will be. Just because it doesn't beat an F35 doesn't mean it's
inferior.

Yes it does! That is the definition of inferior, for gosh sakes! What you
are instead arguing is that it might still be more *cost effective* based
upon this fantastical situation where the F-32 comes up cheaper (based upon
final unit cost with all R&D included) than the F-35, and that just is not
gonna happen. Period.

>
> > and you'd have dumped beaucoup bucks
> > into making *that* a reality.
>
> I'm not suggesting that the X32 be developed into a direct competitor with
a
> 100% match in capability to the F35. The suggestion is that the X32
> development not be wasted and that it could be developed into something
> viable. Not everyone wants the full JSF capability or can afford it. The
X32
> has the potentional to fill that market.

But it would be MORE expensive than the F-35!

>
> >Not a good way of doing business, even at the
> > governmental level.
> >
> > >
> > > There's obviously a market for this type of aircraft or the
competition
> > > wouldn't have taken place.
> >
> > No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
> > competitor for further development.
>
> Which was decided by the government and their end users who had specific
> requirements in mind. These requirements do not necessarily reflect those
of
> everyone else but, they may come close.
>
> > The fact that two companies competed to
> > the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market
>
> Obviously it did. No use bidding to produce and aircraft which has such a
> limited market the customer won't be able to afford it and you wont be
able
> to sell it elsewhere.

What? You call a two-thousand aircraft market "limited"? Or the US
committment to at least some fifteen hundred "limited"? The fact is that we
COULD have done it the same way we did when we built the F-15--no flying
competitiion was held for that program (and recall that the F-15 has enjoyed
some significant export success in spite of it never having been involved in
a competitive fly-off during its initial development). Instead we chose to
have a fly-off between the two final competitors' conceptual vehicles--that
decision was not a product of the market, however.

>
> >--it
> > could have just as well been handled on the basis of selecting the best
> > proposal from one of the firms without having developed flight-capable
> > demonstrators, but that would not have been wise given that the basic
> > aircraft is asked to do quite a lot more than any other current or
planned
> > fighter project under development anywhere in the world (demanding the
> same
> > basic aircraft design be capable of conventional land based use, CTOL
> > carrier use, and STOVL was quite a tall order).
>
> Several points here.
>
> Why would anyone go to this effort if there was no return in it for them?
If
> you knew you had no chance of winning you'd save your R&D budget and bow
out
> of the competition.

The USG was providing both firms with R&D funding. And Boeing did not
realize that their initial design had some serious problems until after it
entered into the test program, by which time they just gritted their teeth
and tried to put the best face upon the situation in hopes that they might
get the contract (the fact that LMCO was already contracted for the F-22 was
not necessarilly all to their benefit--Boeing had hopes that the DoD might
be willing to further spread the wealth in the fighter design/production
business, meaning they really were hoping for some advantageous political
consideration in their favor).

>
> You state that the basic aircraft was set requirements that no other
> aircraft currently has. If those requirements are so valuable then there
is
> potentially a market for more than one offering. Sure, the market may be
> limited in size but buyers will always prefer two options over one. Hence,
> an F32 could provide an alternative even allowing that it may be less
capabl
> e than an F35. Of course, to do this an F32 would need to be attractive in
> some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities not
> required by most customers - VTOL).

I find all of the above illogical. The reason that the competition was taken
to the fly-off stage was that the requirements were widespread and quite
great. That has little or nothing to do with the eventual final market span.
And the development of the X-32 without USG R&D would have resulted in a
higher priced final product than the F-35.

>
> >
> > Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
> > > current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something
> similar
> > > and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds to
see
> > the
> > > X32 developed into something.
> >
> > OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations who
(a)
> > are on our good guys list,
>
> I suggested a few but there would be others.

What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony up the
fee for joining the F-35 program, and that fee was a hell of a lot less than
the total R&D for the F-32 would be. Plus, Israel in a consortium invites
the potential of alienating other potential members who would be unwilling
to participate with them on an equal basis. You mentioned Taiwan, but taiwan
has no interest in obtaining another less-capable fighter, especially one
that is not fully compatable with US military systems--witness their early
exit from the AIDC Ching Kuo program as soon as the F-16 became available.
NATO allies want to reamin on the USAF standard, so that rules them out. The
Asian allies are still wrestling with the impact of their past economic
woes. The South American's lack the economic capital (witness further delays
in the current Brazilian fighter competition). So who the hell is left?

>
> >(b) are not already committed to other expensive
> > R&D efforts, and
>
> Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.

Two of those have already been addressed above. Australia? Nope. Lack of
sufficient defense R&D capital to go it alone, and besides, they are smart
enough to realize that taking advantage of the USAF/USN/USMC committment to
the F-35 is the way to go. You seem to be forgetting that merely developing
and building these mythical F-32's is not the only issue--you then have to
support that fleet for a few decades. Taking advantage of an established US
logistics and support pipeline is a hell of a lot cheaper than creating a
new one from scratch on your own.

>
> >(c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
> > the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly cost
> > more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than the
> F-35
>
> You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for, which
> reduces the cost somewhat.

Huh? No, the additional R&D for the X-35 to get it, a much
closer-to-final-product design than the X-32 was, is budgeted at some $28
billion--so what do you think doing even MORE work on the X-32 would cost?

>
> > (which not only required less redesign but also enjoys the largesse of
> Uncle
> > Sugar handling the majority of the R&D funding, and enjoys a large base
> > order from the US which drives the unit cost down)
>
> Yes, it's not going to be easy to generate the funding but that doesn't
mean
> it's as impossible as you suggest. Aircraft have been designed before with
> the US funding it and I don't dispute that the benefit of a large base
> order.

There just is not a group of nations that share boith the resources required
and have the demand needed to bring the F-32 into an economic/competitive
order book range.

>
> > and is a less capable
> > platform than the F-35 is to boot.
>
> Less capable than the F35 means nothing if you don't want all the
> capabilities of an F35.

Less capable means all when you are talking about an aircraft that in the
end will not be any cheaper than the better performer.

>
> > If you find any, let me know; I can get
> > them some prime beachfront property in Nevada for a small finders fee,
and
> > if they are gullible enough to support this proposal they will surely
find
> > that real estate very attractive.

That offer still stands.

Brooks
>
>
> --
> The Raven

[Lyle]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:55:26 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:

>
>"The Raven" wrote
>> We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
>strategic
>> development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
>> announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
>rather
>> than push forward with it.
>>
>Money of course. Both aircraft were very far from final production designs.
>LM didn't get a $24B (that's Billion) FSD contract for nothing and Boeing
>would be betting the company in staggering fashion...just to try and
>duplicate Northrop's F-20 strategy.
>
Boeing should just start working on the B-52 replacement, instead of
trying to improve an aircraft that nobody will buy.

[tim gueguen]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Raven" wrote
> > We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
> strategic
> > development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
> > announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
> rather
> > than push forward with it.
> >
> Money of course. Both aircraft were very far from final production
designs.
> LM didn't get a $24B (that's Billion) FSD contract for nothing and Boeing
> would be betting the company in staggering fashion...just to try and
> duplicate Northrop's F-20 strategy.
>
And the F20 was far less technologically risky than the X32.

tim gueguen 101867

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:13:55 +1100, "The Raven"
> wrote:

>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several
>technological
>> >areas.
>> >
>>
>> Such as?
>
>Construction techniques and various aspects of it's stealth design.


Lockheed is pretty much the stealth expert. Boeing has very little
experience building an operational stealth anything. As far as
construction techiques go about the only significant thing they
learned was that plastic wings won't work. Anything else they learned
such as things to speed up manufacturing are hardly enough to cover
the cost of developement.


>> How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
>> footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
>> numbers than the F-35?
>
>I'm speculating that it could be cheaper once you drop certain JSF
>requirements that aren't in high demand by other global military forces.
>VTOL is one, sure people may desire it but few can justify it on cost and
>practicality.


If you drop those requirements that make the JSF unique then you have
a half dozen alternatives already available. Why would someone want
to pay a higher price for an inferior aircraft? Boeing would hardly
be allowed to export their best attempt at stealth so basically you'd
be stuck with an X-32 that the only thing special about it is the
large amount of internal fuel (that would actually be much smaller
with the new wing) and internal storage of weapons that it's unlikelt
the countries in question would have access to anyway. They'd be far
better off buying F-16s, F-15s, Typhoons, Rafales, or Flankers.



>> Why? Why would it care if LM sells heaps?
>
>Explained previously. Obviously unit price could drop.

The X-32 if ever produced as a fighter would have negligable effect on
the F-35's production run.


>
>> Hell if Boeing had won
>> with the X-32, LM could have upgraded and sold F-16s until the cows
>> came home.
>
>But as another poster already pointed out, nothing comes close to the JSF
>requirements. Thus the F-16 still wouldn't be in the same league.

But you are saying to remove the items that make the JSF what it is in
the name of lower cost. Take away stealth and what do you have that
makes an F-32 special? AESA? Block 60 F-16s have it. Top of the
line avionics? F-16 has it. Manueverability? F-16 would likely
stomp the F-32 into the dirt. So if you remove stealth what would
make the F-32 the way to go over already available alternatives?
Specifically.


>
>> There's a ton more that could be done to the F-16 to make
>> it competitive and even better than the X-32 albeit in the Air Force
>> role only.
>
>Can it be made as stealthy?

Stealth would be a nonissue since Boeing wouldn't be allowed to export
it anyway. Also if you don't cut stealth from the F-32 what were you
going to cut that would significantly reduce the price?


>
>> Take an F-16XL with a 36k engine with a 3D nozzle,
>> conformal tanks, a low RCS inlet like they tested on one F-16, and all
>> the electronic goodies and you'd be just about there at a lower cost
>> than the F-32 would be.
>
>Then they should do it, assuming a market with enough bucks to buy them.


There isn't. That's why they don't.



>>
>> >Naturally Boeing would have to offer something very attractive in the
>form
>> >of capability and cost to garner enough financial interest to go ahead.
>Who
>> >funds Boeings development of any commercial aircraft today?
>>
>> Boeing.
>
>Exactly, and thus the whole argument about governmental funding becomes
>weaker. If they can perform full R&D on very expensive relatively low
>production aircraft they would be in a better position than most to fund
>further R&D on a platform that has already been funded into existence.

Who ever said the government would fund X-32 developement? I've been
saying all along that they wouldn't thus the financial burden would
fall totally on Boeing. And "relatively low" production run? How
many did you have in mind. Maybe we could take a stab at how much an
F-32 would cost.



>> And let's not forget they have a LOT of experience building
>> commercial aircraft.
>
>And being one of the largest manufacturers of commerical aircraft would thus
>would be in a better position than any other commercial manufacturer to step
>into military aircraft production. Note that Boeing already plays a major
>part in maintaining various military aircraft.

Whatever knowledge they have certainly didn't help them with the F-32.
And being a manufacturer of commercial aircraft means nothing as far
as fighter developement goes. And Northrop would be in a far better
position to develope a fighter. At least they have some expertise.


>
>It's definitely a big and expensive step but if anyone could do it, it would
>have to be Boeing.

Which doesn't mean it's doable. I'd have a better chance at lifting a
million pounds than my nephew but that doesn't mean I'd have a chance
in hell of doing it.



>> $30 billion is quite a bit too much but even if it was only five
>> billion it would still be unsupportable.
>
>$5B is unsupportable? I think that amount, while large, to be possible.

So Boeing could afford to flush $5 Billion down the toilet?


>
>> Take manufacturing aside and
>> consider that each F-32 would be 100% profit. At five billion you'd
>> have to sell 167 aircraft just to break even.
>
>167 wouldn't be that hard to sell when individual potential customers are
>already looking at buying 100.


You can't have potential customers, you have to find customers willing
to pony up ALL the money before the first piece of metal was cut *and*
that's assuming design, manufacturing, and testing were FREE and
Boeing would be getting nothing out of the deal but would just be
doing it out of the goodness of their heart.



>
>> That's if they cost $0
>> to build and if it was only $5 billion more to develope it and Boeing
>> making $0 dollars in the end. Factor in cost of materials and
>> manufacturing and a reasonable profit
>
>Most defence contracts do not have the "reasonable profit" that commercial
>industry expects.

They have to or there is no reason for them to be in the business.
You don't stay in business by not making money.

>
>>and the number of aircraft you
>> have to sell to make it viable climbs dramatically.
>
>I don't think it would be that hard to sell a budget orientated stealth
>fighter, noting statements currently produced comes close to JSF
>requirements.


Stealth wouldn't be in the equations and the F-32 even without it
would hardly qualify as a budget aircraft.


>
>If we assume the initial partner orders were in the vicinity of 400 units @
>30M there would be enough margin to cover manufacturing and profit.


First you have to find customers willing to give you the cash for four
hundred aircraft upfront. Then you have to make sure costs don't rise
at all else you'll have to eat the extra expenses. Then you have to
find the cash to develope the engine which isn't trivial. Add to the
fact that developement for the F-35 *is* closer to $30 billion than I
thought *and* that the F-32 would require MUCH more time and effort to
develope than the F-32 because the production model is so different
than the X-32 that it has effectively never flown.

>
>How much profit is their in a military aircraft with a unit price of $30M
>anyway? Not much, it's generated in the through life operational costs.

How do you know? There has to be enough to make it worth the company
to stay in business in the business.

>
>> And those are
>> sales in concrete before you even start. You can't just do all the
>> work and gamble that someone will want some.
>
>Totally agree, the money must be upfront for development.

And who would do that? Which countries did you have in mind
specifically?


>Anyone joining
>into this sort of scheme would have to be fully committed.

Committed to an insane asylum maybe (sorry couldnt resist). Seriously
though, who has the money?


>
>Interestingly, being a SDD partner to JSF doesn't tie you into buying
>aircraft. Many partners have joined to hedge their bets on final purchase
>whilst simultaneously getting access to some of the technology and contracts
>to be awarded.

No it doesn't oblicate them to buy aircraft but if they don't they
will in effect have donated the money to the cause becuase I doubt it
would be refunded if they decided not to buy.




>> Take China, South Korea, and Japan out of the equation and who does
>> that leave you? Singapore? They're already in the market for a new
>> fighter *now*.
>
>As is Australia now but, they are holding off as long as possible. There are
>also a number of lesser nations in the area who could do with a handful of
>new aircraft. The same might apply for smaller European nations.


Who? Specifically. Most of the smaller European nations can't even
afford F-16s out of the boneyard.



>
>> Many of those asian countries you are thinking of are
>> already buying Flankers because that's all they can afford and they
>> aren't buying many of those.
>
>Actually only a few nations are buying Flankers and those they are getting
>are having some teething problems.

So imagine the trouble they'd have with an aircraft that has never
been in service.


>
>> So they won't have any money for F-32s.
>
>Any idea on the price of the Flankers?

Nope but there's no way the F-32 would be cheaper. I've heard from
$10 million to $50 million for Flankers but my guess it would be in
the high twenties to low thirties.

>
>> South America is out because all they can afford are last generation
>> hand-me-downs or the occasional newly built old aircraft. And as far
>> as serious commitment goes, as I pointed out Boeing would have to
>> essentially say "give us the money up front and we'll build you
>> something". They couldn't take the chance that the country(s) would
>> say "uh, we changed our mind" which EVERY country does. Who in the
>> last twenty years has EVER bought as many as they thought they were?
>
>Quite a few working with tight budgets and tighter contracts.

So why would they be able to buy F-32s? How would they be able to
justify the gamble on the F-32 rather than an excellent
already-in-production fighter. With those tight budgets they'll take
the best fighter with the lowest cost and least risk that they
possibly can.


>> >Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?
>>
>>
>> Boeing? Nope. Which *definitely* doesn't inspire confidence.
>
>Only if you ignore the fact that Boeing is one of the largest and most
>successful manufacturers of aircraft in the world.

I'm having trouble remembering which fighter Boeing has designed and
produced. Maybe you could refresh my memory?



> If anyone other than a
>pure defence contractor could produce a platform for military use, it would
>have to be them.

Which again doesn't mean it's doable.

>
>> Sure
>> they have McDonnel Douglas that they incorporated but I'd be willing
>> to bet most of those employees were saying "hell no we didn't design
>> that POS".
>
>Guess who's keeping the F-111's flying? Sure, that's not manufacturing but
>Boeing isn't a newbie to the defence industry either.

Supporting a 30 year old aircraft hardly qualifies as having the
expertise to design and build one.



>>
>> Look at the F-23 and it *did* meet spec. and had a hell of a lot more
>> promise.
>
>That may be true an perhaps it should have gone on to become something else
>for another customer. It seems a shame that so many promising designs are
>scrapped soley because they didn't finish first in a competition designed to
>meet the requirements of a couple of specific customers.

The reason they don't is because nobody has the cash. The Crusader 3
would have been an excellent choice for lots of countries but nobody
wanted to fund it and it was much further along than the X-32.



>> Who could fund it? What combination of likely countries could fund
>> it?
>
>Based on the previously mentioned $5B and, the non-JSF partners are implying
>they want F-35s, we can come back to Japan, Israel, possibly Taiwan, and
>perhaps Singapore as possible buyers.

Singapore is in the middle of a competition now so they won't be in
the market anytime soo. As I pointed out Israel is already buying
F-16s and F-15s. Japan is going with the F-2 which leave Taiwan and
they definitely don't have the cash to do it themselves.


>Throw in some existing JSF partners
>who haven't committed to F35 and you may be getting close, Australia needs
>75-100 aircraft for example.

What compelling reason would they have for chosing the F-32? IF they
decided against the F-35 there are many other fighters already on the
market that would fill the bill better. And I remind you that the $5
billion figure was far off the mark.


>
>Now whether these countries could spring for both development and purchase
>is the issue. Perhaps not, but if a few smaller nations opted in you may a
>higher number of small sales which might get to a more economic number of
>aircraft at a nominal $30M each.

Again, who would be willing to foot the bill? Who could afford it?




>
>> >I don't know if there were significant design flaws but I appreciate that
>a
>> >prototype is a prototype and not expected to be perfect.
>>
>> Well the fact that the only thing the prototype had in common with
>> their proposed production model was that they were both ugly suggest
>> that there were significant design flaws.
>
>Ugly seemed to be related to that chin intake. From every other angle but
>head and side on it didn't look that bad.

I was using ugly to demonstrate something they had in common. Ugly
doesn't mean bad (see A-10, F-117 etc.). I'm saying that there was
very little in common between the X-32 and what would have been the
F-32. It would essentially have been an entirely new aircraft.

>
>> They went from a swept
>> forward intake to a swept back. They went from a delta wing to a
>> conventional tailed aircraft. After they did those they later found
>> out "uh wait, things are going to get too hot" so they added another
>> significant vent on each side of the cockpit. Who knows what else
>> they'd have tripped over on their way to a production aircraft.
>
>Most of the heat problems were related to the VTOL requirement, if you
>remove that hurdle the whole thing becomes a lot simpler.

Heat was a *small* problem. It was just one of many that the X-32
had.

>
>>
>> >Obviously, the X32
>> >didn't perform as well as teh X35. Some redesign may be necessary but I
>> >don't think the aircraft is inherently bad. If it was so bad, it would
>never
>> >have made it into the competition or remained there until the end.
>>
>> What made it that far was what Boeing promised. What they delivered
>> was something else.
>
>Defence Marketing 101
>
>The buyers specification never matches their expectation.
>The contractors initial marketing never quite matches the final item.


Sorry but the X-32 was a lot further off than "not quite".


>> You mean like the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen? Once the F-35 enters
>> production it's very likely going to clean up the market.
>
>Because it's the only option for that general capability. Perhaps if there
>was a competitor it would be different.


But by the time you stip the X-32 down enough to be affordible it
would no longer be competitive. Not even with what is already
available.


>
>> I wouldn't
>> be at all suprised if no more Typhoons or Rafales were sold after
>> that.
>
>Australia's AIR6000 project were consider both, amongst others.

They may be considering them but my money would bet that they don't go
with them.



>> The F-23 was far better than the X-32 and one of those prototypes is
>> in a friggin CLASSROOM and the other is in a dirt lot out in back of a
>> hanger somewhere.
>
>A shame isn't it? However I doubt the F-23 would have met the stealth
>requirements. BTW what's the projected range for the F-23?


The F-23 was generally considerd to be more stealthy than the F-22.
It was also a much cleaner design (which was why it was faster than
the F-22) so it likely would have had greater range.


>> That market is already being filled by late model F-16s, F-15s,
>> Flankers, Gripens, Rafales, Typhoons, Super Hornets and so on.
>
>But none of those have the reported levels of stealth the JSF contenders
>had.

Stealth would be out for the F-32. First for the export issues and
second because you wanted to strip downt he F-32 to make it cheaper.
Stealth would be the first thing to go.


>> Boeing thought they did have a chance although by the looks on their
>> faces they clearly didn't think it was much of one as the competition
>> progressed and the X-35 showed it's stuff.
>
>Lessons learnt, perhaps they should apply them to what they have now so they
>can be better prepared for next time (other buyers).

No smart buyer would bet their fighter budget on a maybe.



>> But the X-32 failed to meet those requirements.
>
>I believe one of the biggest failings was STOVL. It was a key requirement
>for those planning to replace Harriers, beyond that not many forces would
>put such a high value on the VTOL element.

The other failing was that the X-32 didn't meet MANY of the
requirements which was why they proposed a drastic redesign.


>> Why would they want something that was less capable and more
>> expensive?
>
>We can't say it will be more expensive but if you drop the expensive and
>technological difficult VTOL capability the costs are likely to be less.

Less than if they kept it but not less than a currenly availalbe
aircraft.



>
> > >f course, to do this an F32 would need to be attractive in
>> >some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities not
>> >required by most customers - VTOL).
>>
>> It wouldnt' be cheaper and if they wanted to trade off VTOL they'd buy
>> the F-35A instead of B.
>
>What is the price difference between the three F-35 variants? Quoted figures
>never made the distinction on model type.

ISTR it's about $10 million between the cheapest and the most
expensive.


>
>> Austraila is signed up on the F-35,
>
>No, they have only signed up for the SDD phase. There is nothing more than a
>vague committment to buy, nothing in writing yet.

Okay so you'd have to concvince austrailia that their contribution was
wasted and get them to gamble on a far riskier venture.


>> Israel is buying more F-15s and
>> F-16s and Taiwan isn't in the market at the moment IRC.
>
>Israel may be buying F-15 and F-16s but they've indicated a desire for F-35s
>and a preference to get in early on the production...

Which would indicate they'd be unwilling to wait far longer while the
F-32 was developed.

>
>Japan is rumoured to be looking at JSF to go on their proposed aircraft
>carriers (which they prefer to call destroyers with helo decks). OK, if that
>was the case then they'd want STOVL and I'm implying Boeing could drop
>that....

Which would mean Japan wouldnt want them.




>
>NZ could do with a few, even a token number to keep some pilots/expertise,
>considering they have nothing really left.

If they only wanted a token it would be because they can't afford more
in which case they'd go for a cheaper, already existing aircraft.



>> >You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for, which
>> >reduces the cost somewhat.
>>
>> Not as much as you'd think.
>
>Surely an equal amount to what has already been spent to get to this point.
>That's nothing to sneeze at, even if it does leave a big amount still to be
>spent.


All of which Boeing would have to scrounge up.



>
>> Boeing's final design was completely
>> different than the X-32, and the engine would need more developement.
>
>A more conventional engine may be practical if that STOVL is dropped.


Possibly. They'd still have to fund getting their vectoring nozzle
working with the F-35A's engine. That or modify the X-32 yet again
and do away with it's vecotring nozzle which would only serve to
reduce it's capability further still.

>
>> Basically all Boeing got out of the experience was "I think our code
>> works sort of, a plastic wing doesn't, and the engine might be good if
>> it was more powerful and our plane was lighter".
>
>OK, but I think they learnt a bit more than that :-)


LOL. Not much :-) The picked up some not trivial manufacturing
techniques but as far as fighter design goes that remains open to
debate.



>> If Boeing
>> decided to continue with the X-32 it's very unlikely they'd even get
>> the time of day from the government let alone any money.
>
>Hence the need to go direct to potential buyers rather than ask the US
>Government for R&D.

Yep. And can you think of even one fighter in the past fifty years
that the US didn't buy but others did? There have been some excellent
losers out their and nobody wanted them.

>
>> And what
>> aircraft have been developed that weren't funded by a major country?
>
>What's your definition of a major country?

I guess I'd say anybody who has at least the cash that Sweden does.
Taiawan developed their little fighter (the name escapes me at the
moment) but it wasn't a whole lot more than a glorified trainer. Come
to think of it they probably could have sold some as trainers if the
US had let them.

>
>> Taiwan came up with one. I think it's South Korea that's doing the
>> one with Lockheed and I think that's about it.
>
>Australia did seriously consider it several decades back but took the easier
>option of buying Mirages.

Yeah. So did Canada, Germany, and the UK. Turned out none of them
could justify the cost of going it alone.


>> There are a plethora of alternatives already out there. If I was a
>> potential buyer would I want to fork out a bunch of money for an
>> aircraft that lost and whos "final" configuration has never flown? Or
>> would I want a nice shiny Block 60 F-16 or F-15K for less money?
>
>Depends on how much risk you're willing to face for the chance of having the
>edge over potential enemies. Some might consider that a viable option.

That's asumming the X-32 would have an advantage over the latest
versions of existing aircraft without having stealth. IMO it's very
unlikely.



>
>Yes, I see that the idea of turning the X-32 into a production aircraft
>isn't a walk in the park. There are some serious economic issues to be
>considered. However, to consign it to the dustbin seems a huge waste of tax
>payer funded R&D. I still believe there is sufficient market for this type
>of aircraft even if it isn't up to the formal JSF competition spec. If any
>commercial aircraft company could do it, it would have to be Boeing.


There are a lot of "what ifs" I'd always wished they'd take an
F-16XL, add a second F110 and stretch the width like a Tomcat, and put
ramp intakes like a Flanker beneath the huge delta wing. Maybe add
twin, outward canted vertical tails. It would look sweet if nothing
else :-)

[The Raven]

"Susan VanCamp" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> <<What is the price difference between the three F-35 variants? Quoted
> figures
> never made the distinction on model type.>>
>
> About the time JAST became JSF, unit recurring flyaway was estimated in
this
> range (earlier years dollars, I've forgotten which) -- $30M USAF, $35M
USMC,
> $38M USN.

Thanks for that.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 01:25:34 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

> Lockheed is pretty much the stealth expert. Boeing has very little
> experience building an operational stealth anything. As far as
> construction techiques go about the only significant thing they
> learned was that plastic wings won't work. Anything else they learned
> such as things to speed up manufacturing are hardly enough to cover
> the cost of developement.

Northrop has a bit of experience, too, which includes the sage advice
to leave off canards if stealth is a goal.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[The Raven]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> The Raven wrote:
> > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
> >> footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
> >> numbers than the F-35?
> >
> > I'm speculating that it could be cheaper once you drop certain JSF
> > requirements that aren't in high demand by other global military
> > forces. VTOL is one, sure people may desire it but few can justify it
> > on cost and practicality.
>
> Let's imagine you could drive the development costs down for a non-VSTOL
> single-configuration design. You're still talking about system complexity
> comaprable to Eurofighter, which is costing tens of billions of dollars to
> develop. Even the cheapest modern combat aircraft program, Gripen, is
> costing around $5-8 billion for development. And that's a very basic
> deasign comapred to this F-32.

OK

> Given the very limited potential export market, Boeing could not possibly
> justify this cost.

OK

> The simple fact is that overseas buyers are seldom
> interested in aircraft types not adopted by the US military.

Sorry, I dispute that on the fact that there are plenty of military aircraft
in use around the world which weren't adopted by the US military. Yes, the
US military may be the largest buyer and thus have an influence on other
buyers etc but to claim that people seldom buy equipment not adopted by the
US military is false.

> For examples,
> see the F-20 and F-18L.

OK, that's two.

>
> >>> Who funds Boeings development of any commercial
> >>> aircraft today?
> >>
> >> Boeing.
> >
> > Exactly, and thus the whole argument about governmental funding
> > becomes weaker. If they can perform full R&D on very expensive
> > relatively low production aircraft
>
> I don't think you know what you're talking about. Boeing's commercial
> developments are all predicated on very *large* production runs, at least
in
> comparison to possible exports of your notional F-32. For example, they
> just launcheed development of the 7E7, at an estimated $7-10 billion,
which
> is not quite a "bet-the-company" program, but not far from it. They
project
> a market of 2,500-3,000 aircraft in this size class, and hope to take
> significantly more than half of them. So they are talking about selling
> over 1,500 aircraft to make this a viable project. The worldwde market
for
> a strike fighter like the F-32 would be far lower (hundreds at most), even
> if it wasn't totally closed out by the F-35 and European competitors.
>
> >> Take manufacturing aside and
> >> consider that each F-32 would be 100% profit. At five billion you'd
> >> have to sell 167 aircraft just to break even.
> >
> > 167 wouldn't be that hard to sell when individual potential customers
> > are already looking at buying 100.
>
> But as Scott poitns out, the real breakeven is much higher. I'd guess
it's
> probably pushing a thousand aircraft. The market is't big enough to
support
> this.
>
> >> That's if they cost $0
> >> to build and if it was only $5 billion more to develope it and Boeing
> >> making $0 dollars in the end. Factor in cost of materials and
> >> manufacturing and a reasonable profit
> >
> > Most defence contracts do not have the "reasonable profit" that
> > commercial industry expects.
>
> If Boeing launched development of a fighter as a commercial venture,
they'd
> have to expect commercial returns. If they didn't, thy'de be better off
> spending the money on commercial aircraft ventures (like 7E7).
>
> >
> >> and the number of aircraft you
> >> have to sell to make it viable climbs dramatically.
> >
> > I don't think it would be that hard to sell a budget orientated
> > stealth fighter, noting statements currently produced comes close to
> > JSF requirements.
>
> This is a real problem area. Boeing cannot freely market stealth
> technology. The government has a legitimate interest in maintaining
control
> over low-observable materials and techniques, which means that Boeing can
> either offer their design to the exact same set of pre-selected countries
> looking at the F-35 (with its much longer produciton runsand guaranteed US
> product support) or they have to strip the stealth out and market a
> second-rate alternative. That has not worked really well before (F-16/79
> anyone?)

Ahh, an this was alluded to in my original posts but no-one responded to it.
The US government would not allow Boeing to go ahead, assuming they wanted
to, so as to retain control of technology and resulting capabilities that
could affect US interests.
>
> >
> > If we assume the initial partner orders were in the vicinity of 400
> > units @ 30M there would be enough margin to cover manufacturing and
> > profit.
>
> That's just covering likely development cosst with little left over for
> manufacturing, much less profit. And a 400-plane run is wildy optimistic.
> You are countnig on this plane winning all of the major non-US programs in
> the next decade, basically.
>
> > Interestingly, being a SDD partner to JSF doesn't tie you into buying
> > aircraft. Many partners have joined to hedge their bets on final
> > purchase whilst simultaneously getting access to some of the
> > technology and contracts to be awarded.
>
> But having invested significant money in F-35, how likely are they do
spend
> the same money again for another candidate?

They've spent money to gain knowledge and the potential for industrial
involvement. Even the JSF Team acknowledge that several partner nations
haven't committed to a purchase but, hope to convert those partners to sales
in the long run.

Australias 150M input is not going to be wasted if they decide not to
purchase F-35 (noting no formal agreement to purchase). Australian industry
has already won 10 JSF related contracts and the ADF will gain some insight
into JSF technologies. Even if the Australian goverment walked away from
F-35 they would have gained sufficient return on that investment. Local
industry has won contracts, the ADF has gained knowledge that would
otherwise be difficult/impossible to self develop. For the ADF the worst
case scenario is that the money makes them nothing more than a more informed
buyer.

> Especially since it would kill
> their industrial involvement in the F-35 program.

Buying F-35 is not a requirement for industrial involvement, which.the JSF
Teams have said repeatedly. Being a partner, however; is a requirement for
consideration in industrial involvement. So, as long as you're a partner
nation the doors are open for industrial involvement. Once industrial
involvement is contractually underway it would be stupid for the JSF team to
yank the rug merely because a partner nation chose not to continue beyond
the SDD phase.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[John Keeney]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> >The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing hasn't
> >proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going
ahead
> >anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar
capabilities
> >for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out
what
> >this may be.
>
> How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
> footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
> numbers than the F-35?

The thing Raven seems to be missing is that any additional R&D spending
(of which there will be a lot) will be amortized over a much smaller unit
count. Meaning you'd have to strip a boat load of feature off an FX-32
to get the unit cost down to F-35 levels.

> >Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?
>
> Boeing? Nope. Which *definitely* doesn't inspire confidence. Sure
> they have McDonnel Douglas that they incorporated but I'd be willing
> to bet most of those employees were saying "hell no we didn't design
> that POS".

That is a bit of an over statement.
Boeing built a fair number of fighters some time back. The last one that
required more than the fingers of one hand to count (the P-26 Peashooter)
marked the introduction of a fabulous innovation to US fighters: the mono-
wing.
That and you may want to give some credit to the MacAir part that was
assimilated a few years back.

[The Raven]

"Lyle" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:55:26 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Raven" wrote
> >> We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
> >strategic
> >> development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
> >> announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
> >rather
> >> than push forward with it.
> >>
> >Money of course. Both aircraft were very far from final production
designs.
> >LM didn't get a $24B (that's Billion) FSD contract for nothing and Boeing
> >would be betting the company in staggering fashion...just to try and
> >duplicate Northrop's F-20 strategy.
> >
> Boeing should just start working on the B-52 replacement, instead of
> trying to improve an aircraft that nobody will buy.

Well based on what's be said so far, without a firm order for a heap of
them, plus lots of USG R&D funding, it wouldn't be possible...........


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[The Raven]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > .. .
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in
the
> > > > > strategic
> > > > > > development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition
winner
> > was
> > > > > > announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole
> concept
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > than push forward with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect some of their X-32 technology is making its way into
their
> > > UCAV
> > > > > conceptual vehicle.
> > > >
> > > > No doubt a lot of the technology will be used but the platform
itself
> > was
> > > > pretty impressive despite not winning the JSF contest.
> > >
> > > Not really--that was why it lost to the LMCO bid.
> >
> > It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several
> technological
> > areas.
>
> Name an area where its performance was superior to that of the X-35.

That is not what I said and thus you're question is misleading.

>
> >
> > > It was a dog. And it was
> > > danged ugly, with a capital U, to boot--danged thing looked like a
> > pregnant
> > > cow with wings strapped on its back. Hell, it made the old EE
Lightning
> > look
> > > like a true beauty, and that is saying something (not knocking the
> > > Lightning, which was a capable and fine aircraft for its day, but it
was
> > not
> > > looking to win any beauty contests).
> >
> > I didn't know that the main criteria for selecting any piece of military
> > hardware was that it had to look good.
>
> You need to turn on your humor switch, pardner. You take things much too
> seriously, you hear?

Obviously our humour switches were both off, my comment wasn't meant to be
taken serious.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward
> with
> > > the
> > > > > X-32
> > > > > > into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the
> competition
> > > that
> > > > > > potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to
foreign
> > > > nations?
> > > > > > Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it
could
> be
> > > > more
> > > > > > cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit
> > > > unlikely)
> > > > > of
> > > > > > F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second
> > JSF-like
> > > > > > aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?
> > > > >
> > > > > Imagine the cost of development. No company has the resources
> required
> > > to
> > > > > develop a first-line combat aircraft today independent of
> governmental
> > > > > financing.
> > > >
> > > > Hence look for governments outside the US that are willing to do it.
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > suggesting the F32 would end up with the exact same capability and
> > fitout
> > > as
> > > > planned but it could be built with the commitment of several
> > governments.
> > >
> > > All of which would be much happier just piggybacking on the massive
R&D
> > > funding that the USG is placing in the winning F-35 program. Note that
a
> > lot
> > > of other nations HAVE ponied up R&D money to participate in this
> program,
> > > and none of them have come forth saying, "Hey, can we buy into that
> Boeing
> > > dog instead?"
> >
> > The Boeing platform wasn't a "dog" otherwise it would never have gotten
as
> > far as it did into the competition.
>
> Compared to the X-35 it was indeed a dog.
>
> >
> > The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing hasn't
> > proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going
ahead
> > anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar
> capabilities
> > for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out
> what
> > this may be.
>
> LOL! "Similar capabilities at a lower cost, and all without the benefit
ogf
> the US taxpayers' largesse!" What planet are you from? Since the X-32
> airframe was further from being a fighter than the X-35 was, and the
latter
> is taking some $28 billion to develop, just how the heck do you figure the
> major redesign of the X-32 (like adding that whole tail reconfiguration,
> etc., into the mix) would be *cheaper*?!

Once again you're equating similar with identical.

>
> >
> > > That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill.
> >
> > As major buyer, who also has a vested interest in LM selling heaps,
you'd
> > expect that.
>
> And without a major buyer, or combination thereof adding up to the fifteen
> hundred or so the US is purchasing, your less-than-F-35-capable F-32 is
> going to have a higher unit cost, even if you were to claim that the X-32
> development cost just matched that of the X-35. Toss in the R&D funding
that
> the US would NOT be contributing to the X-32, and your unit cost just went
> way up. Sorry, but you are using some serious voodoo budget planning if
you
> think you can get the X-32 sans USG R&D funding to match the cost of the
> F-35.
>
> >
> > > Note
> > > that the consortium of major European nations developing the
Eurofighter
> > > have had their hands full funding that program (and now have the added
> > > challenge of funding the A-400);
> >
> > A good point.
> >
> > > given that situation, how likely is it that
> > > you could find any group of "other" friendly nations that would be
> willing
> > > to come up with the many billions of dollars required to make the X-32
> > > viable? Not very, IMO.
> >
> > Naturally Boeing would have to offer something very attractive in the
form
> > of capability and cost to garner enough financial interest to go ahead.
> Who
> > funds Boeings development of any commercial aircraft today?
>
> But that would be impossible! For gosh sakes, the R&D costs don't just
> amortize themselves, and you still need a massive order book to even bring
> the unit cost down anywhere even NEAR that of the F-35, with its USG and
> allied funding and already committed (more or less) order book.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > When that governmental financing goes down, pace of development
> > > > > also takes a nosedive--take the Rafale as an example.
> > > >
> > > > Sure.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have
> had
> > a
> > > > > market
> > > > > > for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or
> > > eroded
> > > > > some
> > > > > > of it's competitors market. Additionally, it could upset the
> > supposed
> > > > > > superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar
in
> > > > > > capability to the F35 than anything else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ain't gonna happen without governmental R&D support.
> > > >
> > > > There are more governments in the world than the US government.
> > >
> > > And outside of Europe how many (in the "friendly to the US category")
> are
> > in
> > > a financial position to fork over the $30 billion or more required to
> make
> > > the X-32 a real F-32?
> >
> > Is it really 30B or is that the forecast for the F35?
>
> It is some $28 billion for the F-35, which is one heck of a lot closer to
> its X-35 ancestor than any F-32 would have been to the X-32, which
> demonstrated some serious design shortfalls during the testing program--so
> you can safely assume that the X-32-to-F-32 development cost would be
> *higher* than that of the LMCO bid. That was one of the reasons the X-35
> won -- Boeing had to go into final selection saying, "Well, we know there
> are some major redesign requirements that have to be met before the X-32
can
> be considered anywhere near being a viable JSF, but we are confident we
can
> acheive this..." (with the unsaid but obvious caveat, "...given enough
> additional funding").
>
> >
> > > Japan springs to mind...but they are already fully
> > > committed to their own F-2 project.
> >
> > There are lots of asian nations looking for replacements, most friendly.
> > However, it would obviously need some careful thought and serious
> > committment.
>
> Most of those nations are struggling to come up with the funds to purchase
a
> comparitive handful of F-16C/D or F-18E/F's right now, but you think they
> can magically come up with umpteen billions for R&D, not to mention the
> subsequent unit purchase cost, of a couple of thousand F-32's, which would
> be required in order to make its price competitive with that of the F-35?
I
> don't think so.
>
> >
> > > Recall that one of the reasons Boeing
> > > came up short in this competition was that their X-32 was apparently
> quite
> > a
> > > bit further from being a workable fighter than the competing LMCO X-35
> > was;
> > > Boeing had already had to admit that some *major* redesign would be
> > required
> > > based upon flight test results of the X-32.
> >
> > Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?
>
> The last Boeing production fighter aircraft, outside the F-18E/F and F-15E
> which it inherited from McD-D when it merged with that firm, was a piston
> engined, open-cockpit monoplane known as the P-26 Peashooter IIRC.
>
> >
> > > In comparison, the F-35 has so
> > > far undergone relatively little external change from the X-35 article
> > (some
> > > increased dimensions, i.e., a slightly larger cross section of the
> > fuselage
> > > behind the cockpit IIRC) during the period before the design outline
was
> > > frozen a year or more ago.
> >
> > Fair enough, the X35 is superior to the X32 but I wouldn't rule out that
> the
> > X32 could not be developed into something very capable. The crux of the
> X32
> > development is, who would fund it and whether enough could be built to
> make
> > it viable. I think it's a shame to see the X32 be discontinued merely
> > because it didn't meet a specific specification yet shows promise.
>
> It failed to meet specs because it had serious design problems. STOVL was
> only one of the parameters it came up short in regards to. The fact that
it
> needed a whole new empennage design points to the difficulties it would
have
> faced.
>
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the question is, could there have economically been a market
> for
> > > the
> > > > > F32
> > > > > > outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing
to
> > > > produce
> > > > > > such an aircraft?
> > > > >
> > > > > No and yes (but a meaningless yes as it just was not a possible
> > > outcome).
> > > >
> > > > Why not possible. Not all aircraft developments hinge on funding
from
> > > Uncle
> > > > Sam.
> > >
> > > Look, get the "anything said has to relate to some kind of superiority
> > > complex regarding the US" chip off your shoulder, OK?
> >
> > Sorry, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the US. I was responding
> to
> > your use of the word "government" implying the US government. I took it
> that
> > you ruled out all other governments as a possible source of funding.
>
> Realistically, yes I do rule out such sources. Because of those that are
in
> the firindly camp, none leap to mind that have the resources required, are
> not already committed to other major R&D efforts, or are downright
unwilling
> to buy an aircraft that the USAF itself considered inferior (another
poster
> has alluded to the past F-20 saga at Northrop--the parallels would be
> applicable).
>
> >
> > > The fact of the matter
> > > is that (a) the X-35 was the better platform, by most accounts;
> >
> > Agreed
> >
> > > (b) the X-32
> > > had some significant design flaws requiring major redesign before it
was
> > > ready to move into the fighter realm; and
> >
> > I don't know if there were significant design flaws but I appreciate
that
> a
> > prototype is a prototype and not expected to be perfect. Obviously, the
> X32
> > didn't perform as well as teh X35. Some redesign may be necessary but I
> > don't think the aircraft is inherently bad. If it was so bad, it would
> never
> > have made it into the competition or remained there until the end.
>
> Why do you say that? The USG had already committed to seeing both aircraft
> enter into the final competition stage. Boeing started having problems
with
> the X-32 design rather early in the production phase, and then found that
> they had some major redesign required after it entered into flight test.
> What nation would want to dump as much, or even nearly as much, capital
into
> developing and fielding the *losing* design when they could much more
> easily, and more cheaply when you face facts, buy the winner?
>
> >
> > >(c) the plain fact of the matter
> > > is that there are not any nations out there that both have the
available
> > > capital to manage such an expensive proposition and are not ALREADY
> > > committed to other major development projects, and who fall into that
> > vital
> > > "friendly to the US" category.
> >
> > I concede it's a tough ask but it isn't impossible.
>
> Well, I don't see any willing to meet that demand while also being willing
> to accept an aircraft that would be inferior to the F-35.
>
> >
> > > All of that adds up to this being a
> > > completely unworkable proposition.
> >
> > I not so certain it's completely unworkable. Difficult yes, viable
maybe.
> > Certainly it would be better than someone embarking on another all new
> > aircraft design.
>
> And who is even going to be able to do that? I am sorry, but yes, the
> proposal is indeed just plain unwokable.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow
> > Boeing
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring
> that
> > > > other
> > > > > > nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect
US
> > > > > > "security".
> > > > >
> > > > > Then that would be an incorrect assumption. The fact is that the
> > > > development
> > > > > costs for such advanced aircraft are extremely expensive, and the
US
> > > could
> > > > > only afford to back one horse, just as it could only afford to
field
> > one
> > > > of
> > > > > those horses itself.
> > > >
> > > > To the spec they had set, probably. Without those constraints it
*may*
> > be
> > > > possible to bring the X-32 into production but obviously in a
somewhat
>> > > different form (which may be at a lesser cost than the proposed
F-32).
> > >
> > > Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from being
> an
> > > F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35.
> >
> > I agree it's less mature but that doesn't mean it's so bad it should be
> > scrapped.
>
> Why should it not be? Are you really saying it would be advantageous to
dump
> *more* R&D funding into trying to make the X-32 a workable fighter than it
> would be to just take advantage of the US committment to the F-35 and just
> buy into the more capable aircraft (F-35)?

No, I'm saying it's cheaper to pick up the development of an existing design
than start fresh. I've already said that not everyone will want an F-35.

>
> >
> > > Even doing all of the expensive
> > > redesign to make the F-32 a reality would still leave you with an
> aircraft
> > > that is inferior to the LMCO product,
> >
> > Depends on the final capability requirements, which may not be the same
as
> > the F35. Where not even certain of what all the final capabilities of
the
> > F35 will be. Just because it doesn't beat an F35 doesn't mean it's
> inferior.
>
> Yes it does! That is the definition of inferior, for gosh sakes!

Inferior to one set of requirements doesn't imply inferior to all others.
Compromise, adaption....

> What you
> are instead arguing is that it might still be more *cost effective* based
> upon this fantastical situation where the F-32 comes up cheaper (based
upon
> final unit cost with all R&D included) than the F-35,

Forget the damn JSF requirements and the F-35, it's decided and over. That
specific market is gone so, stop locking yourself into a narrow view of "it
must be a JSF/F-35 equal".

What about the rest of the world and the possibility that the X-32 could be
adapted to meet a different but not wildly dis-similar set of requirements.
Sure, it's a challenging proposition but fare more practical than starting
with a blank piece of paper because, beyond that, no other option exists for
a similar role.

> and that just is not
> gonna happen. Period.

That might be the case. It's a matter of exploring possibilities here, hence
asking the questions.

>
> >
> > > and you'd have dumped beaucoup bucks
> > > into making *that* a reality.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that the X32 be developed into a direct competitor
with
> a
> > 100% match in capability to the F35. The suggestion is that the X32
> > development not be wasted and that it could be developed into something
> > viable. Not everyone wants the full JSF capability or can afford it. The
> X32
> > has the potentional to fill that market.
>
> But it would be MORE expensive than the F-35!

That's you're assumption and you're welcome to it. We know that if the X-32
had been selected it would have needed redesign that the X-35 didn't. Beyond
that we could assume that either aircraft would probably consume a similar
amount of SDD funding to meet the final production spec.

I was postulating that with a pre-existing design, not yet locked in
concrete, and a new set of non-JSF specific requirements it would be far
easier/cheaper to get an aircraft into production than start afresh.

You've made some very good comments about development costs, unit prices,
finding customers, funding etc. They are obviously serious issues and issues
worth considering.

>
> >
> > >Not a good way of doing business, even at the
> > > governmental level.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There's obviously a market for this type of aircraft or the
> competition
> > > > wouldn't have taken place.
> > >
> > > No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
> > > competitor for further development.

So what happens with the X-32 design? Plenty of good research and design
there that could be picked up by someone, albeit someone(s) with lots of
money.

> >
> > Which was decided by the government and their end users who had specific
> > requirements in mind. These requirements do not necessarily reflect
those
> of
> > everyone else but, they may come close.
> >
> > > The fact that two companies competed to
> > > the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market
> >
> > Obviously it did. No use bidding to produce and aircraft which has such
a
> > limited market the customer won't be able to afford it and you wont be
> able
> > to sell it elsewhere.
>
> What? You call a two-thousand aircraft market "limited"?

No, please reread. Obviously market size (particularly units forecast) did
play a part in the JSF competition.

> Or the US
> committment to at least some fifteen hundred "limited"?

You stated previously "The fact that two companies competed to the point
that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market". Now you're
suggesting market size was significant in attracting bidders....

> The fact is that we
> COULD have done it the same way we did when we built the F-15--no flying
> competitiion was held for that program (and recall that the F-15 has
enjoyed
> some significant export success in spite of it never having been involved
in
> a competitive fly-off during its initial development). Instead we chose to
> have a fly-off between the two final competitors' conceptual
vehicles--that
> decision was not a product of the market, however.

It was a product of a specific market segment, the USG and various partners
waving the 4000 unit "carrot" in front of the competitors.

The decision to fund a fly-off was expensive but justified from the
viewpoint that the requirements could not be met with any existing or
modified design. It had to be new, to mitigate the risk of an all new
aircraft it was necessary and practical to justify funding a fly-off.

>
> >
> > >--it
> > > could have just as well been handled on the basis of selecting the
best
> > > proposal from one of the firms without having developed flight-capable
> > > demonstrators, but that would not have been wise given that the basic
> > > aircraft is asked to do quite a lot more than any other current or
> planned
> > > fighter project under development anywhere in the world (demanding the
> > same
> > > basic aircraft design be capable of conventional land based use, CTOL
> > > carrier use, and STOVL was quite a tall order).
> >
> > Several points here.
> >
> > Why would anyone go to this effort if there was no return in it for
them?
> If
> > you knew you had no chance of winning you'd save your R&D budget and bow
> out
> > of the competition.
>
> The USG was providing both firms with R&D funding.

Yes but I suspect that both competitors also spent some of their own money
in the hope of edging out the competitor.

> And Boeing did not
> realize that their initial design had some serious problems until after it
> entered into the test program, by which time they just gritted their teeth
> and tried to put the best face upon the situation in hopes that they might
> get the contract

Admittedly not the wisest choice.

>(the fact that LMCO was already contracted for the F-22 was
> not necessarilly all to their benefit--Boeing had hopes that the DoD might
> be willing to further spread the wealth in the fighter design/production
> business, meaning they really were hoping for some advantageous political
> consideration in their favor).

Yes, there were the political aspects as well as the logic that putting all
the eggs into the one basket (or bird in this case) was not necessarily the
wisest thing to do.

> > You state that the basic aircraft was set requirements that no other
> > aircraft currently has. If those requirements are so valuable then there
> is
> > potentially a market for more than one offering. Sure, the market may be
> > limited in size but buyers will always prefer two options over one.
Hence,
> > an F32 could provide an alternative even allowing that it may be less
> capabl
> > e than an F35. Of course, to do this an F32 would need to be attractive
in
> > some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities
not
> > required by most customers - VTOL).
>
> I find all of the above illogical. The reason that the competition was
taken
> to the fly-off stage was that the requirements were widespread and quite
> great.

A. The requirements were for a platform to have capabilities that no
existing aircraft has.
B. The requirments were predicated on a few primary partners with differing
and sometimes unique goals.
C. Some of the broader capabilities are desirable to a wider audience than
the current JSF partners.
D. Therefore there is a market for more than the proposed JSF/F-35
production.
E. Boeing having lost the JSF market may find it viable to chase that
broader, albeit smaller, non-JSF partner market.
F. Boeing would be free of the JSF requirements which may give scope for
differing approaches.
G. Some of the lesser JSF partners may also find the Boeing alternative
attractive.
H. The broad market now has two options, even if they aren't identical in
capabilities.

> That has little or nothing to do with the eventual final market span.
> And the development of the X-32 without USG R&D would have resulted in a
> higher priced final product than the F-35.

I accept that could be the case.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
> > > > current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something
> > similar
> > > > and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds to
> see
> > > the
> > > > X32 developed into something.
> > >
> > > OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations who
> (a)
> > > are on our good guys list,
> >
> > I suggested a few but there would be others.
>
> What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony up
the
> fee for joining the F-35 program,

Yet are now enquiring about them, which suggests they can afford them OR
will be able to get concessions somehow.

> and that fee was a hell of a lot less than
> the total R&D for the F-32 would be.

Doesn't tie you to buying it either. You may be able to afford a partnership
but not buy, alternatively you might be able to afford them but don't see
the point in funding the development.

That last point is obviously a serious one if Boeing were to develop the
X-32

> Plus, Israel in a consortium invites
> the potential of alienating other potential members who would be unwilling
> to participate with them on an equal basis.

Hence they don't become partners and then bring political pressure to bear
later on.

> You mentioned Taiwan,

Its reported that they expressed interest but then I doubt that they are
really considering it.

> but taiwan
> has no interest in obtaining another less-capable fighter,

Less capable than what?

> especially one
> that is not fully compatable with US military systems--

Why wouldn't the F-35, or a Boeing wildcard, not be compatible with US
systems?

In any case, take a look at the Eurocopter Tigre. The Tigre is being made
compatible with US systems because a small customer wants it. Of course, the
manufacturer see the benefit in being US systems compatible.

>witness their early
> exit from the AIDC Ching Kuo program as soon as the F-16 became available.
> NATO allies want to reamin on the USAF standard, so that rules them out.

Only if you assume that a Boeing option wouldn't be US systems compatible,
which there is no reason to believe.

> The
> Asian allies are still wrestling with the impact of their past economic
> woes. The South American's lack the economic capital (witness further
delays
> in the current Brazilian fighter competition). So who the hell is left?
>
> >
> > >(b) are not already committed to other expensive
> > > R&D efforts, and
> >
> > Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.
>
> Two of those have already been addressed above. Australia? Nope. Lack of
> sufficient defense R&D capital to go it alone,

Alone, agreed.

> and besides, they are smart
> enough to realize that taking advantage of the USAF/USN/USMC committment
to
> the F-35 is the way to go.

The Australian argument isn't that straight forward. If it was that clear
cut the AIR6000 project would have come to that conclusion long before the
politicians made their last minute decision under pressure from the JSF
marketing team and local industry.

> You seem to be forgetting that merely developing
> and building these mythical F-32's is not the only issue--you then have to
> support that fleet for a few decades.

Note that Boeing has lots of experience supporting orphan aircraft. The RAAF
also have lots of experience with otherwise unsupportable aircraft types.

> Taking advantage of an established US
> logistics and support pipeline is a hell of a lot cheaper than creating a
> new one from scratch on your own.

Agreed, but there are many pipelines to choose so it's rarely a sole source
issue predicated solely on cost.

>
> >
> > >(c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
> > > the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly
cost
> > > more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than
the
> > F-35
> >
> > You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for,
which
> > reduces the cost somewhat.
>
> Huh? No, the additional R&D for the X-35 to get it, a much
> closer-to-final-product design than the X-32 was, is budgeted at some $28
> billion--so what do you think doing even MORE work on the X-32 would cost?

Forget the F-35, I wasn't talking about it here. The X-32 has had heaps of
R&D money pumped into it so, why not start from this position than a blank
page?

>
> >
> > > (which not only required less redesign but also enjoys the largesse of
> > Uncle
> > > Sugar handling the majority of the R&D funding, and enjoys a large
base
> > > order from the US which drives the unit cost down)
> >
> > Yes, it's not going to be easy to generate the funding but that doesn't
> mean
> > it's as impossible as you suggest. Aircraft have been designed before
with
> > the US funding it and I don't dispute that the benefit of a large base
> > order.
>
> There just is not a group of nations that share boith the resources
required
> and have the demand needed to bring the F-32 into an economic/competitive
> order book range.
>
> >
> > > and is a less capable
> > > platform than the F-35 is to boot.
> >
> > Less capable than the F35 means nothing if you don't want all the
> > capabilities of an F35.
>
> Less capable means all when you are talking about an aircraft that in the
> end will not be any cheaper than the better performer.
>
> >
> > > If you find any, let me know; I can get
> > > them some prime beachfront property in Nevada for a small finders fee,
> and
> > > if they are gullible enough to support this proposal they will surely
> find
> > > that real estate very attractive.
>
> That offer still stands.

--
The Raven

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:03:59 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 01:25:34 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
>wrote:
>
>> Lockheed is pretty much the stealth expert. Boeing has very little
>> experience building an operational stealth anything. As far as
>> construction techiques go about the only significant thing they
>> learned was that plastic wings won't work. Anything else they learned
>> such as things to speed up manufacturing are hardly enough to cover
>> the cost of developement.
>
>Northrop has a bit of experience, too, which includes the sage advice
>to leave off canards if stealth is a goal.
>
>Mary


Yeah. I was pretty much talking about just Boeing and Lockheed
though. There was a thread several years ago that kicked around the
idea that all of the published ATF ideas had canards to throw
everybody off. When it came down to it, none of the ATF proposals had
canards. Same with JSF. But it's interesting that pretty much al of
the aircraft that got their start back then all had canards. Gripen,
Typhoon, Rafale, Mig 1.42, Lavi. Anyway I'd always thought that was
an interesting observation. And yeah I remember reading about the
Northrop guy, when asked where the best location for the canard was
replied "on somebody else's aircraft". :-)

[Thomas Schoene]

The Raven wrote:
> "Lyle" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Boeing should just start working on the B-52 replacement, instead of
>> trying to improve an aircraft that nobody will buy.
>
> Well based on what's be said so far, without a firm order for a heap
> of them, plus lots of USG R&D funding, it wouldn't be
> possible...........

True. They can do some coneptual work, looking at possible configurations
and so forth. A lot of that work would be done with low-level Air Force
study funding, though there might be some company funding as well. But they
won't start any serious design effort until the Air Force ponies up some
real cash. Which it plans to do sometime around 2013, last I had heard.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-3.htm

Of course, the inital focus of a bomber replacement project will actually be
the B-2, which is scheduled to retire *before* the last B-52. The B-1 and
B-52 go out at about the same time a few years later.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Thomas Schoene]

The Raven wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>> The Raven wrote:
>>> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
>>>> footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
>>>> numbers than the F-35?
>>>
>>> I'm speculating that it could be cheaper once you drop certain JSF
>>> requirements that aren't in high demand by other global military
>>> forces. VTOL is one, sure people may desire it but few can justify
>>> it on cost and practicality.
>>
>> Let's imagine you could drive the development costs down for a
>> non-VSTOL single-configuration design. You're still talking about
>> system complexity comaprable to Eurofighter, which is costing tens
>> of billions of dollars to develop. Even the cheapest modern combat
>> aircraft program, Gripen, is costing around $5-8 billion for
>> development. And that's a very basic deasign comapred to this F-32.
>
> OK
>
>> Given the very limited potential export market, Boeing could not
>> possibly justify this cost.
>
> OK
>
>> The simple fact is that overseas buyers are seldom
>> interested in aircraft types not adopted by the US military.
>
> Sorry, I dispute that on the fact that there are plenty of military
> aircraft in use around the world which weren't adopted by the US
> military. Yes, the US military may be the largest buyer and thus have
> an influence on other buyers etc but to claim that people seldom buy
> equipment not adopted by the US military is false.

I left out a word here, so let me clarify. There is a lot of reluctance to
buy warplanes not in service with the builder's own national miliary. No
one wants to buy a *US-built* fighter not in service with the US military.
Nor do they want a European plane not flying with a European air force
first. And so forth.

>> For examples,
>> see the F-20 and F-18L.
>
> OK, that's two.

Well, for a counterexample, find me any example of a successful export of a
fighter aircraft post WW2 where some version of the same aircraft was not in
service with the building country's own armed forces. AFAIK, the only one
that even comes close is the F-5, which was never an operational fighter for
the USAF. But it was designed in an era when front-line US hardware was not
available to many buyers.

>> This is a real problem area. Boeing cannot freely market stealth
>> technology.
[snip]
> Ahh, an this was alluded to in my original posts but no-one responded
> to it. The US government would not allow Boeing to go ahead,
> assuming they wanted to, so as to retain control of technology and
> resulting capabilities that could affect US interests.

Well of course. Strictly speaking, the government can't prevent Boeing from
proceeding, it can just prohibit Boenig from using certain technologies on
the export control list. It's a lot of technologies, though.

> Buying F-35 is not a requirement for industrial involvement,
> which.the JSF Teams have said repeatedly. Being a partner, however;
> is a requirement for consideration in industrial involvement. So, as
> long as you're a partner nation the doors are open for industrial
> involvement. Once industrial involvement is contractually underway it
> would be stupid for the JSF team to yank the rug merely because a
> partner nation chose not to continue beyond the SDD phase.

Would you like to bet on those contracts being renewed/extended if the RAAF
does not buy some F-35s? I suspect they would not be, since there will be
plenty of actual F-35 buyers looking for offsets and industrial
participation themselves.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Thomas Schoene]

Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> Lockheed is pretty much the stealth expert. Boeing has very little
> experience building an operational stealth anything.

Aside from building a big chunk of the F-22 and B-2 (wing and fuselage
sections of both types, I believe) and the Commanche. And whatever black
programs they have to go along with the Bird of Prey unveiled last year.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:55:38 -0800, Lyle > wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:55:26 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Raven" wrote
>>> We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
>>strategic
>>> development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
>>> announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
>>rather
>>> than push forward with it.
>>>
>>Money of course. Both aircraft were very far from final production designs.
>>LM didn't get a $24B (that's Billion) FSD contract for nothing and Boeing
>>would be betting the company in staggering fashion...just to try and
>>duplicate Northrop's F-20 strategy.
>>
>Boeing should just start working on the B-52 replacement, instead of
>trying to improve an aircraft that nobody will buy.

Oh, like the 8.6 Billion dollar contract that they just received for more
F/A-18s and development of the Ea-18G?? I think that Boeing has
far more expertise than you.

Al Minyard

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
> The Raven wrote:

<snip>
>
> I left out a word here, so let me clarify. There is a lot of reluctance
to
> buy warplanes not in service with the builder's own national miliary. No
> one wants to buy a *US-built* fighter not in service with the US military.
> Nor do they want a European plane not flying with a European air force
> first. And so forth.
>
> >> For examples,
> >> see the F-20 and F-18L.
> >
> > OK, that's two.
>
> Well, for a counterexample, find me any example of a successful export of
a
> fighter aircraft post WW2 where some version of the same aircraft was not
in
> service with the building country's own armed forces. AFAIK, the only one
> that even comes close is the F-5, which was never an operational fighter
for
> the USAF. But it was designed in an era when front-line US hardware was
not
> available to many buyers.

Actually, the F-5 had a brief, limited scope sort-of-operational period with
the USAF in Vietnam--ISTR the program was called Skoshi Tiger (don't hold me
to the spelling).

Brooks

<snip>

[Ian]

Has an aircraft that lost a US (or any government fly-off) ever made it to
production?
"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
> We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
strategic
> development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
> announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
rather
> than push forward with it.
>
> For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward with the
X-32
> into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the competition that
> potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign nations?
> Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it could be more
> cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit unlikely)
of
> F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second JSF-like
> aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?
>
> For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have had a
market
> for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or eroded
some
> of it's competitors market. Additionally, it could upset the supposed
> superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar in
> capability to the F35 than anything else.
>
> So the question is, could there have economically been a market for the
F32
> outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing to produce
> such an aircraft?
>
> My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow Boeing to
do
> such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring that other
> nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect US
> "security".
>
> --
> The Raven
> http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
> ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
> ** since August 15th 2000.
>
>

[Ian]

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several
> technological
> > >areas.
> > >
> >
> > Such as?
>
> Construction techniques and various aspects of it's stealth design.
>
Like the construction technique for the wing? Single piece carbon fibre
complex curve. Didn't really work.....
> >
> > >> It was a dog. And it was
> > >> danged ugly, with a capital U, to boot--danged thing looked like a
> > >pregnant
> > >> cow with wings strapped on its back. Hell, it made the old EE
Lightning
> > >look
> > >> like a true beauty, and that is saying something (not knocking the
> > >> Lightning, which was a capable and fine aircraft for its day, but it
> was
> > >not
> > >> looking to win any beauty contests).
> > >
> > >I didn't know that the main criteria for selecting any piece of
military
> > >hardware was that it had to look good.
> >
> >
> > Not especially but the saying "if it looks good it'll fly good" didn't
> > come about for nothing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >The Boeing platform wasn't a "dog" otherwise it would never have gotten
> as
> > >far as it did into the competition.
> >
> > Two things. 1. Boeing didn't deliver what it promised. That's part
> > of the reason they lost. In hindsight they might have chosen the
> > McDonnel/Northrop design to go forward had they known the trouble
> > Boeing was going to have. 2. There are dogs that get to the
> > prototype stage. And actually it was emphasized that these *weren't*
> > prototypes (even though nobody was fooled by that). The A-9 comes to
> > mind as a dog. The Cutlass and the Demon are up there too and they
> > actually made it into service. Then there's the jet/turboprop
> > Thunder-something. Those two turboprop tailsitters. And so on and
> > so forth.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing
hasn't
> > >proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going
> ahead
> > >anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar
> capabilities
> > >for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out
> what
> > >this may be.
> >
> > How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
> > footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
> > numbers than the F-35?
>
> I'm speculating that it could be cheaper once you drop certain JSF
> requirements that aren't in high demand by other global military forces.
> VTOL is one, sure people may desire it but few can justify it on cost and
> practicality.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill.
> > >
> > >As major buyer, who also has a vested interest in LM selling heaps,
you'd
> > >expect that.
> >
> > Why? Why would it care if LM sells heaps?
>
> Explained previously. Obviously unit price could drop.
>
> > Hell if Boeing had won
> > with the X-32, LM could have upgraded and sold F-16s until the cows
> > came home.
>
> But as another poster already pointed out, nothing comes close to the JSF
> requirements. Thus the F-16 still wouldn't be in the same league.
>
> > There's a ton more that could be done to the F-16 to make
> > it competitive and even better than the X-32 albeit in the Air Force
> > role only.
>
> Can it be made as stealthy?
>
> > Take an F-16XL with a 36k engine with a 3D nozzle,
> > conformal tanks, a low RCS inlet like they tested on one F-16, and all
> > the electronic goodies and you'd be just about there at a lower cost
> > than the F-32 would be.
>
> Then they should do it, assuming a market with enough bucks to buy them.
>
> >
> > >Naturally Boeing would have to offer something very attractive in the
> form
> > >of capability and cost to garner enough financial interest to go ahead.
> Who
> > >funds Boeings development of any commercial aircraft today?
> >
> > Boeing.
>
> Exactly, and thus the whole argument about governmental funding becomes
> weaker. If they can perform full R&D on very expensive relatively low
> production aircraft they would be in a better position than most to fund
> further R&D on a platform that has already been funded into existence.
>
> > And let's not forget they have a LOT of experience building
> > commercial aircraft.
>
> And being one of the largest manufacturers of commerical aircraft would
thus
> would be in a better position than any other commercial manufacturer to
step
> into military aircraft production. Note that Boeing already plays a major
> part in maintaining various military aircraft.
>
> It's definitely a big and expensive step but if anyone could do it, it
would
> have to be Boeing.
>
> >
> >
> > >> a financial position to fork over the $30 billion or more required to
> make
> > >> the X-32 a real F-32?
> > >
> > >Is it really 30B or is that the forecast for the F35?
> >
> > $30 billion is quite a bit too much but even if it was only five
> > billion it would still be unsupportable.
>
> $5B is unsupportable? I think that amount, while large, to be possible.
>
> > Take manufacturing aside and
> > consider that each F-32 would be 100% profit. At five billion you'd
> > have to sell 167 aircraft just to break even.
>
> 167 wouldn't be that hard to sell when individual potential customers are
> already looking at buying 100.
>
> > That's if they cost $0
> > to build and if it was only $5 billion more to develope it and Boeing
> > making $0 dollars in the end. Factor in cost of materials and
> > manufacturing and a reasonable profit
>
> Most defence contracts do not have the "reasonable profit" that commercial
> industry expects.
>
> >and the number of aircraft you
> > have to sell to make it viable climbs dramatically.
>
> I don't think it would be that hard to sell a budget orientated stealth
> fighter, noting statements currently produced comes close to JSF
> requirements.
>
> If we assume the initial partner orders were in the vicinity of 400 units
@
> 30M there would be enough margin to cover manufacturing and profit.
>
> How much profit is their in a military aircraft with a unit price of $30M
> anyway? Not much, it's generated in the through life operational costs.
>
> > And those are
> > sales in concrete before you even start. You can't just do all the
> > work and gamble that someone will want some.
>
> Totally agree, the money must be upfront for development. Anyone joining
> into this sort of scheme would have to be fully committed.
>
> Interestingly, being a SDD partner to JSF doesn't tie you into buying
> aircraft. Many partners have joined to hedge their bets on final purchase
> whilst simultaneously getting access to some of the technology and
contracts
> to be awarded.
>
> > Northrop did that with
> > the F-20 and it was basically an upgraded F-5 and they *still* took it
> > in the shorts.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> Japan springs to mind...but they are already fully
> > >> committed to their own F-2 project.
> > >
> > >There are lots of asian nations looking for replacements, most
friendly.
> > >However, it would obviously need some careful thought and serious
> > >committment.
> >
> >
> > Take China, South Korea, and Japan out of the equation and who does
> > that leave you? Singapore? They're already in the market for a new
> > fighter *now*.
>
> As is Australia now but, they are holding off as long as possible. There
are
> also a number of lesser nations in the area who could do with a handful of
> new aircraft. The same might apply for smaller European nations.
>
> > Many of those asian countries you are thinking of are
> > already buying Flankers because that's all they can afford and they
> > aren't buying many of those.
>
> Actually only a few nations are buying Flankers and those they are getting
> are having some teething problems.
>
> > So they won't have any money for F-32s.
>
> Any idea on the price of the Flankers?
>
> > South America is out because all they can afford are last generation
> > hand-me-downs or the occasional newly built old aircraft. And as far
> > as serious commitment goes, as I pointed out Boeing would have to
> > essentially say "give us the money up front and we'll build you
> > something". They couldn't take the chance that the country(s) would
> > say "uh, we changed our mind" which EVERY country does. Who in the
> > last twenty years has EVER bought as many as they thought they were?
>
> Quite a few working with tight budgets and tighter contracts.
>
> > >> Recall that one of the reasons Boeing
> > >> came up short in this competition was that their X-32 was apparently
> quite
> > >a
> > >> bit further from being a workable fighter than the competing LMCO
X-35
> > >was;
> > >> Boeing had already had to admit that some *major* redesign would be
> > >required
> > >> based upon flight test results of the X-32.
> > >
> > >Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?
> >
> >
> > Boeing? Nope. Which *definitely* doesn't inspire confidence.
>
> Only if you ignore the fact that Boeing is one of the largest and most
> successful manufacturers of aircraft in the world. If anyone other than a
> pure defence contractor could produce a platform for military use, it
would
> have to be them.
>
> > Sure
> > they have McDonnel Douglas that they incorporated but I'd be willing
> > to bet most of those employees were saying "hell no we didn't design
> > that POS".
>
> Guess who's keeping the F-111's flying? Sure, that's not manufacturing but
> Boeing isn't a newbie to the defence industry either.
>
> >
> > >Fair enough, the X35 is superior to the X32 but I wouldn't rule out
that
> the
> > >X32 could not be developed into something very capable.
> >
> >
> > Lots of aircraft could. The F-14 was going to be an ASS kicking
> > machine before they threw it to the dogs. The F-14D was just the
> > beginning.
> >
> >
> > >The crux of the X32
> > >development is, who would fund it and whether enough could be built to
> make
> > >it viable. I think it's a shame to see the X32 be discontinued merely
> > >because it didn't meet a specific specification yet shows promise.
> >
> >
> > Look at the F-23 and it *did* meet spec. and had a hell of a lot more
> > promise.
>
> That may be true and perhaps it should have gone on to become something
else
> for another customer. It seems a shame that so many promising designs are
> scrapped soley because they didn't finish first in a competition designed
to
> meet the requirements of a couple of specific customers.
>
> > >Sorry, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the US. I was
responding
> to
> > >your use of the word "government" implying the US government. I took it
> that
> > >you ruled out all other governments as a possible source of funding.
> >
> >
> > Who could fund it? What combination of likely countries could fund
> > it?
>
> Based on the previously mentioned $5B and, the non-JSF partners are
implying
> they want F-35s, we can come back to Japan, Israel, possibly Taiwan, and
> perhaps Singapore as possible buyers. Throw in some existing JSF partners
> who haven't committed to F35 and you may be getting close, Australia needs
> 75-100 aircraft for example.
>
> Now whether these countries could spring for both development and purchase
> is the issue. Perhaps not, but if a few smaller nations opted in you may a
> higher number of small sales which might get to a more economic number of
> aircraft at a nominal $30M each.
>
> > >I don't know if there were significant design flaws but I appreciate
that
> a
> > >prototype is a prototype and not expected to be perfect.
> >
> Well the fact that the only thing the prototype had in common with
> > their proposed production model was that they were both ugly suggest
> > that there were significant design flaws.
>
> Ugly seemed to be related to that chin intake. From every other angle but
> head and side on it didn't look that bad.
>
> > They went from a swept
> > forward intake to a swept back. They went from a delta wing to a
> > conventional tailed aircraft. After they did those they later found
> > out "uh wait, things are going to get too hot" so they added another
> > significant vent on each side of the cockpit. Who knows what else
> > they'd have tripped over on their way to a production aircraft.
>
> Most of the heat problems were related to the VTOL requirement, if you
> remove that hurdle the whole thing becomes a lot simpler.
>
> >
> > >Obviously, the X32
> > >didn't perform as well as teh X35. Some redesign may be necessary but I
> > >don't think the aircraft is inherently bad. If it was so bad, it would
> never
> > >have made it into the competition or remained there until the end.
> >
> > What made it that far was what Boeing promised. What they delivered
> > was something else.
>
> Defence Marketing 101
>
> The buyers specification never matches their expectation.
> The contractors initial marketing never quite matches the final item.
>
> > >I not so certain it's completely unworkable. Difficult yes, viable
maybe.
> > >Certainly it would be better than someone embarking on another all new
> > >aircraft design.
> >
> > You mean like the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen? Once the F-35 enters
> > production it's very likely going to clean up the market.
>
> Because it's the only option for that general capability. Perhaps if there
> was a competitor it would be different.
>
> > I wouldn't
> > be at all suprised if no more Typhoons or Rafales were sold after
> > that.
>
> Australia's AIR6000 project were consider both, amongst others.
>
> > Maybe some Gripens if the price is right. Lots of last
> > generation aircraft will still be sold IMO
>
> Always will be.
>
> > but the F-35 will be the
> > one to have for new designs. Mind you, I'm not saying it's BETTER
> > than the Typhoon but that the difference in capability isn't worth the
> > difference in cost.
> >
> >
> > >> Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from
being
> an
> > >> F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35.
> > >
> > >I agree it's less mature but that doesn't mean it's so bad it should be
> > >scrapped.
> >
> > The F-23 was far better than the X-32 and one of those prototypes is
> > in a friggin CLASSROOM and the other is in a dirt lot out in back of a
> > hanger somewhere.
>
> A shame isn't it? However I doubt the F-23 would have met the stealth
> requirements. BTW what's the projected range for the F-23?
>
> >
> >
> > >I'm not suggesting that the X32 be developed into a direct competitor
> with a
> > >100% match in capability to the F35. The suggestion is that the X32
> > >development not be wasted and that it could be developed into something
> > >viable. Not everyone wants the full JSF capability or can afford it.
The
> X32
> > >has the potentional to fill that market.
> >
> > That market is already being filled by late model F-16s, F-15s,
> > Flankers, Gripens, Rafales, Typhoons, Super Hornets and so on.
>
> But none of those have the reported levels of stealth the JSF contenders
> had.
>
> >
> > >> No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
> > >> competitor for further development.
> > >
> > >Which was decided by the government and their end users who had
specific
> > >requirements in mind. These requirements do not necessarily reflect
those
> of
> > >everyone else but, they may come close.
> >
> > So do a lot of aircraft that are already on the market.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> The fact that two companies competed to
> > >> the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market
> > >
> > >Obviously it did. No use bidding to produce and aircraft which has such
a
> > >limited market the customer won't be able to afford it and you wont be
> able
> > >to sell it elsewhere.
> >
> >
> > YF-22 & YF-23. 'nuff said.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>--it
> > >> could have just as well been handled on the basis of selecting the
best
> > >> proposal from one of the firms without having developed
flight-capable
> > >> demonstrators, but that would not have been wise given that the basic
> > >> aircraft is asked to do quite a lot more than any other current or
> planned
> > >> fighter project under development anywhere in the world (demanding
the
> > >same
> > >> basic aircraft design be capable of conventional land based use, CTOL
> > >> carrier use, and STOVL was quite a tall order).
> > >
> > >Several points here.
> > >
> > >Why would anyone go to this effort if there was no return in it for
them?
> If
> > >you knew you had no chance of winning you'd save your R&D budget and
bow
> out
> > >of the competition.
> >
> > Boeing thought they did have a chance although by the looks on their
> > faces they clearly didn't think it was much of one as the competition
> > progressed and the X-35 showed it's stuff.
>
> Lessons learnt, perhaps they should apply them to what they have now so
they
> can be better prepared for next time (other buyers).
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >You state that the basic aircraft was set requirements that no other
> > >aircraft currently has. If those requirements are so valuable then
there
> is
> > >potentially a market for more than one offering.
> >
> > But the X-32 failed to meet those requirements.
>
> I believe one of the biggest failings was STOVL. It was a key requirement
> for those planning to replace Harriers, beyond that not many forces would
> put such a high value on the VTOL element.
>
> >
> > >ure, the market may be
> > >limited in size but buyers will always prefer two options over one.
> Hence,
> > >an F32 could provide an alternative even allowing that it may be less
> capabl
> > >e than an F35.
> >
> > Why would they want something that was less capable and more
> > expensive?
>
> We can't say it will be more expensive but if you drop the expensive and
> technological difficult VTOL capability the costs are likely to be less.
>
> > >f course, to do this an F32 would need to be attractive in
> > >some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities
not
> > >required by most customers - VTOL).
> >
> > It wouldnt' be cheaper and if they wanted to trade off VTOL they'd buy
> > the F-35A instead of B.
>
> What is the price difference between the three F-35 variants? Quoted
figures
> never made the distinction on model type.
>
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
> > >> > current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something
> > >similar
> > >> > and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds to
> see
> > >> the
> > >> > X32 developed into something.
> > >>
> > >> OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations who
> (a)
> > >> are on our good guys list,
> > >
> > >I suggested a few but there would be others.
> > >
> > >>(b) are not already committed to other expensive
> > >> R&D efforts, and
> > >
> > >Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.
> >
> > Austraila is signed up on the F-35,
>
> No, they have only signed up for the SDD phase. There is nothing more than
a
> vague committment to buy, nothing in writing yet.
>
> > Israel is buying more F-15s and
> > F-16s and Taiwan isn't in the market at the moment IRC.
>
> Israel may be buying F-15 and F-16s but they've indicated a desire for
F-35s
> and a preference to get in early on the production...
>
> Japan is rumoured to be looking at JSF to go on their proposed aircraft
> carriers (which they prefer to call destroyers with helo decks). OK, if
that
> was the case then they'd want STOVL and I'm implying Boeing could drop
> that....
>
> NZ could do with a few, even a token number to keep some pilots/expertise,
> considering they have nothing really left.
>
> >
> > >
> > >>(c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
> > >> the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly
> cost
> > >> more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than
the
> > >F-35
> > >
> > >You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for,
which
> > >reduces the cost somewhat.
> >
> > Not as much as you'd think.
>
> Surely an equal amount to what has already been spent to get to this
point.
> That's nothing to sneeze at, even if it does leave a big amount still to
be
> spent.
>
> > Boeing's final design was completely
> > different than the X-32, and the engine would need more developement.
>
> A more conventional engine may be practical if that STOVL is dropped.
>
> > Basically all Boeing got out of the experience was "I think our code
> > works sort of, a plastic wing doesn't, and the engine might be good if
> > it was more powerful and our plane was lighter".
>
> OK, but I think they learnt a bit more than that :-)
>
> >
> > >
> > >> (which not only required less redesign but also enjoys the largesse
of
> > >Uncle
> > >> Sugar handling the majority of the R&D funding, and enjoys a large
base
> > >> order from the US which drives the unit cost down)
> > >
> > >Yes, it's not going to be easy to generate the funding but that doesn't
> mean
> > >it's as impossible as you suggest. Aircraft have been designed before
> with
> > >the US funding it and I don't dispute that the benefit of a large base
> > >order.
> >
> > I assume you meant to say "without the US funding it".
>
> Yes, my oops.
>
> > If Boeing
> > decided to continue with the X-32 it's very unlikely they'd even get
> > the time of day from the government let alone any money.
>
> Hence the need to go direct to potential buyers rather than ask the US
> Government for R&D.
>
> > And what
> > aircraft have been developed that weren't funded by a major country?
>
> What's your definition of a major country?
>
> > Taiwan came up with one. I think it's South Korea that's doing the
> > one with Lockheed and I think that's about it.
>
> Australia did seriously consider it several decades back but took the
easier
> option of buying Mirages.
>
> > Sweden is sortof in
> > there with the Gripen but IIRC they have more money to spend that any
> > of the third string asian nations that might be in the market for an
> > F-32.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> and is a less capable
> > >> platform than the F-35 is to boot.
> > >
> > >Less capable than the F35 means nothing if you don't want all the
> > >capabilities of an F35.
> >
> > There are a plethora of alternatives already out there. If I was a
> > potential buyer would I want to fork out a bunch of money for an
> > aircraft that lost and whos "final" configuration has never flown? Or
> > would I want a nice shiny Block 60 F-16 or F-15K for less money?
>
> Depends on how much risk you're willing to face for the chance of having
the
> edge over potential enemies. Some might consider that a viable option.
>
> Yes, I see that the idea of turning the X-32 into a production aircraft
> isn't a walk in the park. There are some serious economic issues to be
> considered. However, to consign it to the dustbin seems a huge waste of
tax
> payer funded R&D. I still believe there is sufficient market for this type
> of aircraft even if it isn't up to the formal JSF competition spec. If any
> commercial aircraft company could do it, it would have to be Boeing.
>
> --
> The Raven
> http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
> ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
> ** since August 15th 2000.
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > >
> > > > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > > .. .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in
> the
> > > > > > strategic
> > > > > > > development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition
> winner
> > > was
> > > > > > > announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole
> > concept
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > than push forward with it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suspect some of their X-32 technology is making its way into
> their
> > > > UCAV
> > > > > > conceptual vehicle.
> > > > >
> > > > > No doubt a lot of the technology will be used but the platform
> itself
> > > was
> > > > > pretty impressive despite not winning the JSF contest.
> > > >
> > > > Not really--that was why it lost to the LMCO bid.
> > >
> > > It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several
> > technological
> > > areas.
> >
> > Name an area where its performance was superior to that of the X-35.
>
> That is not what I said and thus you're question is misleading.

Then it is by definition "inferior". Where is this wonderful "impressive
technological" performance you keep ranting about? Its screwed up wing? Its
lack of sufficient tail area? Its inadequate power plant or putrid STOVL
system? Where is this vaunted performance?

<snip>


> >
> > >
> > > The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing
hasn't
> > > proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going
> ahead
> > > anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar
> > capabilities
> > > for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out
> > what
> > > this may be.
> >
> > LOL! "Similar capabilities at a lower cost, and all without the benefit
> ogf
> > the US taxpayers' largesse!" What planet are you from? Since the X-32
> > airframe was further from being a fighter than the X-35 was, and the
> latter
> > is taking some $28 billion to develop, just how the heck do you figure
the
> > major redesign of the X-32 (like adding that whole tail reconfiguration,
> > etc., into the mix) would be *cheaper*?!
>
> Once again you're equating similar with identical.

No, once again I am equating a poorly designed and performing X-32 with
numerous obvious and serious design and performance shortfalls with
requiring comparitively MORE subsequent R&D funding to try and turn it into
a LESS capable fighter than the X-35-to-F-35 progression.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill.
> > >
> > > As major buyer, who also has a vested interest in LM selling heaps,
> you'd
> > > expect that.
> >
> > And without a major buyer, or combination thereof adding up to the
fifteen
> > hundred or so the US is purchasing, your less-than-F-35-capable F-32 is
> > going to have a higher unit cost, even if you were to claim that the
X-32
> > development cost just matched that of the X-35. Toss in the R&D funding
> that
> > the US would NOT be contributing to the X-32, and your unit cost just
went
> > way up. Sorry, but you are using some serious voodoo budget planning if
> you
> > think you can get the X-32 sans USG R&D funding to match the cost of the
> > F-35.

I did not think you'd be able to fight that one.

<snip>

> > > >
> > > > Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from
being
> > an
> > > > F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35.
> > >
> > > I agree it's less mature but that doesn't mean it's so bad it should
be
> > > scrapped.
> >
> > Why should it not be? Are you really saying it would be advantageous to
> dump
> > *more* R&D funding into trying to make the X-32 a workable fighter than
it
> > would be to just take advantage of the US committment to the F-35 and
just
> > buy into the more capable aircraft (F-35)?
>
> No, I'm saying it's cheaper to pick up the development of an existing
design
> than start fresh. I've already said that not everyone will want an F-35.

You have ignored the fact that (a) R&D to get a clunky X-32 into the shape
needed to be a viable fighter aircraft is going to be more than it takes to
get the much-closer-to-final-product X-35 to the F-35 stage, and (b) for
that additional monetary committment, you end up with an aircraft that is
less capable than the F-35. How many nations are going to say, "Yeah, let's
commit a few billion dollars to R&D, and then buy the resulting F-32 at X
million dollars per copy, as opposed to just paying X million dollars per
copy for the MORE capable F-35, and let's start our own logisitics and
service support structure for our F-32's to boot!"? Not many, IMO.

<snip>

> > >
> > > Depends on the final capability requirements, which may not be the
same
> as
> > > the F35. Where not even certain of what all the final capabilities of
> the
> > > F35 will be. Just because it doesn't beat an F35 doesn't mean it's
> > inferior.
> >
> > Yes it does! That is the definition of inferior, for gosh sakes!
>
> Inferior to one set of requirements doesn't imply inferior to all others.
> Compromise, adaption....

Nope. Name an area where your F-32 would NOT be an inferior performer to the
F-35. Any area, any mission.

>
> > What you
> > are instead arguing is that it might still be more *cost effective*
based
> > upon this fantastical situation where the F-32 comes up cheaper (based
> upon
> > final unit cost with all R&D included) than the F-35,
>
> Forget the damn JSF requirements and the F-35, it's decided and over. That
> specific market is gone so, stop locking yourself into a narrow view of
"it
> must be a JSF/F-35 equal".

Well gee, it appears MOST rational nations prefer to spend their money on
the best performance they can afford. Since we (myself and a slew of other
posters) have repeatedly shown that you are extremely unlikely to bring any
F-32 online at any significant savings per unit copy compared to the F-35,
then you are left with being able to sell your notional F-32's only to
irrational governments that might want to plunk down the same money for less
performance, so where does that leave your argument standing?

>
> What about the rest of the world and the possibility that the X-32 could
be
> adapted to meet a different but not wildly dis-similar set of
requirements.
> Sure, it's a challenging proposition but fare more practical than starting
> with a blank piece of paper because, beyond that, no other option exists
for
> a similar role.

If they don't need JSF level performance they would be much better off
buying later block F-16's, F-18E/F, Gripen, Mirage 2000, etc. Which don't
require the oodles of R&D committment that your F-32 does. You seem to be
advocating development of an F-32 that offers F-16-like performance, but at
greater than F-16 cost--bad strategy, IMO.

>
> > and that just is not
> > gonna happen. Period.
>
> That might be the case. It's a matter of exploring possibilities here,
hence
> asking the questions.

As others have pointed out, this question is just a non-starter from the
get-go. It is a BAD idea.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > and you'd have dumped beaucoup bucks
> > > > into making *that* a reality.
> > >
> > > I'm not suggesting that the X32 be developed into a direct competitor
> with
> > a
> > > 100% match in capability to the F35. The suggestion is that the X32
> > > development not be wasted and that it could be developed into
something
> > > viable. Not everyone wants the full JSF capability or can afford it.
The
> > X32
> > > has the potentional to fill that market.
> >
> > But it would be MORE expensive than the F-35!
>
> That's you're assumption and you're welcome to it. We know that if the
X-32
> had been selected it would have needed redesign that the X-35 didn't.
Beyond
> that we could assume that either aircraft would probably consume a similar
> amount of SDD funding to meet the final production spec.
>
> I was postulating that with a pre-existing design, not yet locked in
> concrete, and a new set of non-JSF specific requirements it would be far
> easier/cheaper to get an aircraft into production than start afresh.
>
> You've made some very good comments about development costs, unit prices,
> finding customers, funding etc. They are obviously serious issues and
issues
> worth considering.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >Not a good way of doing business, even at the
> > > > governmental level.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There's obviously a market for this type of aircraft or the
> > competition
> > > > > wouldn't have taken place.
> > > >
> > > > No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
> > > > competitor for further development.
>
> So what happens with the X-32 design? Plenty of good research and design
> there that could be picked up by someone, albeit someone(s) with lots of
> money.

Not that much good design, from what I have read. Boeing will take what good
parts there are and try to use them in their UCAV proposal; beyond that,
they are going to take that overweight pony that is the X-32 out into the
desert and put it out of its misery, more than likely.

>
> > >
> > > Which was decided by the government and their end users who had
specific
> > > requirements in mind. These requirements do not necessarily reflect
> those
> > of
> > > everyone else but, they may come close.
> > >
> > > > The fact that two companies competed to
> > > > the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the
market
> > >
> > > Obviously it did. No use bidding to produce and aircraft which has
such
> a
> > > limited market the customer won't be able to afford it and you wont be
> > able
> > > to sell it elsewhere.
> >
> > What? You call a two-thousand aircraft market "limited"?
>
> No, please reread. Obviously market size (particularly units forecast) did
> play a part in the JSF competition.

But NOT in determining how the procurement would be played out in terms of
the issue of whether to have a competitive fly-off or to just select the
best final proposal for a one-off flying demo. OK?

>
> > Or the US
> > committment to at least some fifteen hundred "limited"?
>
> You stated previously "The fact that two companies competed to the point
> that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market". Now you're
> suggesting market size was significant in attracting bidders....

They competed to that point because the USG funded that level of
competition. The USG could just as easily have said it was going to only
fund one flying prototype from among the best final proposals--it has done
so in the past.

>
> > The fact is that we
> > COULD have done it the same way we did when we built the F-15--no flying
> > competitiion was held for that program (and recall that the F-15 has
> enjoyed
> > some significant export success in spite of it never having been
involved
> in
> > a competitive fly-off during its initial development). Instead we chose
to
> > have a fly-off between the two final competitors' conceptual
> vehicles--that
> > decision was not a product of the market, however.
>
> It was a product of a specifi market segment, the USG and various
partners
> waving the 4000 unit "carrot" in front of the competitors.

Size of market had precious little to do with it.

>
> The decision to fund a fly-off was expensive but justified from the
> viewpoint that the requirements could not be met with any existing or
> modified design. It had to be new, to mitigate the risk of an all new
> aircraft it was necessary and practical to justify funding a fly-off.

Bingo! Now you have it! The above was the justification for going to the
point of a competitive fly-off--nothing to do with the export market size.


<snip>

> > >
> > > Why would anyone go to this effort if there was no return in it for
> them?
> > If
> > > you knew you had no chance of winning you'd save your R&D budget and
bow
> > out
> > > of the competition.
> >
> > The USG was providing both firms with R&D funding.
>
> Yes but I suspect that both competitors also spent some of their own money
> in the hope of edging out the competitor.

Yep, they did. And Boeing made some bad choices with how to pursue it using
those funds, resulting in a poorly performing prototype. You recall there
was not much whining from the Boeing camp when the X-35 was announced as
winner--the Boeing folks knew they had been outperformed.

>
> > And Boeing did not
> > realize that their initial design had some serious problems until after
it
> > entered into the test program, by which time they just gritted their
teeth
> > and tried to put the best face upon the situation in hopes that they
might
> > get the contract
>
> Admittedly not the wisest choice.

At that point they did not have much choice--the lion's share of the
expenses had already been absorbed, as had their share of the USG funding,
so there was nothing to lose by pushing through to the bitter end.

>
> >(the fact that LMCO was already contracted for the F-22 was
> > not necessarilly all to their benefit--Boeing had hopes that the DoD
might
> > be willing to further spread the wealth in the fighter design/production
> > business, meaning they really were hoping for some advantageous
political
> > consideration in their favor).
>
> Yes, there were the political aspects as well as the logic that putting
all
> the eggs into the one basket (or bird in this case) was not necessarily
the
> wisest thing to do.

On the contrary--using the X-35 as the basis for all of the variants to be
developed offers significant future savings in terms of logisitics and unit
costs. If by the "one basket" bit you mean putting both the ATF and JSF
projects in the same corporate hands, it again is not such a bad thing. LMCO
holding the JSF with its admittedly better performing F-35 means that LMCO
does not squeal quite as loudly when the DoD (very possibly) rams home its
plans to reduce the purchase quantity of the much more expensive F/A-22.

>
> > > You state that the basic aircraft was set requirements that no other
> > > aircraft currently has. If those requirements are so valuable then
there
> > is
> > > potentially a market for more than one offering. Sure, the market may
be
> > > limited in size but buyers will always prefer two options over one.
> Hence,
> > > an F32 could provide an alternative even allowing that it may be less
> > capabl
> > > e than an F35. Of course, to do this an F32 would need to be
attractive
> in
> > > some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities
> not
> > > required by most customers - VTOL).
> >
> > I find all of the above illogical. The reason that the competition was
> taken
> > to the fly-off stage was that the requirements were widespread and quite
> > great.
>
> A. The requirements were for a platform to have capabilities that no
> existing aircraft has.
> B. The requirments were predicated on a few primary partners with
differing
> and sometimes unique goals.
> C. Some of the broader capabilities are desirable to a wider audience than
> the current JSF partners.
> D. Therefore there is a market for more than the proposed JSF/F-35
> production.
> E. Boeing having lost the JSF market may find it viable to chase that
> broader, albeit smaller, non-JSF partner market.
> F. Boeing would be free of the JSF requirements which may give scope for
> differing approaches.
> G. Some of the lesser JSF partners may also find the Boeing alternative
> attractive.
> H. The broad market now has two options, even if they aren't identical in
> capabilities.

See earlier arguments why the F-32 can't compete in that environment due to
both cost and existing platforms that already fill that niche.

>
> > That has little or nothing to do with the eventual final market span.
> > And the development of the X-32 without USG R&D would have resulted in a
> > higher priced final product than the F-35.
>
> I accept that could be the case.

It would be. Leaving you with an aircraft in the F-16/Mirage 2000/Gripen
capability range, at the cost of the F-35, or at least very near to it. That
just is not marketable.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
> > > > > current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something
> > > similar
> > > > > and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds
to
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > > X32 developed into something.
> > > >
> > > > OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations
who
> > (a)
> > > > are on our good guys list,
> > >
> > > I suggested a few but there would be others.
> >
> > What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony up
> the
> > fee for joining the F-35 program,
>
> Yet are now enquiring about them, which suggests they can afford them OR
> will be able to get concessions somehow.

Sure they will be able to afford buying the aircraft, using US aid money
just as they currently do for all of their US aircraft purchases. But they
could NOT pony up the R&D requirement for your F-32--witness their immediate
collapse of the Lavi program the instant the USG funding was pulled.

>
> > and that fee was a hell of a lot less than
> > the total R&D for the F-32 would be.
>
> Doesn't tie you to buying it either. You may be able to afford a
partnership
> but not buy, alternatively you might be able to afford them but don't see
> the point in funding the development.
>
> That last point is obviously a serious one if Boeing were to develop the
> X-32
>
> > Plus, Israel in a consortium invites
> > the potential of alienating other potential members who would be
unwilling
> > to participate with them on an equal basis.
>
> Hence they don't become partners and then bring political pressure to bear
> later on.
>
> > You mentioned Taiwan,
>
> Its reported that they expressed interest but then I doubt that they are
> really considering it.
>
> > but taiwan
> > has no interest in obtaining another less-capable fighter,
>
> Less capable than what?

Than what they can get their hands on otherwise.

>
> > especially one
> > that is not fully compatable with US military systems--
>
> Why wouldn't the F-35, or a Boeing wildcard, not be compatible with US
> systems?

The F-35 IS going to be compatible with US systems--that is one of its big
selling points. Any wildcard F-32 won't be--we won't carry its logistics
load in the USAF if the USAF is not a user.

>
> In any case, take a look at the Eurocopter Tigre. The Tigre is being made
> compatible with US systems because a small customer wants it. Of course,
the
> manufacturer see the benefit in being US systems compatible.

There is comaptible, and there is compatible. Most nations that envision the
US as a likely ally want to have some form of close compatibility with US
sytems, so they BUY US systems. Beyond that there is the issue of logistical
support, not to be minimized, either--an F-16 or F-35 operator knows that he
can get spares and support from the USG, and that in a coalition effort the
US can even further support his aircraft if required. Buying a bunch of
F-32's that are NOT operated by the USG is not going to give you that
capability.

>
> >witness their early
> > exit from the AIDC Ching Kuo program as soon as the F-16 became availabl
e.
> > NATO allies want to reamin on the USAF standard, so that rules them out.
>
> Only if you assume that a Boeing option wouldn't be US systems compatible,
> which there is no reason to believe.

IT WON'T BE OPERATED BY THE US. It won't be supported, as an entire system,
by the USG, meaning you have to set up your own indigenous support network.
Bad move.

>
> > The
> > Asian allies are still wrestling with the impact of their past economic
> > woes. The South American's lack the economic capital (witness further
> delays
> > in the current Brazilian fighter competition). So who the hell is left?
> >
> > >
> > > >(b) are not already committed to other expensive
> > > > R&D efforts, and
> > >
> > > Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.
> >
> > Two of those have already been addressed above. Australia? Nope. Lack of
> > sufficient defense R&D capital to go it alone,
>
> Alone, agreed.
>
> > and besides, they are smart
> > enough to realize that taking advantage of the USAF/USN/USMC committment
> to
> > the F-35 is the way to go.
>
> The Australian argument isn't that straight forward. If it was that clear
> cut the AIR6000 project would have come to that conclusion long before the
> politicians made their last minute decision under pressure from the JSF
> marketing team and local industry.

Australia has two choices--go with the US, or go with a European system. If
it chooses a US system, it will invariably be one that the USG is itself
operating--they know from experience how difficult it can get when they
operate a system no longer in the USG inventory (though they have taken
advantage of some surplus offers of F-111's to facilitate spares supply).

>
> > You seem to be forgetting that merely developing
> > and building these mythical F-32's is not the only issue--you then have
to
> > support that fleet for a few decades.
>
> Note that Boeing has lots of experience supporting orphan aircraft. The
RAAF
> also have lots of experience with otherwise unsupportable aircraft types.

But without the backbone of a US military logistics support network, not to
mention the advantage in terms of cost due to the much larger volume of
spares purchased, the F-32 buyer is left at a distinct disadvantage.

>
> > Taking advantage of an established US
> > logistics and support pipeline is a hell of a lot cheaper than creating
a
> > new one from scratch on your own.
>
> Agreed, but there are many pipelines to choose so it's rarely a sole
source
> issue predicated solely on cost.

So you think buying 50 F-32 widgets for your orphan force is going to be as
cheap as buying 50 widgets for the F-35 on top of the 1000 F-35 widgets
purchased by the US military? Nope.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >(c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
> > > > the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly
> cost
> > > > more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than
> the
> > > F-35
> > >
> > > You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for,
> which
> > > reduces the cost somewhat.
> >
> > Huh? No, the additional R&D for the X-35 to get it, a much
> > closer-to-final-product design than the X-32 was, is budgeted at some
$28
> > billion--so what do you think doing even MORE work on the X-32 would
cost?
>
> Forget the F-35, I wasn't talking about it here. The X-32 has had heaps of
> R&D money pumped into it so, why not start from this position than a blank
> page?

But that IS a comparitive blank page! The X-32 was MUCH further from being
an F-32 and is going to require substantially more redesign, flight testing,
etc. to make it one.

<snip>

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ian" > wrote in message
...
> Has an aircraft that lost a US (or any government fly-off) ever made it to
> production?

The B-32 (Dominator, IIRC) reached low production during WWII after being
bested by the B-29,; it even saw some combat use late in the war. I believe
if you look into WWII and preWWII decisions on production you will find
other examples where a "lesser performer" was entered into production to
either ensure agianst the possibility of later technical concerns sidelining
the better aircraft (as was the case with the B-32), or to take advantage of
other industrial capabilities (i.e., inline versus radial engine production
could impact the decsision to produce a lesser performer). In modern times
the F-18 is a direct descendent of the losing YF-17 in the LWF competition
that saw the F-16 win. The US Army's LOH competition in the early sixties
saw the Hughes OH-6 defeat the Bell 206 for the award of the contract, but
the 206 later became a very successful aircraft, eventually ironically
replacing, in its OH/AH-58 guise, the same OH-6 that it had originally lost
out to.

Brooks

<snip>

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 09:53:39 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

> >I didn't know that the main criteria for selecting any piece of military
> >hardware was that it had to look good.
>
> Not especially but the saying "if it looks good it'll fly good" didn't
> come about for nothing.

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due to
ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a C_D_U
of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:53:20 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>Scott Ferrin wrote:
>>
>> Lockheed is pretty much the stealth expert. Boeing has very little
>> experience building an operational stealth anything.
>
>Aside from building a big chunk of the F-22 and B-2 (wing and fuselage
>sections of both types, I believe) and the Commanche. And whatever black
>programs they have to go along with the Bird of Prey unveiled last year.


The F-22 was developed by Lockheed and the B-2 by Northrop. IIRC on
both aircraft the "stealthy" features are all done inhouse. So as
far as publicly known projects go Boeing seems to be limited to the
BoP the X-45, and X-46. Sure they've done things like the Super
Hornet and SLAM-ER that have a degree of stealth and the datat form
the Commanche and X-36 which they inherited but both Lockheed and
Northrop's experience goes clear back to the fifties. Compared to
Lockheed and Northrop does have very little experience. I never said
they didn't have *any* I just meant that compared to the other two
they don't have much.

[Felger Carbon]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to
> ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U
> of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

[Chad Irby]

In article . net>,
"Felger Carbon" > wrote:

> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
> > to ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
> > C_D_U of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.
>
> Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
> previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
> overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

Considering that C_D_U only has a scale of 1 to 250, that's hard to say.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Errol Cavit]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article . net>,
> "Felger Carbon" > wrote:
>
> > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
> > > to ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
> > > C_D_U of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.
> >
> > Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
> > previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
> > overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.
>
> Considering that C_D_U only has a scale of 1 to 250, that's hard to say.
>

You forgot to allow for the LUF (Load Ugliness Factor) - all those Mavericks
staring back at you.


--
Errol Cavit | | It is currently fashionable to speak
of the histories of a nation, as if there are many versions of national
history (which there are), and many ways of approaching such histories
(which there are), and as if they were all of equal value and validity
(which they are not). Michael King <The Penguin History of NZ>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:16:21 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:53:20 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:
>
>>Scott Ferrin wrote:
>>>
>>> Lockheed is pretty much the stealth expert. Boeing has very little
>>> experience building an operational stealth anything.
>>
>>Aside from building a big chunk of the F-22 and B-2 (wing and fuselage
>>sections of both types, I believe) and the Commanche. And whatever black
>>programs they have to go along with the Bird of Prey unveiled last year.
>
>
>The F-22 was developed by Lockheed and the B-2 by Northrop. IIRC on
>both aircraft the "stealthy" features are all done inhouse. So as
>far as publicly known projects go Boeing seems to be limited to the
>BoP the X-45, and X-46. Sure they've done things like the Super
>Hornet and SLAM-ER that have a degree of stealth and the datat form
>the Commanche and X-36 which they inherited but both Lockheed and
>Northrop's experience goes clear back to the fifties. Compared to
>Lockheed and Northrop does have very little experience. I never said
>they didn't have *any* I just meant that compared to the other two
>they don't have much.


(uh. . .if you need that in english let me know LOL)

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Errol Cavit" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article . net>,
> > "Felger Carbon" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
> > > > to ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
> > > > C_D_U of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.
> > >
> > > Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
> > > previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
> > > overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.
> >
> > Considering that C_D_U only has a scale of 1 to 250, that's hard to say.
> >
>
> You forgot to allow for the LUF (Load Ugliness Factor) - all those Mavericks
> staring back at you.

....and you get an extra ten points for each piece of tree embedded in
the leading edge.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:21:35 GMT, "Felger Carbon" >
wrote:

> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
> to
> > ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
> C_D_U
> > of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.
>
> Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
> previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
> overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

At an SETP Symposium many, many years ago, the A-10 test pilot who
complained that the classically graceful lines of the A-10 were ruined
by a tested gun gas deflector also opined that the A-10 looked like
the result of a menage a trois between a hyper bomber and two cement
trucks.

It's kind of hard to top that.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[John Keeney]

"Ian" > wrote in message
...
> Has an aircraft that lost a US (or any government fly-off) ever made it to
> production?

Well.......
I guess it depends on how strictly you wish to interpret the question.
Clearly there were a lot of US built products during WWII that
never saw any real service with US forces.

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:12:09 -0000, Ian > wrote:
>Has an aircraft that lost a US (or any government fly-off) ever made it to
>production?

The Heinkel He 112 saw limited production, IIRC.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Mary Shafer wrote:
>

> Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due to
> ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a C_D_U
> of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Why am I reminded of formulaic relationships
between "angle of dangle" and the "mass of ass"?

;-)

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Chad Irby wrote:
>
[ concerning ugly warthogs...]

> ...and you get an extra ten points for each piece of tree embedded in
> the leading edge.

Double bonus for a birdstrike on trailing edges...

[Thomas Schoene]

Scott Ferrin wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:16:21 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
> wrote:
>> The F-22 was developed by Lockheed and the B-2 by Northrop. IIRC on
>> both aircraft the "stealthy" features are all done inhouse. So as
>> far as publicly known projects go Boeing seems to be limited to the
>> BoP the X-45, and X-46. Sure they've done things like the Super
>> Hornet and SLAM-ER that have a degree of stealth and the datat form
>> the Commanche and X-36 which they inherited but both Lockheed and
>> Northrop's experience goes clear back to the fifties. Compared to
>> Lockheed and Northrop does have very little experience. I never said
>> they didn't have *any* I just meant that compared to the other two
>> they don't have much.
>
>
> (uh. . .if you need that in english let me know LOL)

No, I think I got it. :-)

And I guess I don't really disagree. If we're talking about designing
stealth, Boeing does seem to be less experienced. They have a lot more
experience with fabrication, though, which is sort of what I was getting at.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:02:53 -0500, Dweezil Dwarftosser
> allegedly uttered:

>Chad Irby wrote:
>>
> [ concerning ugly warthogs...]
>
>> ...and you get an extra ten points for each piece of tree embedded in
>> the leading edge.
>
>Double bonus for a birdstrike on trailing edges...

Hey, that wouldn't be there if they indicated before overtaking! Damn
seagulls, showing off their speed.......
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[David Lesher]

"The Raven" > writes:

>For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward with the X-32
>into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the competition that
>potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign nations?

Won't happen. DOD would/does not like having competition for foreign
military sales of their choice; as that would drive down the volume
and up their price.

Any X-32 sales approvals would be lost in the shuffle until just after
it was too late....
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Paul F Austin]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
> The Raven wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I dispute that on the fact that there are plenty of military
> > aircraft in use around the world which weren't adopted by the US
> > military. Yes, the US military may be the largest buyer and thus have
> > an influence on other buyers etc but to claim that people seldom buy
> > equipment not adopted by the US military is false.
>
> I left out a word here, so let me clarify. There is a lot of reluctance
to
> buy warplanes not in service with the builder's own national miliary. No
> one wants to buy a *US-built* fighter not in service with the US military.
> Nor do they want a European plane not flying with a European air force
> first. And so forth.
>
> >> For examples,
> >> see the F-20 and F-18L.
> >
> > OK, that's two.
>
> Well, for a counterexample, find me any example of a successful export of
a
> fighter aircraft post WW2 where some version of the same aircraft was not
in
> service with the building country's own armed forces. AFAIK, the only one
> that even comes close is the F-5, which was never an operational fighter
for
> the USAF. But it was designed in an era when front-line US hardware was
not
> available to many buyers.

I think you're right that Boeing would have a non-starter on its hands but
the Ajeet is another example of a (for the time) high performance fighter
not adopted by the originating country that was very successful in India.
The Folland Gnat was designed with much the same philosphy of simplicity
that Ed Heineman used on the A-4, making it attractive for a third world
country with aspirations.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> I think you're right that Boeing would have a non-starter on its hands but
> the Ajeet is another example of a (for the time) high performance fighter
> not adopted by the originating country that was very successful in India.
> The Folland Gnat was designed with much the same philosphy of simplicity
> that Ed Heineman used on the A-4, making it attractive for a third world
> country with aspirations.
>
>

Although the Gnat F1 didnt enter service with the RAF the
trainer T1 WAS adopted and served as an advanced trainer
between 1962 and 1978 . The Red Arrows used to use them
before they adopted the BAE Hawk IRC

Keith

[Paul F Austin]

"Keith Willshaw" wrote
>
> "Paul F Austin" wrote
> >
>
> >
> > I think you're right that Boeing would have a non-starter on its hands
but
> > the Ajeet is another example of a (for the time) high performance
fighter
> > not adopted by the originating country that was very successful in
India.
> > The Folland Gnat was designed with much the same philosphy of simplicity
> > that Ed Heineman used on the A-4, making it attractive for a third world
> > country with aspirations.
> >
> >
>
> Although the Gnat F1 didnt enter service with the RAF the
> trainer T1 WAS adopted and served as an advanced trainer
> between 1962 and 1978 . The Red Arrows used to use them
> before they adopted the BAE Hawk IRC

In much the relation between the T-38 and F-5 except, IIRC, India bought all
tooling for the Gnat/Ajeet.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...
>

> > Although the Gnat F1 didnt enter service with the RAF the
> > trainer T1 WAS adopted and served as an advanced trainer
> > between 1962 and 1978 . The Red Arrows used to use them
> > before they adopted the BAE Hawk IRC
>
> In much the relation between the T-38 and F-5 except, IIRC, India bought
all
> tooling for the Gnat/Ajeet.
>

Not really, they licensed the design but the Gnat remained in production
by Hawker (who bought out Folland) until 1965 while the Indians
produced their first aircraft in 1962.

The Ajeet was an improved version developed in India that had
4 pylons instead of 2 , improved avionics, more fuel capacity, a
slab tail and improved landing gear. It entered production in 1976.

Keith

[Paul F Austin]

"Keith Willshaw" wrote
>
> "Paul F Austin" wrote > >
>
> > > Although the Gnat F1 didnt enter service with the RAF the
> > > trainer T1 WAS adopted and served as an advanced trainer
> > > between 1962 and 1978 . The Red Arrows used to use them
> > > before they adopted the BAE Hawk IRC
> >
> > In much the relation between the T-38 and F-5 except, IIRC, India bought
> all
> > tooling for the Gnat/Ajeet.
> >
>
> Not really, they licensed the design but the Gnat remained in production
> by Hawker (who bought out Folland) until 1965 while the Indians
> produced their first aircraft in 1962.
>
> The Ajeet was an improved version developed in India that had
> 4 pylons instead of 2 , improved avionics, more fuel capacity, a
> slab tail and improved landing gear. It entered production in 1976.

Thanks for the correction.

[Thomas Schoene]

Paul F Austin wrote:
> I think you're right that Boeing would have a non-starter on its
> hands but the Ajeet is another example of a (for the time) high
> performance fighter not adopted by the originating country that was
> very successful in India. The Folland Gnat was designed with much
> the same philosphy of simplicity that Ed Heineman used on the A-4,
> making it attractive for a third world country with aspirations.

I knew there was at least one I was missing. The Gnat is of course a
product of its era, when you really could design a fighter for a reasonable
sum of money and not have to worry too much about system integration or
optimization. Like the F-5, it also had the great benefit of not trying to
compete head-to-head with any type that was actually adopted by the source
country (in significant numbers, anyway).

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Quant]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > > > .. .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in
> the
> strategic
> > > > > > > > development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition
> winner
> was
> > > > > > > > announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole
> concept
> rather
> > > > > > > > than push forward with it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suspect some of their X-32 technology is making its way into
> their
> UCAV
> > > > > > > conceptual vehicle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No doubt a lot of the technology will be used but the platform
> itself
> was
> > > > > > pretty impressive despite not winning the JSF contest.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really--that was why it lost to the LMCO bid.
> > > >
> > > > It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several
> technological
> > > > areas.
> > >
> > > Name an area where its performance was superior to that of the X-35.
> >
> > That is not what I said and thus you're question is misleading.
>
> Then it is by definition "inferior". Where is this wonderful "impressive
> technological" performance you keep ranting about? Its screwed up wing? Its
> lack of sufficient tail area? Its inadequate power plant or putrid STOVL
> system? Where is this vaunted performance?
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing
> hasn't
> > > > proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going
> ahead
> > > > anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar
> capabilities
> > > > for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out
> what
> > > > this may be.
> > >
> > > LOL! "Similar capabilities at a lower cost, and all without the benefit
> ogf
> > > the US taxpayers' largesse!" What planet are you from? Since the X-32
> > > airframe was further from being a fighter than the X-35 was, and the
> latter
> > > is taking some $28 billion to develop, just how the heck do you figure
> the
> > > major redesign of the X-32 (like adding that whole tail reconfiguration,
> > > etc., into the mix) would be *cheaper*?!
> >
> > Once again you're equating similar with identical.
>
> No, once again I am equating a poorly designed and performing X-32 with
> numerous obvious and serious design and performance shortfalls with
> requiring comparitively MORE subsequent R&D funding to try and turn it into
> a LESS capable fighter than the X-35-to-F-35 progression.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill.
> > > >
> > > > As major buyer, who also has a vested interest in LM selling heaps,
> you'd
> > > > expect that.
> > >
> > > And without a major buyer, or combination thereof adding up to the
> fifteen
> > > hundred or so the US is purchasing, your less-than-F-35-capable F-32 is
> > > going to have a higher unit cost, even if you were to claim that the
> X-32
> > > development cost just matched that of the X-35. Toss in the R&D funding
> that
> > > the US would NOT be contributing to the X-32, and your unit cost just
> went
> > > way up. Sorry, but you are using some serious voodoo budget planning if
> you
> > > think you can get the X-32 sans USG R&D funding to match the cost of the
> > > F-35.
>
> I did not think you'd be able to fight that one.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from
> being
> an
> > > > > F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35.
> > > >
> > > > I agree it's less mature but that doesn't mean it's so bad it should
> be
> > > > scrapped.
> > >
> > > Why should it not be? Are you really saying it would be advantageous to
> dump
> > > *more* R&D funding into trying to make the X-32 a workable fighter than
> it
> > > would be to just take advantage of the US committment to the F-35 and
> just
> > > buy into the more capable aircraft (F-35)?
> >
> > No, I'm saying it's cheaper to pick up the development of an existing
> design
> > than start fresh. I've already said that not everyone will want an F-35.
>
> You have ignored the fact that (a) R&D to get a clunky X-32 into the shape
> needed to be a viable fighter aircraft is going to be more than it takes to
> get the much-closer-to-final-product X-35 to the F-35 stage, and (b) for
> that additional monetary committment, you end up with an aircraft that is
> less capable than the F-35. How many nations are going to say, "Yeah, let's
> commit a few billion dollars to R&D, and then buy the resulting F-32 at X
> million dollars per copy, as opposed to just paying X million dollars per
> copy for the MORE capable F-35, and let's start our own logisitics and
> service support structure for our F-32's to boot!"? Not many, IMO.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > >
> > > > Depends on the final capability requirements, which may not be the
> same
> as
> > > > the F35. Where not even certain of what all the final capabilities of
> the
> > > > F35 will be. Just because it doesn't beat an F35 doesn't mean it's
> > > inferior.
> > >
> > > Yes it does! That is the definition of inferior, for gosh sakes!
> >
> > Inferior to one set of requirements doesn't imply inferior to all others.
> > Compromise, adaption....
>
> Nope. Name an area where your F-32 would NOT be an inferior performer to the
> F-35. Any area, any mission.
>
> >
> > > What you
> > > are instead arguing is that it might still be more *cost effective*
> based
> > > upon this fantastical situation where the F-32 comes up cheaper (based
> upon
> > > final unit cost with all R&D included) than the F-35,
> >
> > Forget the damn JSF requirements and the F-35, it's decided and over. That
> > specific market is gone so, stop locking yourself into a narrow view of
> "it
> > must be a JSF/F-35 equal".
>
> Well gee, it appears MOST rational nations prefer to spend their money on
> the best performance they can afford. Since we (myself and a slew of other
> posters) have repeatedly shown that you are extremely unlikely to bring any
> F-32 online at any significant savings per unit copy compared to the F-35,
> then you are left with being able to sell your notional F-32's only to
> irrational governments that might want to plunk down the same money for less
> performance, so where does that leave your argument standing?
>
> >
> > What about the rest of the world and the possibility that the X-32 could
> be
> > adapted to meet a different but not wildly dis-similar set of
> requirements.
> > Sure, it's a challenging proposition but fare more practical than starting
> > with a blank piece of paper because, beyond that, no other option exists
> for
> > a similar role.
>
> If they don't need JSF level performance they would be much better off
> buying later block F-16's, F-18E/F, Gripen, Mirage 2000, etc. Which don't
> require the oodles of R&D committment that your F-32 does. You seem to be
> advocating development of an F-32 that offers F-16-like performance, but at
> greater than F-16 cost--bad strategy, IMO.
>
> >
> > > and that just is not
> > > gonna happen. Period.
> >
> > That might be the case. It's a matter of exploring possibilities here,
> hence
> > asking the questions.
>
> As others have pointed out, this question is just a non-starter from the
> get-go. It is a BAD idea.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > and you'd have dumped beaucoup bucks
> > > > > into making *that* a reality.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not suggesting that the X32 be developed into a direct competitor
> with
> a
> > > > 100% match in capability to the F35. The suggestion is that the X32
> > > > development not be wasted and that it could be developed into
> something
> > > > viable. Not everyone wants the full JSF capability or can afford it.
> The
> X32
> > > > has the potentional to fill that market.
> > >
> > > But it would be MORE expensive than the F-35!
> >
> > That's you're assumption and you're welcome to it. We know that if the
> X-32
> > had been selected it would have needed redesign that the X-35 didn't.
> Beyond
> > that we could assume that either aircraft would probably consume a similar
> > amount of SDD funding to meet the final production spec.
> >
> > I was postulating that with a pre-existing design, not yet locked in
> > concrete, and a new set of non-JSF specific requirements it would be far
> > easier/cheaper to get an aircraft into production than start afresh.
> >
> > You've made some very good comments about development costs, unit prices,
> > finding customers, funding etc. They are obviously serious issues and
> issues
> > worth considering.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >Not a good way of doing business, even at the
> > > > > governmental level.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's obviously a market for this type of aircraft or the
> competition
> > > > > > wouldn't have taken place.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
> > > > > competitor for further development.
> >
> > So what happens with the X-32 design? Plenty of good research and design
> > there that could be picked up by someone, albeit someone(s) with lots of
> > money.
>
> Not that much good design, from what I have read. Boeing will take what good
> parts there are and try to use them in their UCAV proposal; beyond that,
> they are going to take that overweight pony that is the X-32 out into the
> desert and put it out of its misery, more than likely.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Which was decided by the government and their end users who had
> specific
> > > > requirements in mind. These requirements do not necessarily reflect
> those
> of
> > > > everyone else but, they may come close.
> > > >
> > > > > The fact that two companies competed to
> > > > > the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the
> market
> > > >
> > > > Obviously it did. No use bidding to produce and aircraft which has
> such
> a
> > > > limited market the customer won't be able to afford it and you wont be
> able
> > > > to sell it elsewhere.
> > >
> > > What? You call a two-thousand aircraft market "limited"?
> >
> > No, please reread. Obviously market size (particularly units forecast) did
> > play a part in the JSF competition.
>
> But NOT in determining how the procurement would be played out in terms of
> the issue of whether to have a competitive fly-off or to just select the
> best final proposal for a one-off flying demo. OK?
>
> >
> > > Or the US
> > > committment to at least some fifteen hundred "limited"?
> >
> > You stated previously "The fact that two companies competed to the point
> > that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market". Now you're
> > suggesting market size was significant in attracting bidders....
>
> They competed to that point because the USG funded that level of
> competition. The USG could just as easily have said it was going to only
> fund one flying prototype from among the best final proposals--it has done
> so in the past.
>
> >
> > > The fact is that we
> > > COULD have done it the same way we did when we built the F-15--no flying
> > > competitiion was held for that program (and recall that the F-15 has
> enjoyed
> > > some significant export success in spite of it never having been
> involved
> in
> > > a competitive fly-off during its initial development). Instead we chose
> to
> > > have a fly-off between the two final competitors' conceptual
> vehicles--that
> > > decision was not a product of the market, however.
> >
> > It was a product of a specific market segment, the USG and various
> partners
> > waving the 4000 unit "carrot" in front of the competitors.
>
> Size of market had precious little to do with it.
>
> >
> > The decision to fund a fly-off was expensive but justified from the
> > viewpoint that the requirements could not be met with any existing or
> > modified design. It had to be new, to mitigate the risk of an all new
> > aircraft it was necessary and practical to justify funding a fly-off.
>
> Bingo! Now you have it! The above was the justification for going to the
> point of a competitive fly-off--nothing to do with the export market size.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > > >
> > > > Why would anyone go to this effort if there was no return in it for
> them?
> If
> > > > you knew you had no chance of winning you'd save your R&D budget and
> bow
> out
> > > > of the competition.
> > >
> > > The USG was providing both firms with R&D funding.
> >
> > Yes but I suspect that both competitors also spent some of their own money
> > in the hope of edging out the competitor.
>
> Yep, they did. And Boeing made some bad choices with how to pursue it using
> those funds, resulting in a poorly performing prototype. You recall there
> was not much whining from the Boeing camp when the X-35 was announced as
> winner--the Boeing folks knew they had been outperformed.
>
> >
> > > And Boeing did not
> > > realize that their initial design had some serious problems until after
> it
> > > entered into the test program, by which time they just gritted their
> teeth
> > > and tried to put the best face upon the situation in hopes that they
> might
> > > get the contract
> >
> > Admittedly not the wisest choice.
>
> At that point they did not have much choice--the lion's share of the
> expenses had already been absorbed, as had their share of the USG funding,
> so there was nothing to lose by pushing through to the bitter end.
>
> >
> > >(the fact that LMCO was already contracted for the F-22 was
> > > not necessarilly all to their benefit--Boeing had hopes that the DoD
> might
> > > be willing to further spread the wealth in the fighter design/production
> > > business, meaning they really were hoping for some advantageous
> political
> > > consideration in their favor).
> >
> > Yes, there were the political aspects as well as the logic that putting
> all
> > the eggs into the one basket (or bird in this case) was not necessarily
> the
> > wisest thing to do.
>
> On the contrary--using the X-35 as the basis for all of the variants to be
> developed offers significant future savings in terms of logisitics and unit
> costs. If by the "one basket" bit you mean putting both the ATF and JSF
> projects in the same corporate hands, it again is not such a bad thing. LMCO
> holding the JSF with its admittedly better performing F-35 means that LMCO
> does not squeal quite as loudly when the DoD (very possibly) rams home its
> plans to reduce the purchase quantity of the much more expensive F/A-22.
>
> >
> > > > You state that the basic aircraft was set requirements that no other
> > > > aircraft currently has. If those requirements are so valuable then
> there
> is
> > > > potentially a market for more than one offering. Sure, the market may
> be
> > > > limited in size but buyers will always prefer two options over one.
> Hence,
> > > > an F32 could provide an alternative even allowing that it may be less
> capabl
> > > > e than an F35. Of course, to do this an F32 would need to be
> attractive
> in
> > > > some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities
> not
> > > > required by most customers - VTOL).
> > >
> > > I find all of the above illogical. The reason that the competition was
> taken
> > > to the fly-off stage was that the requirements were widespread and quite
> > > great.
> >
> > A. The requirements were for a platform to have capabilities that no
> > existing aircraft has.
> > B. The requirments were predicated on a few primary partners with
> differing
> > and sometimes unique goals.
> > C. Some of the broader capabilities are desirable to a wider audience than
> > the current JSF partners.
> > D. Therefore there is a market for more than the proposed JSF/F-35
> > production.
> > E. Boeing having lost the JSF market may find it viable to chase that
> > broader, albeit smaller, non-JSF partner market.
> > F. Boeing would be free of the JSF requirements which may give scope for
> > differing approaches.
> > G. Some of the lesser JSF partners may also find the Boeing alternative
> > attractive.
> > H. The broad market now has two options, even if they aren't identical in
> > capabilities.
>
> See earlier arguments why the F-32 can't compete in that environment due to
> both cost and existing platforms that already fill that niche.
>
> >
> > > That has little or nothing to do with the eventual final market span.
> > > And the development of the X-32 without USG R&D would have resulted in a
> > > higher priced final product than the F-35.
> >
> > I accept that could be the case.
>
> It would be. Leaving you with an aircraft in the F-16/Mirage 2000/Gripen
> capability range, at the cost of the F-35, or at least very near to it. That
> just is not marketable.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
> > > > > > current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something
> similar
> > > > > > and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds
> to
> see
> the
> > > > > > X32 developed into something.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations
> who
> (a)
> > > > > are on our good guys list,
> > > >
> > > > I suggested a few but there would be others.
> > >
> > > What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony up
> the
> > > fee for joining the F-35 program,
> >

Stop spreading lies.
Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already
won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets.




> > Yet are now enquiring about them, which suggests they can afford them OR
> > will be able to get concessions somehow.
>
> Sure they will be able to afford buying the aircraft, using US aid money
> just as they currently do for all of their US aircraft purchases. But they
> could NOT pony up the R&D requirement for your F-32--witness their immediate
> collapse of the Lavi program the instant the USG funding was pulled.
>
> >
> > > and that fee was a hell of a lot less than
> > > the total R&D for the F-32 would be.
> >
> > Doesn't tie you to buying it either. You may be able to afford a
> partnership
> > but not buy, alternatively you might be able to afford them but don't see
> > the point in funding the development.
> >
> > That last point is obviously a serious one if Boeing were to develop the
> > X-32
> >
> > > Plus, Israel in a consortium invites
> > > the potential of alienating other potential members who would be
> unwilling
> > > to participate with them on an equal basis.
> >
> > Hence they don't become partners and then bring political pressure to bear
> > later on.
> >
> > > You mentioned Taiwan,
> >
> > Its reported that they expressed interest but then I doubt that they are
> > really considering it.
> >
> > > but taiwan
> > > has no interest in obtaining another less-capable fighter,
> >
> > Less capable than what?
>
> Than what they can get their hands on otherwise.
>
> >
> > > especially one
> > > that is not fully compatable with US military systems--
> >
> > Why wouldn't the F-35, or a Boeing wildcard, not be compatible with US
> > systems?
>
> The F-35 IS going to be compatible with US systems--that is one of its big
> selling points. Any wildcard F-32 won't be--we won't carry its logistics
> load in the USAF if the USAF is not a user.
>
> >
> > In any case, take a look at the Eurocopter Tigre. The Tigre is being made
> > compatible with US systems because a small customer wants it. Of course,
> the
> > manufacturer see the benefit in being US systems compatible.
>
> There is comaptible, and there is compatible. Most nations that envision the
> US as a likely ally want to have some form of close compatibility with US
> sytems, so they BUY US systems. Beyond that there is the issue of logistical
> support, not to be minimized, either--an F-16 or F-35 operator knows that he
> can get spares and support from the USG, and that in a coalition effort the
> US can even further support his aircraft if required. Buying a bunch of
> F-32's that are NOT operated by the USG is not going to give you that
> capability.
>
> >
> > >witness their early
> > > exit from the AIDC Ching Kuo program as soon as the F-16 became availabl
> e.
> > > NATO allies want to reamin on the USAF standard, so that rules them out.
> >
> > Only if you assume that a Boeing option wouldn't be US systems compatible,
> > which there is no reason to believe.
>
> IT WON'T BE OPERATED BY THE US. It won't be supported, as an entire system,
> by the USG, meaning you have to set up your own indigenous support network.
> Bad move.
>
> >
> > > The
> > > Asian allies are still wrestling with the impact of their past economic
> > > woes. The South American's lack the economic capital (witness further
> delays
> > > in the current Brazilian fighter competition). So who the hell is left?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >(b) are not already committed to other expensive
> > > > > R&D efforts, and
> > > >
> > > > Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.
> > >
> > > Two of those have already been addressed above. Australia? Nope. Lack of
> > > sufficient defense R&D capital to go it alone,
> >
> > Alone, agreed.
> >
> > > and besides, they are smart
> > > enough to realize that taking advantage of the USAF/USN/USMC committment
> to
> > > the F-35 is the way to go.
> >
> > The Australian argument isn't that straight forward. If it was that clear
> > cut the AIR6000 project would have come to that conclusion long before the
> > politicians made their last minute decision under pressure from the JSF
> > marketing team and local industry.
>
> Australia has two choices--go with the US, or go with a European system. If
> it chooses a US system, it will invariably be one that the USG is itself
> operating--they know from experience how difficult it can get when they
> operate a system no longer in the USG inventory (though they have taken
> advantage of some surplus offers of F-111's to facilitate spares supply).
>
> >
> > > You seem to be forgetting that merely developing
> > > and building these mythical F-32's is not the only issue--you then have
> to
> > > support that fleet for a few decades.
> >
> > Note that Boeing has lots of experience supporting orphan aircraft. The
> RAAF
> > also have lots of experience with otherwise unsupportable aircraft types.
>
> But without the backbone of a US military logistics support network, not to
> mention the advantage in terms of cost due to the much larger volume of
> spares purchased, the F-32 buyer is left at a distinct disadvantage.
>
> >
> > > Taking advantage of an established US
> > > logistics and support pipeline is a hell of a lot cheaper than creating
> a
> > > new one from scratch on your own.
> >
> > Agreed, but there are many pipelines to choose so it's rarely a sole
> source
> > issue predicated solely on cost.
>
> So you think buying 50 F-32 widgets for your orphan force is going to be as
> cheap as buying 50 widgets for the F-35 on top of the 1000 F-35 widgets
> purchased by the US military? Nope.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >(c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
> > > > > the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly
> cost
> > > > > more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than
> the
> > > > F-35
> > > >
> > > > You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for,
> which
> > > > reduces the cost somewhat.
> > >
> > > Huh? No, the additional R&D for the X-35 to get it, a much
> > > closer-to-final-product design than the X-32 was, is budgeted at some
> $28
> > > billion--so what do you think doing even MORE work on the X-32 would
> cost?
> >
> > Forget the F-35, I wasn't talking about it here. The X-32 has had heaps of
> > R&D money pumped into it so, why not start from this position than a blank
> > page?
>
> But that IS a comparitive blank page! The X-32 was MUCH further from being
> an F-32 and is going to require substantially more redesign, flight testing,
> etc. to make it one.
>
> <snip>
>
> Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Quant" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...

<snip>

> > > >
> > > > What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony
up
> > the
> > > > fee for joining the F-35 program,
> > >
>
> Stop spreading lies.
> Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already
> won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets.

Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did not
make it. So it settled for the bottom tier (Security Cooperation
Participant). Bottom of the heap; not a "development partner" (of which
group Australia was the last nation allowed to join). And you really need to
be more timely with your curveball attampts.

www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm

Brooks

<snip>

[Quant]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Quant" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony
> up
> the
> > > > > fee for joining the F-35 program,
> > > >
> >
> > Stop spreading lies.
> > Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already
> > won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets.
>
> Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did not
> make it. So it settled for the bottom tier (Security Cooperation
> Participant). Bottom of the heap; not a "development partner" (of which
> group Australia was the last nation allowed to join). And you really need to
> be more timely with your curveball attampts.
>
> www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm
>
> Brooks
>
> <snip>



You said: "could not even pony up the fee for joining the F-35
program", but it did.

I never talked about the level of participation. According to the
newspapers in Israel (I'm not, and I probably can't find reference to
the Hebrew articles) - from the start it was important to the
government to ensure the participation of Israeli companies at the
lowest possible fee, and so they did after a negotiation period.

Sorry for "my timing". I don't have the time to regulary follow this
ng.

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:57:59 GMT, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did not
>make it.

How do levels 1 to 3 work?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Quant" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even
pony
> > up
> > the
> > > > > > fee for joining the F-35 program,
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Stop spreading lies.
> > > Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already
> > > won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets.
> >
> > Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did
not
> > make it. So it settled for the bottom tier (Security Cooperation
> > Participant). Bottom of the heap; not a "development partner" (of which
> > group Australia was the last nation allowed to join). And you really
need to
> > be more timely with your curveball attampts.
> >
> > www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > <snip>
>
>
>
> You said: "could not even pony up the fee for joining the F-35
> program", but it did.
>
> I never talked about the level of participation. According to the
> newspapers in Israel (I'm not, and I probably can't find reference to
> the Hebrew articles) - from the start it was important to the
> government to ensure the participation of Israeli companies at the
> lowest possible fee, and so they did after a negotiation period.

Your ignorance of, or simple ignoring of, facts seems to help your argument.
Israel wanted into the program as a *development partner* but could
not/would not pony up the money required--this was the source of some
consternation with Israel as the window for nations to join that effort came
to a close, with Israeli officials trying to get onboard without paying the
same fees that other nations were required to pay. The "Security Cooperation
Participant" category was then created so that Israel, and Singapore IIRC,
could get their bids in on receiving at least some kind of priority (after
the development partners) towards later purchase of the F-35 and getting
some subcontractor work. What Israel did NOT get was its desired development
partner status, where it could influence the design/development process, at
no cost (or reduced cost) to Israel. For once, thank goodness, the US
treated Israel *fairly* in comparison to other nations and did not give it
special consideration (hooray!).

Brooks

>
> Sorry for "my timing". I don't have the time to regulary follow this
> ng.

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:57:59 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did
not
> >make it.
>
> How do levels 1 to 3 work?

From the AFA:

"Partially underwriting the $25 billion development effort are the program's
eight international partners. As a group, the partners have ponied up about
$4.3 billion to have a role in the project. The United Kingdom, having
kicked in $2 billion, is the largest contributor and the only Level 1
partner. This status allows London a voice in decisions regarding
requirements and technology sharing. It also purchases the UK a place at the
front of the queue for export sales. At Level 2 are Italy, with a $1 billion
contribution, and the Netherlands, with about $800 million. Neither country
has yet committed to buying the JSF, but both contribute national know-how
and receive some industrial benefits from their involvement. Level 3
partners include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Turkey, each of
which has contributed $125 million to $150 million. None has committed to
buying the airplane, but all are involved in technical issues and technology
transfer. It is assumed the partner countries-all of which have purchased
the US-produced F-16, F/A-18, or AV-8B fighters-will buy some version of the
airplane designed to succeed those three aircraft....Nations at any of the
three levels enjoy the official title of "partners." DOD capped the number
of international partners at eight last fall, but other countries that would
like to purchase the airplane (or compete for a smaller work share) will be
called "participants." To date, the only two nations in this category are
Israel and Singapore." (www.afa.org/magazine/april2003/0403F35.asp )

Brooks