"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.