Thread: F-32 vs F-35
View Single Post
  #2  
Old December 31st 03, 02:44 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.