F-32 vs F-35

"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.

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.

"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

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.

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

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"?

;-)

"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

"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

"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" 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