F-32 vs F-35

The Raven wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
The Raven wrote:
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
numbers than the F-35?

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

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

OK

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

OK

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

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

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

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

OK, that's two.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

snip

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

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

OK, that's two.

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

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

Brooks

snip

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

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

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

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

OK, that's two.

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

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

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...



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



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

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote

"Paul F Austin" wrote



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



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

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

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...


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

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


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

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

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote

"Paul F Austin" wrote

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

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


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

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

Thanks for the correction.

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

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

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