If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Quant" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... snip What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony up the fee for joining the F-35 program, Stop spreading lies. Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets. Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did not make it. So it settled for the bottom tier (Security Cooperation Participant). Bottom of the heap; not a "development partner" (of which group Australia was the last nation allowed to join). And you really need to be more timely with your curveball attampts. www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm Brooks snip |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Quant" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... snip What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony up the fee for joining the F-35 program, Stop spreading lies. Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets. Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did not make it. So it settled for the bottom tier (Security Cooperation Participant). Bottom of the heap; not a "development partner" (of which group Australia was the last nation allowed to join). And you really need to be more timely with your curveball attampts. www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm Brooks snip You said: "could not even pony up the fee for joining the F-35 program", but it did. I never talked about the level of participation. According to the newspapers in Israel (I'm not, and I probably can't find reference to the Hebrew articles) - from the start it was important to the government to ensure the participation of Israeli companies at the lowest possible fee, and so they did after a negotiation period. Sorry for "my timing". I don't have the time to regulary follow this ng. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:57:59 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:
Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did not make it. How do levels 1 to 3 work? -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk) |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Quant" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Quant" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... snip What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony up the fee for joining the F-35 program, Stop spreading lies. Israel paid the fee, joined the program and Israeli companies already won contracts. For example, Elbit will make the JSF's helmets. Nice try. Israel wanted in as a level one thru three participant--it did not make it. So it settled for the bottom tier (Security Cooperation Participant). Bottom of the heap; not a "development partner" (of which group Australia was the last nation allowed to join). And you really need to be more timely with your curveball attampts. www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm Brooks snip You said: "could not even pony up the fee for joining the F-35 program", but it did. I never talked about the level of participation. According to the newspapers in Israel (I'm not, and I probably can't find reference to the Hebrew articles) - from the start it was important to the government to ensure the participation of Israeli companies at the lowest possible fee, and so they did after a negotiation period. Your ignorance of, or simple ignoring of, facts seems to help your argument. Israel wanted into the program as a *development partner* but could not/would not pony up the money required--this was the source of some consternation with Israel as the window for nations to join that effort came to a close, with Israeli officials trying to get onboard without paying the same fees that other nations were required to pay. The "Security Cooperation Participant" category was then created so that Israel, and Singapore IIRC, could get their bids in on receiving at least some kind of priority (after the development partners) towards later purchase of the F-35 and getting some subcontractor work. What Israel did NOT get was its desired development partner status, where it could influence the design/development process, at no cost (or reduced cost) to Israel. For once, thank goodness, the US treated Israel *fairly* in comparison to other nations and did not give it special consideration (hooray!). Brooks Sorry for "my timing". I don't have the time to regulary follow this ng. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|