F-32 vs F-35

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several
technological
areas.


Such as?

Construction techniques and various aspects of it's stealth design.



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.


Not especially but the saying "if it looks good it'll fly good" didn't
come about for nothing.




The Boeing platform wasn't a "dog" otherwise it would never have gotten
as
far as it did into the competition.

Two things. 1. Boeing didn't deliver what it promised. That's part
of the reason they lost. In hindsight they might have chosen the
McDonnel/Northrop design to go forward had they known the trouble
Boeing was going to have. 2. There are dogs that get to the
prototype stage. And actually it was emphasized that these *weren't*
prototypes (even though nobody was fooled by that). The A-9 comes to
mind as a dog. The Cutlass and the Demon are up there too and they
actually made it into service. Then there's the jet/turboprop
Thunder-something. Those two turboprop tailsitters. And so on and
so forth.





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.

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.





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.

Why? Why would it care if LM sells heaps?

Explained previously. Obviously unit price could drop.

Hell if Boeing had won
with the X-32, LM could have upgraded and sold F-16s until the cows
came home.

But as another poster already pointed out, nothing comes close to the JSF
requirements. Thus the F-16 still wouldn't be in the same league.

There's a ton more that could be done to the F-16 to make
it competitive and even better than the X-32 albeit in the Air Force
role only.

Can it be made as stealthy?

Take an F-16XL with a 36k engine with a 3D nozzle,
conformal tanks, a low RCS inlet like they tested on one F-16, and all
the electronic goodies and you'd be just about there at a lower cost
than the F-32 would be.

Then they should do it, assuming a market with enough bucks to buy them.


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?

Boeing.

Exactly, and thus the whole argument about governmental funding becomes
weaker. If they can perform full R&D on very expensive relatively low
production aircraft they would be in a better position than most to fund
further R&D on a platform that has already been funded into existence.

And let's not forget they have a LOT of experience building
commercial aircraft.

And being one of the largest manufacturers of commerical aircraft would thus
would be in a better position than any other commercial manufacturer to step
into military aircraft production. Note that Boeing already plays a major
part in maintaining various military aircraft.

It's definitely a big and expensive step but if anyone could do it, it would
have to be Boeing.



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?

$30 billion is quite a bit too much but even if it was only five
billion it would still be unsupportable.

$5B is unsupportable? I think that amount, while large, to be possible.

Take manufacturing aside and
consider that each F-32 would be 100% profit. At five billion you'd
have to sell 167 aircraft just to break even.

167 wouldn't be that hard to sell when individual potential customers are
already looking at buying 100.

That's if they cost $0
to build and if it was only $5 billion more to develope it and Boeing
making $0 dollars in the end. Factor in cost of materials and
manufacturing and a reasonable profit

Most defence contracts do not have the "reasonable profit" that commercial
industry expects.

and the number of aircraft you
have to sell to make it viable climbs dramatically.

I don't think it would be that hard to sell a budget orientated stealth
fighter, noting statements currently produced comes close to JSF
requirements.

If we assume the initial partner orders were in the vicinity of 400 units @
30M there would be enough margin to cover manufacturing and profit.

How much profit is their in a military aircraft with a unit price of $30M
anyway? Not much, it's generated in the through life operational costs.

And those are
sales in concrete before you even start. You can't just do all the
work and gamble that someone will want some.

Totally agree, the money must be upfront for development. Anyone joining
into this sort of scheme would have to be fully committed.

Interestingly, being a SDD partner to JSF doesn't tie you into buying
aircraft. Many partners have joined to hedge their bets on final purchase
whilst simultaneously getting access to some of the technology and contracts
to be awarded.

Northrop did that with
the F-20 and it was basically an upgraded F-5 and they *still* took it
in the shorts.




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.


Take China, South Korea, and Japan out of the equation and who does
that leave you? Singapore? They're already in the market for a new
fighter *now*.

As is Australia now but, they are holding off as long as possible. There are
also a number of lesser nations in the area who could do with a handful of
new aircraft. The same might apply for smaller European nations.

Many of those asian countries you are thinking of are
already buying Flankers because that's all they can afford and they
aren't buying many of those.

Actually only a few nations are buying Flankers and those they are getting
are having some teething problems.

So they won't have any money for F-32s.

Any idea on the price of the Flankers?

South America is out because all they can afford are last generation
hand-me-downs or the occasional newly built old aircraft. And as far
as serious commitment goes, as I pointed out Boeing would have to
essentially say "give us the money up front and we'll build you
something". They couldn't take the chance that the country(s) would
say "uh, we changed our mind" which EVERY country does. Who in the
last twenty years has EVER bought as many as they thought they were?

Quite a few working with tight budgets and tighter contracts.

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?


Boeing? Nope. Which *definitely* doesn't inspire confidence.

Only if you ignore the fact that Boeing is one of the largest and most
successful manufacturers of aircraft in the world. If anyone other than a
pure defence contractor could produce a platform for military use, it would
have to be them.

Sure
they have McDonnel Douglas that they incorporated but I'd be willing
to bet most of those employees were saying "hell no we didn't design
that POS".

Guess who's keeping the F-111's flying? Sure, that's not manufacturing but
Boeing isn't a newbie to the defence industry either.


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.


Lots of aircraft could. The F-14 was going to be an ASS kicking
machine before they threw it to the dogs. The F-14D was just the
beginning.


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.


Look at the F-23 and it *did* meet spec. and had a hell of a lot more
promise.

That may be true and perhaps it should have gone on to become something else
for another customer. It seems a shame that so many promising designs are
scrapped soley because they didn't finish first in a competition designed to
meet the requirements of a couple of specific customers.

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.


Who could fund it? What combination of likely countries could fund
it?

Based on the previously mentioned $5B and, the non-JSF partners are implying
they want F-35s, we can come back to Japan, Israel, possibly Taiwan, and
perhaps Singapore as possible buyers. Throw in some existing JSF partners
who haven't committed to F35 and you may be getting close, Australia needs
75-100 aircraft for example.

Now whether these countries could spring for both development and purchase
is the issue. Perhaps not, but if a few smaller nations opted in you may a
higher number of small sales which might get to a more economic number of
aircraft at a nominal $30M each.

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.

Well the fact that the only thing the prototype had in common with
their proposed prouction model was that they were both ugly suggest
that there were significant design flaws.

Ugly seemed to be related to that chin intake. From every other angle but
head and side on it didn't look that bad.

They went from a swept
forward intake to a swept back. They went from a delta wing to a
conventional tailed aircraft. After they did those they later found
out "uh wait, things are going to get too hot" so they added another
significant vent on each side of the cockpit. Who knows what else
they'd have tripped over on their way to a production aircraft.

Most of the heat problems were related to the VTOL requirement, if you
remove that hurdle the whole thing becomes a lot simpler.


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.

What made it that far was what Boeing promised. What they delivered
was something else.

Defence Marketing 101

The buyers specification never matches their expectation.
The contractors initial marketing never quite matches the final item.

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.

You mean like the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen? Once the F-35 enters
production it's very likely going to clean up the market.

Because it's the only option for that general capability. Perhaps if there
was a competitor it would be different.

I wouldn't
be at all suprised if no more Typhoons or Rafales were sold after
that.

Australia's AIR6000 project were consider both, amongst others.

Maybe some Gripens if the price is right. Lots of last
generation aircraft will still be sold IMO

Always will be.

but the F-35 will be the
one to have for new designs. Mind you, I'm not saying it's BETTER
than the Typhoon but that the difference in capability isn't worth the
difference in cost.


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.

The F-23 was far better than the X-32 and one of those prototypes is
in a friggin CLASSROOM and the other is in a dirt lot out in back of a
hanger somewhere.

A shame isn't it? However I doubt the F-23 would have met the stealth
requirements. BTW what's the projected range for the F-23?



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.

That market is already being filled by late model F-16s, F-15s,
Flankers, Gripens, Rafales, Typhoons, Super Hornets and so on.

But none of those have the reported levels of stealth the JSF contenders
had.


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.

So do a lot of aircraft that are already on the market.





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.


YF-22 & YF-23. 'nuff said.




--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.

Boeing thought they did have a chance although by the looks on their
faces they clearly didn't think it was much of one as the competition
progressed and the X-35 showed it's stuff.

Lessons learnt, perhaps they should apply them to what they have now so they
can be better prepared for next time (other buyers).




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.

But the X-32 failed to meet those requirements.

I believe one of the biggest failings was STOVL. It was a key requirement
for those planning to replace Harriers, beyond that not many forces would
put such a high value on the VTOL element.


ure, 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.

Why would they want something that was less capable and more
expensive?

We can't say it will be more expensive but if you drop the expensive and
technological difficult VTOL capability the costs are likely to be less.

f 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).

It wouldnt' be cheaper and if they wanted to trade off VTOL they'd buy
the F-35A instead of B.

What is the price difference between the three F-35 variants? Quoted figures
never made the distinction on model type.




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.

(b) are not already committed to other expensive
R&D efforts, and

Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.

Austraila is signed up on the F-35,

No, they have only signed up for the SDD phase. There is nothing more than a
vague committment to buy, nothing in writing yet.

Israel is buying more F-15s and
F-16s and Taiwan isn't in the market at the moment IRC.

Israel may be buying F-15 and F-16s but they've indicated a desire for F-35s
and a preference to get in early on the production...

Japan is rumoured to be looking at JSF to go on their proposed aircraft
carriers (which they prefer to call destroyers with helo decks). OK, if that
was the case then they'd want STOVL and I'm implying Boeing could drop
that....

NZ could do with a few, even a token number to keep some pilots/expertise,
considering they have nothing really left.



(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.

Not as much as you'd think.

Surely an equal amount to what has already been spent to get to this point.
That's nothing to sneeze at, even if it does leave a big amount still to be
spent.

Boeing's final design was completely
different than the X-32, and the engine would need more developement.

A more conventional engine may be practical if that STOVL is dropped.

Basically all Boeing got out of the experience was "I think our code
works sort of, a plastic wing doesn't, and the engine might be good if
it was more powerful and our plane was lighter".

OK, but I think they learnt a bit more than that :-)



(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.

I assume you meant to say "without the US funding it".

Yes, my oops.

If Boeing
decided to continue with the X-32 it's very unlikely they'd even get
the time of day from the government let alone any money.

Hence the need to go direct to potential buyers rather than ask the US
Government for R&D.

And what
aircraft have been developed that weren't funded by a major country?

What's your definition of a major country?

Taiwan came up with one. I think it's South Korea that's doing the
one with Lockheed and I think that's about it.

Australia did seriously consider it several decades back but took the easier
option of buying Mirages.

Sweden is sortof in
there with the Gripen but IIRC they have more money to spend that any
of the third string asian nations that might be in the market for an
F-32.




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.

There are a plethora of alternatives already out there. If I was a
potential buyer would I want to fork out a bunch of money for an
aircraft that lost and whos "final" configuration has never flown? Or
would I want a nice shiny Block 60 F-16 or F-15K for less money?

Depends on how much risk you're willing to face for the chance of having the
edge over potential enemies. Some might consider that a viable option.

Yes, I see that the idea of turning the X-32 into a production aircraft
isn't a walk in the park. There are some serious economic issues to be
considered. However, to consign it to the dustbin seems a huge waste of tax
payer funded R&D. I still believe there is sufficient market for this type
of aircraft even if it isn't up to the formal JSF competition spec. If any
commercial aircraft company could do it, it would have to be Boeing.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

What is the price difference between the three F-35 variants? Quoted
figures
never made the distinction on model type.

About the time JAST became JSF, unit recurring flyaway was estimated in this
range (earlier years dollars, I've forgotten which) -- $30M USAF, $35M USMC,
$38M USN.

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.

Given the very limited potential export market, Boeing could not possibly
justify this cost. The simple fact is that overseas buyers are seldom
interested in aircraft types not adopted by the US military. For examples,
see the F-20 and F-18L.

Who funds Boeings development of any commercial
aircraft today?

Boeing.

Exactly, and thus the whole argument about governmental funding
becomes weaker. If they can perform full R&D on very expensive
relatively low production aircraft

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Boeing's commercial
developments are all predicated on very *large* production runs, at least in
comparison to possible exports of your notional F-32. For example, they
just launcheed development of the 7E7, at an estimated $7-10 billion, which
is not quite a "bet-the-company" program, but not far from it. They project
a market of 2,500-3,000 aircraft in this size class, and hope to take
significantly more than half of them. So they are talking about selling
over 1,500 aircraft to make this a viable project. The worldwde market for
a strike fighter like the F-32 would be far lower (hundreds at most), even
if it wasn't totally closed out by the F-35 and European competitors.

Take manufacturing aside and
consider that each F-32 would be 100% profit. At five billion you'd
have to sell 167 aircraft just to break even.

167 wouldn't be that hard to sell when individual potential customers
are already looking at buying 100.

But as Scott poitns out, the real breakeven is much higher. I'd guess it's
probably pushing a thousand aircraft. The market is't big enough to support
this.

That's if they cost $0
to build and if it was only $5 billion more to develope it and Boeing
making $0 dollars in the end. Factor in cost of materials and
manufacturing and a reasonable profit

Most defence contracts do not have the "reasonable profit" that
commercial industry expects.

If Boeing launched development of a fighter as a commercial venture, they'd
have to expect commercial returns. If they didn't, thy'de be better off
spending the money on commercial aircraft ventures (like 7E7).


and the number of aircraft you
have to sell to make it viable climbs dramatically.

I don't think it would be that hard to sell a budget orientated
stealth fighter, noting statements currently produced comes close to
JSF requirements.

This is a real problem area. Boeing cannot freely market stealth
technology. The government has a legitimate interest in maintaining control
over low-observable materials and techniques, which means that Boeing can
either offer their design to the exact same set of pre-selected countries
looking at the F-35 (with its much longer produciton runsand guaranteed US
product support) or they have to strip the stealth out and market a
second-rate alternative. That has not worked really well before (F-16/79
anyone?)


If we assume the initial partner orders were in the vicinity of 400
units @ 30M there would be enough margin to cover manufacturing and
profit.

That's just covering likely development cosst with little left over for
manufacturing, much less profit. And a 400-plane run is wildy optimistic.
You are countnig on this plane winning all of the major non-US programs in
the next decade, basically.

Interestingly, being a SDD partner to JSF doesn't tie you into buying
aircraft. Many partners have joined to hedge their bets on final
purchase whilst simultaneously getting access to some of the
technology and contracts to be awarded.

But having invested significant money in F-35, how likely are they do spend
the same money again for another candidate? Especially since it would kill
their industrial involvement in the F-35 program.


--
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:


I don't think you know what you're talking about. Boeing's commercial
developments are all predicated on very *large* production runs, at least in
comparison to possible exports of your notional F-32. For example, they
just launcheed development of the 7E7, at an estimated $7-10 billion, which
is not quite a "bet-the-company" program, but not far from it. They project
a market of 2,500-3,000 aircraft in this size class, and hope to take
significantly more than half of them. So they are talking about selling
over 1,500 aircraft to make this a viable project. The worldwde market for
a strike fighter like the F-32 would be far lower (hundreds at most), even
if it wasn't totally closed out by the F-35 and European competitors.


Boeing doesn't have that kind of money. Half of the Boeing 7E7
development money comes from partners in Japan, Italy, USA etc. For
example Japanese companies are developing the wing for Boeing 7E7.

"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

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:55:26 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:


"The Raven" wrote
We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
strategic
development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
rather
than push forward with it.

Money of course. Both aircraft were very far from final production designs.
LM didn't get a $24B (that's Billion) FSD contract for nothing and Boeing
would be betting the company in staggering fashion...just to try and
duplicate Northrop's F-20 strategy.

Boeing should just start working on the B-52 replacement, instead of
trying to improve an aircraft that nobody will buy.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"The Raven" wrote
We all know that the X-35 won the JSF contest which is now in the
strategic
development phase as the F-35. At the time the competition winner was
announced (LM) I wondered why Boeing would scrap their whole concept
rather
than push forward with it.

Money of course. Both aircraft were very far from final production
designs.
LM didn't get a $24B (that's Billion) FSD contract for nothing and Boeing
would be betting the company in staggering fashion...just to try and
duplicate Northrop's F-20 strategy.

And the F20 was far less technologically risky than the X32.

tim gueguen 101867

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:13:55 +1100, "The Raven"
wrote:

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

It was less capable but the platform was impressive in several
technological
areas.


Such as?

Construction techniques and various aspects of it's stealth design.


Lockheed is pretty much the stealth expert. Boeing has very little
experience building an operational stealth anything. As far as
construction techiques go about the only significant thing they
learned was that plastic wings won't work. Anything else they learned
such as things to speed up manufacturing are hardly enough to cover
the cost of developement.


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.


If you drop those requirements that make the JSF unique then you have
a half dozen alternatives already available. Why would someone want
to pay a higher price for an inferior aircraft? Boeing would hardly
be allowed to export their best attempt at stealth so basically you'd
be stuck with an X-32 that the only thing special about it is the
large amount of internal fuel (that would actually be much smaller
with the new wing) and internal storage of weapons that it's unlikelt
the countries in question would have access to anyway. They'd be far
better off buying F-16s, F-15s, Typhoons, Rafales, or Flankers.



Why? Why would it care if LM sells heaps?

Explained previously. Obviously unit price could drop.

The X-32 if ever produced as a fighter would have negligable effect on
the F-35's production run.



Hell if Boeing had won
with the X-32, LM could have upgraded and sold F-16s until the cows
came home.

But as another poster already pointed out, nothing comes close to the JSF
requirements. Thus the F-16 still wouldn't be in the same league.

But you are saying to remove the items that make the JSF what it is in
the name of lower cost. Take away stealth and what do you have that
makes an F-32 special? AESA? Block 60 F-16s have it. Top of the
line avionics? F-16 has it. Manueverability? F-16 would likely
stomp the F-32 into the dirt. So if you remove stealth what would
make the F-32 the way to go over already available alternatives?
Specifically.



There's a ton more that could be done to the F-16 to make
it competitive and even better than the X-32 albeit in the Air Force
role only.

Can it be made as stealthy?

Stealth would be a nonissue since Boeing wouldn't be allowed to export
it anyway. Also if you don't cut stealth from the F-32 what were you
going to cut that would significantly reduce the price?



Take an F-16XL with a 36k engine with a 3D nozzle,
conformal tanks, a low RCS inlet like they tested on one F-16, and all
the electronic goodies and you'd be just about there at a lower cost
than the F-32 would be.

Then they should do it, assuming a market with enough bucks to buy them.


There isn't. That's why they don't.




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?

Boeing.

Exactly, and thus the whole argument about governmental funding becomes
weaker. If they can perform full R&D on very expensive relatively low
production aircraft they would be in a better position than most to fund
further R&D on a platform that has already been funded into existence.

Who ever said the government would fund X-32 developement? I've been
saying all along that they wouldn't thus the financial burden would
fall totally on Boeing. And "relatively low" production run? How
many did you have in mind. Maybe we could take a stab at how much an
F-32 would cost.



And let's not forget they have a LOT of experience building
commercial aircraft.

And being one of the largest manufacturers of commerical aircraft would thus
would be in a better position than any other commercial manufacturer to step
into military aircraft production. Note that Boeing already plays a major
part in maintaining various military aircraft.

Whatever knowledge they have certainly didn't help them with the F-32.
And being a manufacturer of commercial aircraft means nothing as far
as fighter developement goes. And Northrop would be in a far better
position to develope a fighter. At least they have some expertise.



It's definitely a big and expensive step but if anyone could do it, it would
have to be Boeing.

Which doesn't mean it's doable. I'd have a better chance at lifting a
million pounds than my nephew but that doesn't mean I'd have a chance
in hell of doing it.



$30 billion is quite a bit too much but even if it was only five
billion it would still be unsupportable.

$5B is unsupportable? I think that amount, while large, to be possible.

So Boeing could afford to flush $5 Billion down the toilet?



Take manufacturing aside and
consider that each F-32 would be 100% profit. At five billion you'd
have to sell 167 aircraft just to break even.

167 wouldn't be that hard to sell when individual potential customers are
already looking at buying 100.


You can't have potential customers, you have to find customers willing
to pony up ALL the money before the first piece of metal was cut *and*
that's assuming design, manufacturing, and testing were FREE and
Boeing would be getting nothing out of the deal but would just be
doing it out of the goodness of their heart.




That's if they cost $0
to build and if it was only $5 billion more to develope it and Boeing
making $0 dollars in the end. Factor in cost of materials and
manufacturing and a reasonable profit

Most defence contracts do not have the "reasonable profit" that commercial
industry expects.

They have to or there is no reason for them to be in the business.
You don't stay in business by not making money.


and the number of aircraft you
have to sell to make it viable climbs dramatically.

I don't think it would be that hard to sell a budget orientated stealth
fighter, noting statements currently produced comes close to JSF
requirements.


Stealth wouldn't be in the equations and the F-32 even without it
would hardly qualify as a budget aircraft.



If we assume the initial partner orders were in the vicinity of 400 units @
30M there would be enough margin to cover manufacturing and profit.


First you have to find customers willing to give you the cash for four
hundred aircraft upfront. Then you have to make sure costs don't rise
at all else you'll have to eat the extra expenses. Then you have to
find the cash to develope the engine which isn't trivial. Add to the
fact that developement for the F-35 *is* closer to $30 billion than I
thought *and* that the F-32 would require MUCH more time and effort to
develope than the F-32 because the production model is so different
than the X-32 that it has effectively never flown.


How much profit is their in a military aircraft with a unit price of $30M
anyway? Not much, it's generated in the through life operational costs.

How do you know? There has to be enough to make it worth the company
to stay in business in the business.


And those are
sales in concrete before you even start. You can't just do all the
work and gamble that someone will want some.

Totally agree, the money must be upfront for development.

And who would do that? Which countries did you have in mind
specifically?


Anyone joining
into this sort of scheme would have to be fully committed.

Committed to an insane asylum maybe (sorry couldnt resist). Seriously
though, who has the money?



Interestingly, being a SDD partner to JSF doesn't tie you into buying
aircraft. Many partners have joined to hedge their bets on final purchase
whilst simultaneously getting access to some of the technology and contracts
to be awarded.

No it doesn't oblicate them to buy aircraft but if they don't they
will in effect have donated the money to the cause becuase I doubt it
would be refunded if they decided not to buy.




Take China, South Korea, and Japan out of the equation and who does
that leave you? Singapore? They're already in the market for a new
fighter *now*.

As is Australia now but, they are holding off as long as possible. There are
also a number of lesser nations in the area who could do with a handful of
new aircraft. The same might apply for smaller European nations.


Who? Specifically. Most of the smaller European nations can't even
afford F-16s out of the boneyard.




Many of those asian countries you are thinking of are
already buying Flankers because that's all they can afford and they
aren't buying many of those.

Actually only a few nations are buying Flankers and those they are getting
are having some teething problems.

So imagine the trouble they'd have with an aircraft that has never
been in service.



So they won't have any money for F-32s.

Any idea on the price of the Flankers?

Nope but there's no way the F-32 would be cheaper. I've heard from
$10 million to $50 million for Flankers but my guess it would be in
the high twenties to low thirties.


South America is out because all they can afford are last generation
hand-me-downs or the occasional newly built old aircraft. And as far
as serious commitment goes, as I pointed out Boeing would have to
essentially say "give us the money up front and we'll build you
something". They couldn't take the chance that the country(s) would
say "uh, we changed our mind" which EVERY country does. Who in the
last twenty years has EVER bought as many as they thought they were?

Quite a few working with tight budgets and tighter contracts.

So why would they be able to buy F-32s? How would they be able to
justify the gamble on the F-32 rather than an excellent
already-in-production fighter. With those tight budgets they'll take
the best fighter with the lowest cost and least risk that they
possibly can.


Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?


Boeing? Nope. Which *definitely* doesn't inspire confidence.

Only if you ignore the fact that Boeing is one of the largest and most
successful manufacturers of aircraft in the world.

I'm having trouble remembering which fighter Boeing has designed and
produced. Maybe you could refresh my memory?



If anyone other than a
pure defence contractor could produce a platform for military use, it would
have to be them.

Which again doesn't mean it's doable.


Sure
they have McDonnel Douglas that they incorporated but I'd be willing
to bet most of those employees were saying "hell no we didn't design
that POS".

Guess who's keeping the F-111's flying? Sure, that's not manufacturing but
Boeing isn't a newbie to the defence industry either.

Supporting a 30 year old aircraft hardly qualifies as having the
expertise to design and build one.




Look at the F-23 and it *did* meet spec. and had a hell of a lot more
promise.

That may be true an perhaps it should have gone on to become something else
for another customer. It seems a shame that so many promising designs are
scrapped soley because they didn't finish first in a competition designed to
meet the requirements of a couple of specific customers.

The reason they don't is because nobody has the cash. The Crusader 3
would have been an excellent choice for lots of countries but nobody
wanted to fund it and it was much further along than the X-32.



Who could fund it? What combination of likely countries could fund
it?

Based on the previously mentioned $5B and, the non-JSF partners are implying
they want F-35s, we can come back to Japan, Israel, possibly Taiwan, and
perhaps Singapore as possible buyers.

Singapore is in the middle of a competition now so they won't be in
the market anytime soo. As I pointed out Israel is already buying
F-16s and F-15s. Japan is going with the F-2 which leave Taiwan and
they definitely don't have the cash to do it themselves.


Throw in some existing JSF partners
who haven't committed to F35 and you may be getting close, Australia needs
75-100 aircraft for example.

What compelling reason would they have for chosing the F-32? IF they
decided against the F-35 there are many other fighters already on the
market that would fill the bill better. And I remind you that the $5
billion figure was far off the mark.



Now whether these countries could spring for both development and purchase
is the issue. Perhaps not, but if a few smaller nations opted in you may a
higher number of small sales which might get to a more economic number of
aircraft at a nominal $30M each.

Again, who would be willing to foot the bill? Who could afford it?





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.

Well the fact that the only thing the prototype had in common with
their proposed production model was that they were both ugly suggest
that there were significant design flaws.

Ugly seemed to be related to that chin intake. From every other angle but
head and side on it didn't look that bad.

I was using ugly to demonstrate something they had in common. Ugly
doesn't mean bad (see A-10, F-117 etc.). I'm saying that there was
very little in common between the X-32 and what would have been the
F-32. It would essentially have been an entirely new aircraft.


They went from a swept
forward intake to a swept back. They went from a delta wing to a
conventional tailed aircraft. After they did those they later found
out "uh wait, things are going to get too hot" so they added another
significant vent on each side of the cockpit. Who knows what else
they'd have tripped over on their way to a production aircraft.

Most of the heat problems were related to the VTOL requirement, if you
remove that hurdle the whole thing becomes a lot simpler.

Heat was a *small* problem. It was just one of many that the X-32
had.



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.

What made it that far was what Boeing promised. What they delivered
was something else.

Defence Marketing 101

The buyers specification never matches their expectation.
The contractors initial marketing never quite matches the final item.


Sorry but the X-32 was a lot further off than "not quite".


You mean like the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen? Once the F-35 enters
production it's very likely going to clean up the market.

Because it's the only option for that general capability. Perhaps if there
was a competitor it would be different.


But by the time you stip the X-32 down enough to be affordible it
would no longer be competitive. Not even with what is already
available.



I wouldn't
be at all suprised if no more Typhoons or Rafales were sold after
that.

Australia's AIR6000 project were consider both, amongst others.

They may be considering them but my money would bet that they don't go
with them.



The F-23 was far better than the X-32 and one of those prototypes is
in a friggin CLASSROOM and the other is in a dirt lot out in back of a
hanger somewhere.

A shame isn't it? However I doubt the F-23 would have met the stealth
requirements. BTW what's the projected range for the F-23?


The F-23 was generally considerd to be more stealthy than the F-22.
It was also a much cleaner design (which was why it was faster than
the F-22) so it likely would have had greater range.


That market is already being filled by late model F-16s, F-15s,
Flankers, Gripens, Rafales, Typhoons, Super Hornets and so on.

But none of those have the reported levels of stealth the JSF contenders
had.

Stealth would be out for the F-32. First for the export issues and
second because you wanted to strip downt he F-32 to make it cheaper.
Stealth would be the first thing to go.


Boeing thought they did have a chance although by the looks on their
faces they clearly didn't think it was much of one as the competition
progressed and the X-35 showed it's stuff.

Lessons learnt, perhaps they should apply them to what they have now so they
can be better prepared for next time (other buyers).

No smart buyer would bet their fighter budget on a maybe.



But the X-32 failed to meet those requirements.

I believe one of the biggest failings was STOVL. It was a key requirement
for those planning to replace Harriers, beyond that not many forces would
put such a high value on the VTOL element.

The other failing was that the X-32 didn't meet MANY of the
requirements which was why they proposed a drastic redesign.


Why would they want something that was less capable and more
expensive?

We can't say it will be more expensive but if you drop the expensive and
technological difficult VTOL capability the costs are likely to be less.

Less than if they kept it but not less than a currenly availalbe
aircraft.




f 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).

It wouldnt' be cheaper and if they wanted to trade off VTOL they'd buy
the F-35A instead of B.

What is the price difference between the three F-35 variants? Quoted figures
never made the distinction on model type.

ISTR it's about $10 million between the cheapest and the most
expensive.



Austraila is signed up on the F-35,

No, they have only signed up for the SDD phase. There is nothing more than a
vague committment to buy, nothing in writing yet.

Okay so you'd have to concvince austrailia that their contribution was
wasted and get them to gamble on a far riskier venture.


Israel is buying more F-15s and
F-16s and Taiwan isn't in the market at the moment IRC.

Israel may be buying F-15 and F-16s but they've indicated a desire for F-35s
and a preference to get in early on the production...

Which would indicate they'd be unwilling to wait far longer while the
F-32 was developed.


Japan is rumoured to be looking at JSF to go on their proposed aircraft
carriers (which they prefer to call destroyers with helo decks). OK, if that
was the case then they'd want STOVL and I'm implying Boeing could drop
that....

Which would mean Japan wouldnt want them.





NZ could do with a few, even a token number to keep some pilots/expertise,
considering they have nothing really left.

If they only wanted a token it would be because they can't afford more
in which case they'd go for a cheaper, already existing aircraft.



You forget to factor in the existing R&D has already been paid for, which
reduces the cost somewhat.

Not as much as you'd think.

Surely an equal amount to what has already been spent to get to this point.
That's nothing to sneeze at, even if it does leave a big amount still to be
spent.


All of which Boeing would have to scrounge up.




Boeing's final design was completely
different than the X-32, and the engine would need more developement.

A more conventional engine may be practical if that STOVL is dropped.


Possibly. They'd still have to fund getting their vectoring nozzle
working with the F-35A's engine. That or modify the X-32 yet again
and do away with it's vecotring nozzle which would only serve to
reduce it's capability further still.


Basically all Boeing got out of the experience was "I think our code
works sort of, a plastic wing doesn't, and the engine might be good if
it was more powerful and our plane was lighter".

OK, but I think they learnt a bit more than that :-)


LOL. Not much :-) The picked up some not trivial manufacturing
techniques but as far as fighter design goes that remains open to
debate.



If Boeing
decided to continue with the X-32 it's very unlikely they'd even get
the time of day from the government let alone any money.

Hence the need to go direct to potential buyers rather than ask the US
Government for R&D.

Yep. And can you think of even one fighter in the past fifty years
that the US didn't buy but others did? There have been some excellent
losers out their and nobody wanted them.


And what
aircraft have been developed that weren't funded by a major country?

What's your definition of a major country?

I guess I'd say anybody who has at least the cash that Sweden does.
Taiawan developed their little fighter (the name escapes me at the
moment) but it wasn't a whole lot more than a glorified trainer. Come
to think of it they probably could have sold some as trainers if the
US had let them.


Taiwan came up with one. I think it's South Korea that's doing the
one with Lockheed and I think that's about it.

Australia did seriously consider it several decades back but took the easier
option of buying Mirages.

Yeah. So did Canada, Germany, and the UK. Turned out none of them
could justify the cost of going it alone.


There are a plethora of alternatives already out there. If I was a
potential buyer would I want to fork out a bunch of money for an
aircraft that lost and whos "final" configuration has never flown? Or
would I want a nice shiny Block 60 F-16 or F-15K for less money?

Depends on how much risk you're willing to face for the chance of having the
edge over potential enemies. Some might consider that a viable option.

That's asumming the X-32 would have an advantage over the latest
versions of existing aircraft without having stealth. IMO it's very
unlikely.




Yes, I see that the idea of turning the X-32 into a production aircraft
isn't a walk in the park. There are some serious economic issues to be
considered. However, to consign it to the dustbin seems a huge waste of tax
payer funded R&D. I still believe there is sufficient market for this type
of aircraft even if it isn't up to the formal JSF competition spec. If any
commercial aircraft company could do it, it would have to be Boeing.


There are a lot of "what ifs" I'd always wished they'd take an
F-16XL, add a second F110 and stretch the width like a Tomcat, and put
ramp intakes like a Flanker beneath the huge delta wing. Maybe add
twin, outward canted vertical tails. It would look sweet if nothing
else :-)

"Susan VanCamp" wrote in message
nk.net...
What is the price difference between the three F-35 variants? Quoted
figures
never made the distinction on model type.

About the time JAST became JSF, unit recurring flyaway was estimated in
this
range (earlier years dollars, I've forgotten which) -- $30M USAF, $35M
USMC,
$38M USN.

Thanks for that.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 01:25:34 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

Lockheed is pretty much the stealth expert. Boeing has very little
experience building an operational stealth anything. As far as
construction techiques go about the only significant thing they
learned was that plastic wings won't work. Anything else they learned
such as things to speed up manufacturing are hardly enough to cover
the cost of developement.

Northrop has a bit of experience, too, which includes the sage advice
to leave off canards if stealth is a goal.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer