F-32 vs F-35

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

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

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

OK

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

OK

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

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

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

OK, that's two.


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?)

Ahh, an this was alluded to in my original posts but no-one responded to it.
The US government would not allow Boeing to go ahead, assuming they wanted
to, so as to retain control of technology and resulting capabilities that
could affect US interests.


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?

They've spent money to gain knowledge and the potential for industrial
involvement. Even the JSF Team acknowledge that several partner nations
haven't committed to a purchase but, hope to convert those partners to sales
in the long run.

Australias 150M input is not going to be wasted if they decide not to
purchase F-35 (noting no formal agreement to purchase). Australian industry
has already won 10 JSF related contracts and the ADF will gain some insight
into JSF technologies. Even if the Australian goverment walked away from
F-35 they would have gained sufficient return on that investment. Local
industry has won contracts, the ADF has gained knowledge that would
otherwise be difficult/impossible to self develop. For the ADF the worst
case scenario is that the money makes them nothing more than a more informed
buyer.

Especially since it would kill
their industrial involvement in the F-35 program.

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

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

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
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?

The thing Raven seems to be missing is that any additional R&D spending
(of which there will be a lot) will be amortized over a much smaller unit
count. Meaning you'd have to strip a boat load of feature off an FX-32
to get the unit cost down to F-35 levels.

Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?

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

That is a bit of an over statement.
Boeing built a fair number of fighters some time back. The last one that
required more than the fingers of one hand to count (the P-26 Peashooter)
marked the introduction of a fabulous innovation to US fighters: the mono-
wing.
That and you may want to give some credit to the MacAir part that was
assimilated a few years back.

"Lyle" wrote in message
...
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.

Well based on what's be said so far, without a firm order for a heap of
them, plus lots of USG R&D funding, it wouldn't be possible...........


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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..

"The Raven" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..

"The Raven" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
.. .

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

I suspect some of their X-32 technology is making its way into
their
UCAV
conceptual vehicle.

No doubt a lot of the technology will be used but the platform
itself
was
pretty impressive despite not winning the JSF contest.

Not really--that was why it lost to the LMCO bid.

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

Name an area where its performance was superior to that of the X-35.

That is not what I said and thus you're question is misleading.



It was a dog. And it was
danged ugly, with a capital U, to boot--danged thing looked like a
pregnant
cow with wings strapped on its back. Hell, it made the old EE
Lightning
look
like a true beauty, and that is saying something (not knocking the
Lightning, which was a capable and fine aircraft for its day, but it
was
not
looking to win any beauty contests).

I didn't know that the main criteria for selecting any piece of military
hardware was that it had to look good.

You need to turn on your humor switch, pardner. You take things much too
seriously, you hear?

Obviously our humour switches were both off, my comment wasn't meant to be
taken serious.







For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward
with
the
X-32
into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the
competition
that
potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to
foreign
nations?
Imagines LM's concern that potential partners may decide it
could
be
more
cost effective to go with an F32? Imagine the potential (albeit
unlikely)
of
F32 going up against F35? Imagine the possibility of a second
JSF-like
aircraft capability for the US to tap into if need be?

Imagine the cost of development. No company has the resources
required
to
develop a first-line combat aircraft today independent of
governmental
financing.

Hence look for governments outside the US that are willing to do it.
I'm
not
suggesting the F32 would end up with the exact same capability and
fitout
as
planned but it could be built with the commitment of several
governments.

All of which would be much happier just piggybacking on the massive
R&D
funding that the USG is placing in the winning F-35 program. Note that
a
lot
of other nations HAVE ponied up R&D money to participate in this
program,
and none of them have come forth saying, "Hey, can we buy into that
Boeing
dog instead?"

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

Compared to the X-35 it was indeed a dog.


The reason no-one has considered the X32 is simply because Boeing hasn't
proceded with it, for whatever reasons. Had Boeing said "We're going
ahead
anyway with a revised design that we believe will offer similar
capabilities
for a lower cost" then some may have expressed interest in finding out
what
this may be.

LOL! "Similar capabilities at a lower cost, and all without the benefit
ogf
the US taxpayers' largesse!" What planet are you from? Since the X-32
airframe was further from being a fighter than the X-35 was, and the
latter
is taking some $28 billion to develop, just how the heck do you figure the
major redesign of the X-32 (like adding that whole tail reconfiguration,
etc., into the mix) would be *cheaper*?!

Once again you're equating similar with identical.



That said, the US is footing the majority of the bill.

As major buyer, who also has a vested interest in LM selling heaps,
you'd
expect that.

And without a major buyer, or combination thereof adding up to the fifteen
hundred or so the US is purchasing, your less-than-F-35-capable F-32 is
going to have a higher unit cost, even if you were to claim that the X-32
development cost just matched that of the X-35. Toss in the R&D funding
that
the US would NOT be contributing to the X-32, and your unit cost just went
way up. Sorry, but you are using some serious voodoo budget planning if
you
think you can get the X-32 sans USG R&D funding to match the cost of the
F-35.


Note
that the consortium of major European nations developing the
Eurofighter
have had their hands full funding that program (and now have the added
challenge of funding the A-400);

A good point.

given that situation, how likely is it that
you could find any group of "other" friendly nations that would be
willing
to come up with the many billions of dollars required to make the X-32
viable? Not very, IMO.

Naturally Boeing would have to offer something very attractive in the
form
of capability and cost to garner enough financial interest to go ahead.
Who
funds Boeings development of any commercial aircraft today?

But that would be impossible! For gosh sakes, the R&D costs don't just
amortize themselves, and you still need a massive order book to even bring
the unit cost down anywhere even NEAR that of the F-35, with its USG and
allied funding and already committed (more or less) order book.



When that governmental financing goes down, pace of development
also takes a nosedive--take the Rafale as an example.

Sure.



For Boeing, excluding any political over-rides, they could have
had
a
market
for their aircraft that competed directly against the F35 and/or
eroded
some
of it's competitors market. Additionally, it could upset the
supposed
superiority of the F35 by offering something (possibly) similar
in
capability to the F35 than anything else.

Ain't gonna happen without governmental R&D support.

There are more governments in the world than the US government.

And outside of Europe how many (in the "friendly to the US category")
are
in
a financial position to fork over the $30 billion or more required to
make
the X-32 a real F-32?

Is it really 30B or is that the forecast for the F35?

It is some $28 billion for the F-35, which is one heck of a lot closer to
its X-35 ancestor than any F-32 would have been to the X-32, which
demonstrated some serious design shortfalls during the testing program--so
you can safely assume that the X-32-to-F-32 development cost would be
*higher* than that of the LMCO bid. That was one of the reasons the X-35
won -- Boeing had to go into final selection saying, "Well, we know there
are some major redesign requirements that have to be met before the X-32
can
be considered anywhere near being a viable JSF, but we are confident we
can
acheive this..." (with the unsaid but obvious caveat, "...given enough
additional funding").


Japan springs to mind...but they are already fully
committed to their own F-2 project.

There are lots of asian nations looking for replacements, most friendly.
However, it would obviously need some careful thought and serious
committment.

Most of those nations are struggling to come up with the funds to purchase
a
comparitive handful of F-16C/D or F-18E/F's right now, but you think they
can magically come up with umpteen billions for R&D, not to mention the
subsequent unit purchase cost, of a couple of thousand F-32's, which would
be required in order to make its price competitive with that of the F-35?
I
don't think so.


Recall that one of the reasons Boeing
came up short in this competition was that their X-32 was apparently
quite
a
bit further from being a workable fighter than the competing LMCO X-35
was;
Boeing had already had to admit that some *major* redesign would be
required
based upon flight test results of the X-32.

Has Boeing has ever produced a fighter aircraft?

The last Boeing production fighter aircraft, outside the F-18E/F and F-15E
which it inherited from McD-D when it merged with that firm, was a piston
engined, open-cockpit monoplane known as the P-26 Peashooter IIRC.


In comparison, the F-35 has so
far undergone relatively little external change from the X-35 article
(some
increased dimensions, i.e., a slightly larger cross section of the
fuselage
behind the cockpit IIRC) during the period before the design outline
was
frozen a year or more ago.

Fair enough, the X35 is superior to the X32 but I wouldn't rule out that
the
X32 could not be developed into something very capable. The crux of the
X32
development is, who would fund it and whether enough could be built to
make
it viable. I think it's a shame to see the X32 be discontinued merely
because it didn't meet a specific specification yet shows promise.

It failed to meet specs because it had serious design problems. STOVL was
only one of the parameters it came up short in regards to. The fact that
it
needed a whole new empennage design points to the difficulties it would
have
faced.





So the question is, could there have economically been a market
for
the
F32
outside the US and would the US government have allowed Boeing
to
produce
such an aircraft?

No and yes (but a meaningless yes as it just was not a possible
outcome).

Why not possible. Not all aircraft developments hinge on funding
from
Uncle
Sam.

Look, get the "anything said has to relate to some kind of superiority
complex regarding the US" chip off your shoulder, OK?

Sorry, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the US. I was responding
to
your use of the word "government" implying the US government. I took it
that
you ruled out all other governments as a possible source of funding.

Realistically, yes I do rule out such sources. Because of those that are
in
the firindly camp, none leap to mind that have the resources required, are
not already committed to other major R&D efforts, or are downright
unwilling
to buy an aircraft that the USAF itself considered inferior (another
poster
has alluded to the past F-20 saga at Northrop--the parallels would be
applicable).


The fact of the matter
is that (a) the X-35 was the better platform, by most accounts;

Agreed

(b) the X-32
had some significant design flaws requiring major redesign before it
was
ready to move into the fighter realm; and

I don't know if there were significant design flaws but I appreciate
that
a
prototype is a prototype and not expected to be perfect. Obviously, the
X32
didn't perform as well as teh X35. Some redesign may be necessary but I
don't think the aircraft is inherently bad. If it was so bad, it would
never
have made it into the competition or remained there until the end.

Why do you say that? The USG had already committed to seeing both aircraft
enter into the final competition stage. Boeing started having problems
with
the X-32 design rather early in the production phase, and then found that
they had some major redesign required after it entered into flight test.
What nation would want to dump as much, or even nearly as much, capital
into
developing and fielding the *losing* design when they could much more
easily, and more cheaply when you face facts, buy the winner?


(c) the plain fact of the matter
is that there are not any nations out there that both have the
available
capital to manage such an expensive proposition and are not ALREADY
committed to other major development projects, and who fall into that
vital
"friendly to the US" category.

I concede it's a tough ask but it isn't impossible.

Well, I don't see any willing to meet that demand while also being willing
to accept an aircraft that would be inferior to the F-35.


All of that adds up to this being a
completely unworkable proposition.

I not so certain it's completely unworkable. Difficult yes, viable
maybe.
Certainly it would be better than someone embarking on another all new
aircraft design.

And who is even going to be able to do that? I am sorry, but yes, the
proposal is indeed just plain unwokable.






My initial assumption is that the US government wouldn't allow
Boeing
to
do
such for reasons including: protecting LM's interests, ensuring
that
other
nations didn't end up with similar capabilities, and to protect
US
"security".

Then that would be an incorrect assumption. The fact is that the
development
costs for such advanced aircraft are extremely expensive, and the
US
could
only afford to back one horse, just as it could only afford to
field
one
of
those horses itself.

To the spec they had set, probably. Without those constraints it
*may*
be
possible to bring the X-32 into production but obviously in a
somewhat
different form (which may be at a lesser cost than the proposed
F-32).

Hardly. You keep forgetting that the X-32 was a lot further from being
an
F-32 than the X-35 was from being the F-35.

I agree it's less mature but that doesn't mean it's so bad it should be
scrapped.

Why should it not be? Are you really saying it would be advantageous to
dump
*more* R&D funding into trying to make the X-32 a workable fighter than it
would be to just take advantage of the US committment to the F-35 and just
buy into the more capable aircraft (F-35)?

No, I'm saying it's cheaper to pick up the development of an existing design
than start fresh. I've already said that not everyone will want an F-35.



Even doing all of the expensive
redesign to make the F-32 a reality would still leave you with an
aircraft
that is inferior to the LMCO product,

Depends on the final capability requirements, which may not be the same
as
the F35. Where not even certain of what all the final capabilities of
the
F35 will be. Just because it doesn't beat an F35 doesn't mean it's
inferior.

Yes it does! That is the definition of inferior, for gosh sakes!

Inferior to one set of requirements doesn't imply inferior to all others.
Compromise, adaption....

What you
are instead arguing is that it might still be more *cost effective* based
upon this fantastical situation where the F-32 comes up cheaper (based
upon
final unit cost with all R&D included) than the F-35,

Forget the damn JSF requirements and the F-35, it's decided and over. That
specific market is gone so, stop locking yourself into a narrow view of "it
must be a JSF/F-35 equal".

What about the rest of the world and the possibility that the X-32 could be
adapted to meet a different but not wildly dis-similar set of requirements.
Sure, it's a challenging proposition but fare more practical than starting
with a blank piece of paper because, beyond that, no other option exists for
a similar role.

and that just is not
gonna happen. Period.

That might be the case. It's a matter of exploring possibilities here, hence
asking the questions.



and you'd have dumped beaucoup bucks
into making *that* a reality.

I'm not suggesting that the X32 be developed into a direct competitor
with
a
100% match in capability to the F35. The suggestion is that the X32
development not be wasted and that it could be developed into something
viable. Not everyone wants the full JSF capability or can afford it. The
X32
has the potentional to fill that market.

But it would be MORE expensive than the F-35!

That's you're assumption and you're welcome to it. We know that if the X-32
had been selected it would have needed redesign that the X-35 didn't. Beyond
that we could assume that either aircraft would probably consume a similar
amount of SDD funding to meet the final production spec.

I was postulating that with a pre-existing design, not yet locked in
concrete, and a new set of non-JSF specific requirements it would be far
easier/cheaper to get an aircraft into production than start afresh.

You've made some very good comments about development costs, unit prices,
finding customers, funding etc. They are obviously serious issues and issues
worth considering.



Not a good way of doing business, even at the
governmental level.


There's obviously a market for this type of aircraft or the
competition
wouldn't have taken place.

No, the competition took place because we wanted to select the best
competitor for further development.

So what happens with the X-32 design? Plenty of good research and design
there that could be picked up by someone, albeit someone(s) with lots of
money.


Which was decided by the government and their end users who had specific
requirements in mind. These requirements do not necessarily reflect
those
of
everyone else but, they may come close.

The fact that two companies competed to
the point that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market

Obviously it did. No use bidding to produce and aircraft which has such
a
limited market the customer won't be able to afford it and you wont be
able
to sell it elsewhere.

What? You call a two-thousand aircraft market "limited"?

No, please reread. Obviously market size (particularly units forecast) did
play a part in the JSF competition.

Or the US
committment to at least some fifteen hundred "limited"?

You stated previously "The fact that two companies competed to the point
that they did had nothing to do with the size of the market". Now you're
suggesting market size was significant in attracting bidders....

The fact is that we
COULD have done it the same way we did when we built the F-15--no flying
competitiion was held for that program (and recall that the F-15 has
enjoyed
some significant export success in spite of it never having been involved
in
a competitive fly-off during its initial development). Instead we chose to
have a fly-off between the two final competitors' conceptual
vehicles--that
decision was not a product of the market, however.

It was a product of a specific market segment, the USG and various partners
waving the 4000 unit "carrot" in front of the competitors.

The decision to fund a fly-off was expensive but justified from the
viewpoint that the requirements could not be met with any existing or
modified design. It had to be new, to mitigate the risk of an all new
aircraft it was necessary and practical to justify funding a fly-off.



--it
could have just as well been handled on the basis of selecting the
best
proposal from one of the firms without having developed flight-capable
demonstrators, but that would not have been wise given that the basic
aircraft is asked to do quite a lot more than any other current or
planned
fighter project under development anywhere in the world (demanding the
same
basic aircraft design be capable of conventional land based use, CTOL
carrier use, and STOVL was quite a tall order).

Several points here.

Why would anyone go to this effort if there was no return in it for
them?
If
you knew you had no chance of winning you'd save your R&D budget and bow
out
of the competition.

The USG was providing both firms with R&D funding.

Yes but I suspect that both competitors also spent some of their own money
in the hope of edging out the competitor.

And Boeing did not
realize that their initial design had some serious problems until after it
entered into the test program, by which time they just gritted their teeth
and tried to put the best face upon the situation in hopes that they might
get the contract

Admittedly not the wisest choice.

(the fact that LMCO was already contracted for the F-22 was
not necessarilly all to their benefit--Boeing had hopes that the DoD might
be willing to further spread the wealth in the fighter design/production
business, meaning they really were hoping for some advantageous political
consideration in their favor).

Yes, there were the political aspects as well as the logic that putting all
the eggs into the one basket (or bird in this case) was not necessarily the
wisest thing to do.

You state that the basic aircraft was set requirements that no other
aircraft currently has. If those requirements are so valuable then there
is
potentially a market for more than one offering. Sure, the market may be
limited in size but buyers will always prefer two options over one.
Hence,
an F32 could provide an alternative even allowing that it may be less
capabl
e than an F35. Of course, to do this an F32 would need to be attractive
in
some other way (eg. affordability, trading off expensive capabilities
not
required by most customers - VTOL).

I find all of the above illogical. The reason that the competition was
taken
to the fly-off stage was that the requirements were widespread and quite
great.

A. The requirements were for a platform to have capabilities that no
existing aircraft has.
B. The requirments were predicated on a few primary partners with differing
and sometimes unique goals.
C. Some of the broader capabilities are desirable to a wider audience than
the current JSF partners.
D. Therefore there is a market for more than the proposed JSF/F-35
production.
E. Boeing having lost the JSF market may find it viable to chase that
broader, albeit smaller, non-JSF partner market.
F. Boeing would be free of the JSF requirements which may give scope for
differing approaches.
G. Some of the lesser JSF partners may also find the Boeing alternative
attractive.
H. The broad market now has two options, even if they aren't identical in
capabilities.

That has little or nothing to do with the eventual final market span.
And the development of the X-32 without USG R&D would have resulted in a
higher priced final product than the F-35.

I accept that could be the case.




Who's to say there isn't other markets than the
current JSF partner nations? I'm sure others would like something
similar
and, combined together, could probably generate sufficient funds to
see
the
X32 developed into something.

OK, so you come up with a list of these economically able nations who
(a)
are on our good guys list,

I suggested a few but there would be others.

What few? You said Israel--nonstarter since they could not even pony up
the
fee for joining the F-35 program,

Yet are now enquiring about them, which suggests they can afford them OR
will be able to get concessions somehow.

and that fee was a hell of a lot less than
the total R&D for the F-32 would be.

Doesn't tie you to buying it either. You may be able to afford a partnership
but not buy, alternatively you might be able to afford them but don't see
the point in funding the development.

That last point is obviously a serious one if Boeing were to develop the
X-32

Plus, Israel in a consortium invites
the potential of alienating other potential members who would be unwilling
to participate with them on an equal basis.

Hence they don't become partners and then bring political pressure to bear
later on.

You mentioned Taiwan,

Its reported that they expressed interest but then I doubt that they are
really considering it.

but taiwan
has no interest in obtaining another less-capable fighter,

Less capable than what?

especially one
that is not fully compatable with US military systems--

Why wouldn't the F-35, or a Boeing wildcard, not be compatible with US
systems?

In any case, take a look at the Eurocopter Tigre. The Tigre is being made
compatible with US systems because a small customer wants it. Of course, the
manufacturer see the benefit in being US systems compatible.

witness their early
exit from the AIDC Ching Kuo program as soon as the F-16 became available.
NATO allies want to reamin on the USAF standard, so that rules them out.

Only if you assume that a Boeing option wouldn't be US systems compatible,
which there is no reason to believe.

The
Asian allies are still wrestling with the impact of their past economic
woes. The South American's lack the economic capital (witness further
delays
in the current Brazilian fighter competition). So who the hell is left?


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

Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.

Two of those have already been addressed above. Australia? Nope. Lack of
sufficient defense R&D capital to go it alone,

Alone, agreed.

and besides, they are smart
enough to realize that taking advantage of the USAF/USN/USMC committment
to
the F-35 is the way to go.

The Australian argument isn't that straight forward. If it was that clear
cut the AIR6000 project would have come to that conclusion long before the
politicians made their last minute decision under pressure from the JSF
marketing team and local industry.

You seem to be forgetting that merely developing
and building these mythical F-32's is not the only issue--you then have to
support that fleet for a few decades.

Note that Boeing has lots of experience supporting orphan aircraft. The RAAF
also have lots of experience with otherwise unsupportable aircraft types.

Taking advantage of an established US
logistics and support pipeline is a hell of a lot cheaper than creating a
new one from scratch on your own.

Agreed, but there are many pipelines to choose so it's rarely a sole source
issue predicated solely on cost.



(c) are willing to dump insane amounts of capital towards
the fielding of an aircraft that is going to in the end undoubtedly
cost
more per unit (when all of that additional R&D is factored in) than
the
F-35

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

Huh? No, the additional R&D for the X-35 to get it, a much
closer-to-final-product design than the X-32 was, is budgeted at some $28
billion--so what do you think doing even MORE work on the X-32 would cost?

Forget the F-35, I wasn't talking about it here. The X-32 has had heaps of
R&D money pumped into it so, why not start from this position than a blank
page?



(which not only required less redesign but also enjoys the largesse of
Uncle
Sugar handling the majority of the R&D funding, and enjoys a large
base
order from the US which drives the unit cost down)

Yes, it's not going to be easy to generate the funding but that doesn't
mean
it's as impossible as you suggest. Aircraft have been designed before
with
the US funding it and I don't dispute that the benefit of a large base
order.

There just is not a group of nations that share boith the resources
required
and have the demand needed to bring the F-32 into an economic/competitive
order book range.


and is a less capable
platform than the F-35 is to boot.

Less capable than the F35 means nothing if you don't want all the
capabilities of an F35.

Less capable means all when you are talking about an aircraft that in the
end will not be any cheaper than the better performer.


If you find any, let me know; I can get
them some prime beachfront property in Nevada for a small finders fee,
and
if they are gullible enough to support this proposal they will surely
find
that real estate very attractive.

That offer still stands.

--
The Raven

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:03:59 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

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


Yeah. I was pretty much talking about just Boeing and Lockheed
though. There was a thread several years ago that kicked around the
idea that all of the published ATF ideas had canards to throw
everybody off. When it came down to it, none of the ATF proposals had
canards. Same with JSF. But it's interesting that pretty much al of
the aircraft that got their start back then all had canards. Gripen,
Typhoon, Rafale, Mig 1.42, Lavi. Anyway I'd always thought that was
an interesting observation. And yeah I remember reading about the
Northrop guy, when asked where the best location for the canard was
replied "on somebody else's aircraft". :-)

The Raven wrote:
"Lyle" wrote in message
...

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

Well based on what's be said so far, without a firm order for a heap
of them, plus lots of USG R&D funding, it wouldn't be
possible...........

True. They can do some coneptual work, looking at possible configurations
and so forth. A lot of that work would be done with low-level Air Force
study funding, though there might be some company funding as well. But they
won't start any serious design effort until the Air Force ponies up some
real cash. Which it plans to do sometime around 2013, last I had heard.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...rcraft/b-3.htm

Of course, the inital focus of a bomber replacement project will actually be
the B-2, which is scheduled to retire *before* the last B-52. The B-1 and
B-52 go out at about the same time a few years later.

--
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)

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

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

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

OK

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

OK

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

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

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

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

OK, that's two.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Ferrin wrote:

Lockheed is pretty much the stealth expert. Boeing has very little
experience building an operational stealth anything.

Aside from building a big chunk of the F-22 and B-2 (wing and fuselage
sections of both types, I believe) and the Commanche. And whatever black
programs they have to go along with the Bird of Prey unveiled last year.

--
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)

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:55:38 -0800, Lyle wrote:

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.

Oh, like the 8.6 Billion dollar contract that they just received for more
F/A-18s and development of the Ea-18G?? I think that Boeing has
far more expertise than you.

Al Minyard

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

snip

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

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

OK, that's two.

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

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

Brooks

snip