F-32 vs F-35

Has an aircraft that lost a US (or any government fly-off) ever made it to
production?
"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.

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?

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.

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?

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".

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

"The Raven" wrote in message
...
"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.

Like the construction technique for the wing? Single piece carbon fibre
complex curve. Didn't really work.....

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 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then it is by definition "inferior". Where is this wonderful "impressive
technological" performance you keep ranting about? Its screwed up wing? Its
lack of sufficient tail area? Its inadequate power plant or putrid STOVL
system? Where is this vaunted performance?

snip




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

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

Once again you're equating similar with identical.

No, once again I am equating a poorly designed and performing X-32 with
numerous obvious and serious design and performance shortfalls with
requiring comparitively MORE subsequent R&D funding to try and turn it into
a LESS capable fighter than the X-35-to-F-35 progression.




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

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

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

I did not think you'd be able to fight that one.

snip


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

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

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

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

You have ignored the fact that (a) R&D to get a clunky X-32 into the shape
needed to be a viable fighter aircraft is going to be more than it takes to
get the much-closer-to-final-product X-35 to the F-35 stage, and (b) for
that additional monetary committment, you end up with an aircraft that is
less capable than the F-35. How many nations are going to say, "Yeah, let's
commit a few billion dollars to R&D, and then buy the resulting F-32 at X
million dollars per copy, as opposed to just paying X million dollars per
copy for the MORE capable F-35, and let's start our own logisitics and
service support structure for our F-32's to boot!"? Not many, IMO.

snip


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

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

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

Nope. Name an area where your F-32 would NOT be an inferior performer to the
F-35. Any area, any mission.


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

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

Well gee, it appears MOST rational nations prefer to spend their money on
the best performance they can afford. Since we (myself and a slew of other
posters) have repeatedly shown that you are extremely unlikely to bring any
F-32 online at any significant savings per unit copy compared to the F-35,
then you are left with being able to sell your notional F-32's only to
irrational governments that might want to plunk down the same money for less
performance, so where does that leave your argument standing?


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

If they don't need JSF level performance they would be much better off
buying later block F-16's, F-18E/F, Gripen, Mirage 2000, etc. Which don't
require the oodles of R&D committment that your F-32 does. You seem to be
advocating development of an F-32 that offers F-16-like performance, but at
greater than F-16 cost--bad strategy, IMO.


and that just is not
gonna happen. Period.

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

As others have pointed out, this question is just a non-starter from the
get-go. It is a BAD idea.




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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

Not that much good design, from what I have read. Boeing will take what good
parts there are and try to use them in their UCAV proposal; beyond that,
they are going to take that overweight pony that is the X-32 out into the
desert and put it out of its misery, more than likely.



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

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

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

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

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

But NOT in determining how the procurement would be played out in terms of
the issue of whether to have a competitive fly-off or to just select the
best final proposal for a one-off flying demo. OK?


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

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

They competed to that point because the USG funded that level of
competition. The USG could just as easily have said it was going to only
fund one flying prototype from among the best final proposals--it has done
so in the past.


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

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

Size of market had precious little to do with it.


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

Bingo! Now you have it! The above was the justification for going to the
point of a competitive fly-off--nothing to do with the export market size.


snip


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

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

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

Yep, they did. And Boeing made some bad choices with how to pursue it using
those funds, resulting in a poorly performing prototype. You recall there
was not much whining from the Boeing camp when the X-35 was announced as
winner--the Boeing folks knew they had been outperformed.


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

Admittedly not the wisest choice.

At that point they did not have much choice--the lion's share of the
expenses had already been absorbed, as had their share of the USG funding,
so there was nothing to lose by pushing through to the bitter end.


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

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

On the contrary--using the X-35 as the basis for all of the variants to be
developed offers significant future savings in terms of logisitics and unit
costs. If by the "one basket" bit you mean putting both the ATF and JSF
projects in the same corporate hands, it again is not such a bad thing. LMCO
holding the JSF with its admittedly better performing F-35 means that LMCO
does not squeal quite as loudly when the DoD (very possibly) rams home its
plans to reduce the purchase quantity of the much more expensive F/A-22.


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

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

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

See earlier arguments why the F-32 can't compete in that environment due to
both cost and existing platforms that already fill that niche.


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

I accept that could be the case.

It would be. Leaving you with an aircraft in the F-16/Mirage 2000/Gripen
capability range, at the cost of the F-35, or at least very near to it. That
just is not marketable.





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

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

I suggested a few but there would be others.

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

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

Sure they will be able to afford buying the aircraft, using US aid money
just as they currently do for all of their US aircraft purchases. But they
could NOT pony up the R&D requirement for your F-32--witness their immediate
collapse of the Lavi program the instant the USG funding was pulled.


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

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

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

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

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

You mentioned Taiwan,

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

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

Less capable than what?

Than what they can get their hands on otherwise.


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

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

The F-35 IS going to be compatible with US systems--that is one of its big
selling points. Any wildcard F-32 won't be--we won't carry its logistics
load in the USAF if the USAF is not a user.


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

There is comaptible, and there is compatible. Most nations that envision the
US as a likely ally want to have some form of close compatibility with US
sytems, so they BUY US systems. Beyond that there is the issue of logistical
support, not to be minimized, either--an F-16 or F-35 operator knows that he
can get spares and support from the USG, and that in a coalition effort the
US can even further support his aircraft if required. Buying a bunch of
F-32's that are NOT operated by the USG is not going to give you that
capability.


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

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

IT WON'T BE OPERATED BY THE US. It won't be supported, as an entire system,
by the USG, meaning you have to set up your own indigenous support network.
Bad move.


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


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

Australia, Israel, Taiwan (?) for starters.

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

Alone, agreed.

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

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

Australia has two choices--go with the US, or go with a European system. If
it chooses a US system, it will invariably be one that the USG is itself
operating--they know from experience how difficult it can get when they
operate a system no longer in the USG inventory (though they have taken
advantage of some surplus offers of F-111's to facilitate spares supply).


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

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

But without the backbone of a US military logistics support network, not to
mention the advantage in terms of cost due to the much larger volume of
spares purchased, the F-32 buyer is left at a distinct disadvantage.


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

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

So you think buying 50 F-32 widgets for your orphan force is going to be as
cheap as buying 50 widgets for the F-35 on top of the 1000 F-35 widgets
purchased by the US military? Nope.




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

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

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

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

But that IS a comparitive blank page! The X-32 was MUCH further from being
an F-32 and is going to require substantially more redesign, flight testing,
etc. to make it one.

snip

Brooks

"Ian" wrote in message
...
Has an aircraft that lost a US (or any government fly-off) ever made it to
production?

The B-32 (Dominator, IIRC) reached low production during WWII after being
bested by the B-29,; it even saw some combat use late in the war. I believe
if you look into WWII and preWWII decisions on production you will find
other examples where a "lesser performer" was entered into production to
either ensure agianst the possibility of later technical concerns sidelining
the better aircraft (as was the case with the B-32), or to take advantage of
other industrial capabilities (i.e., inline versus radial engine production
could impact the decsision to produce a lesser performer). In modern times
the F-18 is a direct descendent of the losing YF-17 in the LWF competition
that saw the F-16 win. The US Army's LOH competition in the early sixties
saw the Hughes OH-6 defeat the Bell 206 for the award of the contract, but
the 206 later became a very successful aircraft, eventually ironically
replacing, in its OH/AH-58 guise, the same OH-6 that it had originally lost
out to.

Brooks

snip

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 09:53:39 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

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.

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due to
ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a C_D_U
of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:53:20 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

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.


The F-22 was developed by Lockheed and the B-2 by Northrop. IIRC on
both aircraft the "stealthy" features are all done inhouse. So as
far as publicly known projects go Boeing seems to be limited to the
BoP the X-45, and X-46. Sure they've done things like the Super
Hornet and SLAM-ER that have a degree of stealth and the datat form
the Commanche and X-36 which they inherited but both Lockheed and
Northrop's experience goes clear back to the fifties. Compared to
Lockheed and Northrop does have very little experience. I never said
they didn't have *any* I just meant that compared to the other two
they don't have much.

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to
ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U
of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

In article .net,
"Felger Carbon" wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

Considering that C_D_U only has a scale of 1 to 250, that's hard to say.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article .net,
"Felger Carbon" wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

Considering that C_D_U only has a scale of 1 to 250, that's hard to say.


You forgot to allow for the LUF (Load Ugliness Factor) - all those Mavericks
staring back at you.


--
Errol Cavit | | It is currently fashionable to speak
of the histories of a nation, as if there are many versions of national
history (which there are), and many ways of approaching such histories
(which there are), and as if they were all of equal value and validity
(which they are not). Michael King The Penguin History of NZ

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:16:21 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:53:20 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

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.


The F-22 was developed by Lockheed and the B-2 by Northrop. IIRC on
both aircraft the "stealthy" features are all done inhouse. So as
far as publicly known projects go Boeing seems to be limited to the
BoP the X-45, and X-46. Sure they've done things like the Super
Hornet and SLAM-ER that have a degree of stealth and the datat form
the Commanche and X-36 which they inherited but both Lockheed and
Northrop's experience goes clear back to the fifties. Compared to
Lockheed and Northrop does have very little experience. I never said
they didn't have *any* I just meant that compared to the other two
they don't have much.


(uh. . .if you need that in english let me know LOL)