Forum: General F-35 Forum

A blessed April 1st to you, too, avxva.

F-16.net Sponsor

Just like any fighter project on earth, the F-35 shares much of it's design with its predecessors while at the same time pushing the envelope and designing some new ideas.

New stuff:
DSI inlet
Lift Fan
Fibermat RAM
Automated logistics

Taking previous designs to the next level:
EODAS
APG-81
Level of sensor integration

I would add to SpudmanWP in re "pushing the envelope": preplanned partnerships with various militaries throughout the world. The scale of requirements and their allowances is unprecedented for any development program, military or civilian.

Last edited by munny on Apr 02, 2012 - 06:52 AM; edited 1 time in total

avxva wrote:

Yeah, but so far the LM/F-35 joke has been on the American taxpayer, our armed forces, and the United States as a nation.....

It was funny how the progression of your comments a week ago went from "hi, I'm not trolling, just asking objective questions..." to all out f-35 hatred. Oops, damn, you stepped out of character.

Would not be surprised if your IP has been seen in the past by mods of the site and you're just trying some tact before becoming more colourful in your posts.

Last edited by hb_pencil on Apr 02, 2012 - 11:33 AM; edited 1 time in total

Roscoe wrote:

Simply stated, any hardware that was built on a USG contract is owned by the USG. And code that was 100% paid for by the USG is USG property. Problem with this is that is if any of the code was developed on company nickel, then the USG can't do anything with that code (because part of it is proprietary). I ran afoul of that at the Viper SPO. We wanted to put real HUD code in simulators, but part of that code was developed by LMTAS and was therefore proprietary so we could only do so if we paid LMTAS a truck load of $$...it was cheaper to pay for new code (less efficient, but it was only for a trainer so...

Hi Roscoe... who owns the IP with derivative works? IE when a pre-existing code has to be modified/rewritten to fit a specific use. I know how it works in Canada, but I'm curious how it is generally dealt with in the US. Is ownership based on a case by case basis or is it owned by the government?

munny wrote:

trying a new tact

Tack.

tact ... and changed the context.

velocityvector wrote:

I would add to SpudmanWP in re "pushing the envelope": preplanned partnerships with various militaries throughout the world. The scale of requirements and their allowances is unprecedented for any development program, military or civilian.

Warning -- OT ahead.

velocityvector, with no intent to criticize you, I have seen the word, preplanned, and similar word, preprogrammed, used more and more frequently over the past thirty years. Can someone please tell me the difference between preplanned and planned or between preprogrammed and programmed? Almost as bad as "having said that..." or "going forward". Yuk.

avxva wrote:

Conceptually, is the F-35 a progression, a continuation, of pre-existing technology (systems development) or does it represent a radical departure and a new approach to stealth and FCS technology? How much did the F-117, B-2 and F-22 (and everything that came before) contribute to the the F-35?

If every system except for the helmet / visor in the F-35 has a technological lineage that goes back decades AND if the US Gov. owns all the various lineages, that means LM (and their subcontractors) have access to everything.

And if that's all true, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? Everybody is acting like LM is "going where no man has gone before" when in truth the government has a couple of 3-story libraries full of information and data on how to design and place a tailhook.

Quite simply: Did the US Gov. choose the wrong contractor? And if LM is the "right" contractor, what are the chances that the F-35 DESIGN is too complex to be actually produced at a realistic price?

On the other hand, if the argument is that, "LM truely is having to go where no man has gone before," why didn't the US Gov bring EVERYBODY onboard from the beginning, LM, Boeing, Northrop Gumman and everyone else, to make sure that such a HUGE undertaking went smoothly??

Al

It's easy to criticize after the fact. It's impossible to anticipate every single potential issue, and have a solution, prior to testing. There were mistakes made, in assuming that the level of concurrence planned, would be lower in risk, than has been observed. Aside from some of the overly optimistic planning, the program has gone pretty well, for such a revolutionary undertaking.

avxva wrote:

velocityvector wrote:

A blessed April 1st to you, too, avxva.

Yeah, but so far the LM/F-35 joke has been on the American taxpayer, our armed forces, and the United States as a nation.....

How so?

The plane has demonstrated excellent performance so far, in acceleration, as well as exceeding the speed/G requirements. It's RCS was better than the specification. The radar, EODAS/EOTS/ESM systems have all been performing very well. When problems have arisen, they've been solved quickly for the most part. Even with the price increases, there are no competitors, that offer more capability for the money.

>>Even in a Rafale US knowledge has been used. Not that sure of, but was mentioned in a article.>>

I read another article which read ' Rafale is 100% French technology'
The US government can block the sale of Gripen ( Volvo engines) and I'm not sure but even the EF needs some US clearance but not the Rafale , I am pretty sure of that.
The UAE will buy the Rafale because of its ability to launch the long range SCALP EG
the US is strictly against selling long range A2G missile to any country in middle east and it would certainly block the sale of EF with Storm Shadow! but when it comes to the Rafale,there is nothing one can do .

sferrin wrote:

mave wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

The US Government owns it. This was demonstrated when the F136 was canceled and the USG got all the test engines.

Not strictly true. The Government may own the hardware assets, but it doesn't necessarily own the underlying technology; only the application of that technology.

If they paid for the underlying tech. they own it all. If not then not. I seem to recall the latter playing a part in the A-12 debacle. GD and McDonnell were trying to build a stealth aircraft but Lockheed and Northrop had all the know how.

Right, but I doubt that the USG paid for all of the underlying tech used by any of its suppliers - whether that be a forging process, an analysis code, or a patented design style. Each supplier has proprietary know-how that separates it from its competitors

duplex wrote:

>>Even in a Rafale US knowledge has been used. Not that sure of, but was mentioned in a article.>>

I read another article which read ' Rafale is 100% French technology'
The US government can block the sale of Gripen ( Volvo engines) and I'm not sure but even the EF needs some US clearance but not the Rafale , I am pretty sure of that.
The UAE will buy the Rafale because of its ability to launch the long range SCALP EG
the US is strictly against selling long range A2G missile to any country in middle east and it would certainly block the sale of EF with Storm Shadow! but when it comes to the Rafale,there is nothing one can do .

0% US is quite actively advertised in Europe, due to the way ITAR restrictions can prevent later sales to non-military end users Sad

Quote:

velocityvector, with no intent to criticize you, I have seen the word, preplanned, and similar word, preprogrammed, used more and more frequently over the past thirty years. Can someone please tell me the difference between preplanned and planned or between preprogrammed and programmed? Almost as bad as "having said that..." or "going forward"

@johnwill:
Wow, then "reiterate" must really peeve you off. I'll accept my lumps and move on. My choice of term was this lazy poster's desire to communicate that the F-35 program was intended from very early in its history to equip other nations, each with its own requirements. Whereas a program such as F-4 eventually led to planned acquisitions by foreign militaries but not comparably early. I pray there will be no need to reiterate these observations. Iterate. Reiterate. Base condition. Return results.

duplex wrote:

>>Even in a Rafale US knowledge has been used. Not that sure of, but was mentioned in a article.>>

I read another article which read ' Rafale is 100% French technology'
The US government can block the sale of Gripen ( Volvo engines) and I'm not sure but even the EF needs some US clearance but not the Rafale , I am pretty sure of that.
The UAE will buy the Rafale because of its ability to launch the long range SCALP EG
the US is strictly against selling long range A2G missile to any country in middle east and it would certainly block the sale of EF with Storm Shadow! but when it comes to the Rafale,there is nothing one can do .

Remembered a few years ago having read about this in an article, but never was really much interested in.

Don’t know that much more about this subject, but googled a bit and found this:

WikiLeaks Cablegate: Investigate India's decision to drop French Rafale planes from its fighter competition

Quote: Over the last few months, the French sales effort has been based on a misleading, if not fraudulent, claim that their plane involves only French content
(rendering it free of meddlesome U.S. export controls).
This is not the case. A DTSA analysis found a high level of U.S. content, including targeting systems, radar components and safety systems that will require U.S. licenses. Next steps:

-- Although it does not appear that the tech data provided with the French bid violated ITAR regs, PM/DDTC and DTSA should continue to monitor French marketing to ensure Dassault does not skirt ITAR restrictions.

-- Investigate India,s decision to drop the Rafale from its fighter competition to see if there is a reason that would make the aircraft less attractive to Brazil.

-- Ensure the Brazilians are aware that we expect to be issuing retransfer licenses for U.S.-origin components on the French plane and have already approved transfer of some technical data.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/wikileaks-ca ... 72-53.html

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Who owns the F-35 technology?