Forum: General F-35 Forum

count_to_10 wrote:

So, I understand the lamenting for the lost YF-23 on an emotional level -- the plane was just amazing to look at and had certain aspects of it that were superior to the YF-22.
I don't get why someone would pine for the X-32.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find ANYONE who would give you any convincing subjective or objective reasons why the X-32 was better. The X-32 looks like an A-7 ate a school bus and there's no way it could have performed anywhere near as well as the X-35. That and Boeing's STOVL hovering concept was crap while the X-35's was just plain better. Interestingly the X-35's STOVL idea was more complex and "risky" and this time the riskier idea won out as opposed to what happened with the YF-22 vs. YF-23.

F-16.net Sponsor

JetTest wrote:

Jay keeps harping about Boeing/Northrup not being given enough time to complete their STOVL entrant and other nonsense, when really what happened is they could not deliver within the competitive time-frame granted to all competitors. Competitions have limits for a reason, to try to keep the field level. Now he will probabaly fabricate myriad reasons why the competition was slanted towards LM.

JetTest,
If you scored distinction for Maths, Science but scored just passed for History. WHile your friend scored credits for all 3 : Maths, Science, History. Does it mean that he's better than you?

wrightwing,
The result came out that the X-32A better than X-35A. If they said bad things about the X-32, more likely they are comparing X-32B with X-35B V/STOL. The X-32B performed badly during evaluation day indeed, because Boeing/Northrop were in a rush to put the dismantled pieces together back to square 1 only after they were halfway to extend the aircraft frame. F-32B was forced to land and quit due to serious side fuselage leakage.

count_to_10,
Is that how you evaluate a plane? Just by the looks? There's this MMA fighter that doesn't have the style nor look but he could KO many in UFC matches. Don't judge a plane by its look, instead get actual results.

Jay, keep in mind that we are all pretty much just out-of-the-loop armatures who don't know the real, classified performance of the aircraft in question (or we wouldn't be commenting here). If we are honest with ourselves, we'll have to admit that looks figure heavily into any of our impressions, because we don't have a whole lot more to go on. I've seen no indication that the X-32 had higher performance than the X-35, and the program's decision to go with the F-35 indicates the opposite.

Jay,

IF you thought for a moment about what you last responded, AND if you read what I last wrote, And More IMPORTANTLY you understood how a competition for something like this worked, you would realize and understand you just said the same thing I said. The customer decides what they want the product to do, decides how soon they want proposals, and selects potential suppliers to request proposals from. They provide a performance specification and proposal ground rules to the competitors and wait for the responses in accordance with the provided specs and ground rules, and then evaluate the total performance of each competitor. By your own words above, BOEING WAS NOT ABLE TO MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOTED BY THE CUSTOMER. BOTH COMPETITORS HAD THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. LM DELIVERED, BOEING DID NOT.

JetTest wrote:

Jay,

IF you thought for a moment about what you last responded, AND if you read what I last wrote, And More IMPORTANTLY you understood how a competition for something like this worked, you would realize and understand you just said the same thing I said. The customer decides what they want the product to do, decides how soon they want proposals, and selects potential suppliers to request proposals from. They provide a performance specification and proposal ground rules to the competitors and wait for the responses in accordance with the provided specs and ground rules, and then evaluate the total performance of each competitor. By your own words above, BOEING WAS NOT ABLE TO MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOTED BY THE CUSTOMER. BOTH COMPETITORS HAD THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. LM DELIVERED, BOEING DID NOT.

Shack. The Boeing proposal failed on a number of counts -- including, but not limited to, the inability of the proposed design to meet NAVY requirements. (See Sweetman's book on the subject.)

Yes, we are all just sitting behind our screens typing as military enthusiasts hoping that 1 day we all get to shop for aircrafts for our Air Force. None of us really know how well the F-32 production model (lengthened) would perform if it is not built.

Agree, customers decide which aircraft to choose. But since Boeing has the effort in developing something better like the extended variant F-32, as investor, before you even started to get the JSF program to begin with your funding, aren't you supposed to let them come up with finalize product before you decide? Would you sentence a person guilty just because he could not produce evidence on time? Example, the CSI team about to get DNA result from the lab but require 3 days, will you wait for 3 days for the result or do you immediately judge according to whatever evidence that you have that shows adverse towards the defendant?

Forget about the X-32B V/STOL variant, as the F-35B has the perfect V/STOL system. For Navy, F-35C would be more suitable mainly because Navy needs to stick to aircraft that looks more conventional. I'm saying the X-32A converted to F-32A for the Air Force. Even if it is not for the US, does it mean Boeing is not allowed to develop X-32 into F-32 and sell to friendlies? If things were to go this way, someone else like Thomas Edison will not be able to produce his invention and end up dying with poverty. In the UK, he was not appreciated so he migrated to US and formed General Electric. If UN abolished arms embargo forever where any country that could pay up could have access to any weapons except nuclear, many aircraft manufacturers would not have merger nor winded up today. It's all because of winner takes all policy or those who have connection takes all kill those who wanted to come up with new invention.

Wonder any of you even care when McDonnell Douglas winded up due to bankruptcy back then? Fyi, Mc'D built more aircrafts that could fight in war. Other than the P38, Lockheed could only built U2/SR-71 spyplanes and the can't turn F-104 that often crash. F-16 belongs to General Dynamics and Lockheed owned it just because GD went bankrupt. Now Airbus is doing well raking in most of Boeing sales in airliner market. Now you want them to have no military aircraft to sell, at the end, what do you think might happen? Since LM has connection to the government, it will always remain unharmed.

Nothing in that last post even began to make sense. I don't see anything there that has any connection with reality.

bigjku wrote:

Nothing in that last post even began to make sense. I don't see anything there that has any connection with reality.

Thank goodness.
I thought it was me and the hallucinogens kicking in again.
fisk

I am really trying not to feed the trolls, but I can't help it this time:

Jayraptor,

First off, there are some on this board that do have considerable experience in the Aerospace industry, johnwill being one of the major ones who actually has significant history with the F-111, and F-16 among other aircraft.

Your criminal trial is a terrible analogy to the X-32 vs. X-35 competition. Neither X-32, nor the X-35 was on trial. But for the sake of argument lets say the JPO grants a 6 month extension to the competition for both teams so that Boeing can complete their lengthened design. Now Boeing has a complete design, but LM found a way to greatly improve the X-35 performance, but they need more time. Does JPO grant another extension? If not, the competition clearly favored Boeing and LM will sue, if so then what if Boeing comes up with another new concept that it needs more time on. Either option leads to delays in the selection of the aircraft and never gives the war fighter what they need.

To further the analogy: I rowed in college, my team was ok during the body of the race, but we had great closing speed, on several occasions we lost races by a single stroke, if you extended the race 10m we would have won a great deal more races. Should the officials have extended the race, because we were closing so wonderfully?

Boeing is free to develop the F-32A and sell it to allies, but it must get approval from congress and the DoD for every sell, just like every other aircraft sold to a foreign military. Nothing is stopping Boeing from developing, building and marketing the F-32.

As for the UN abolishing arms embargo, I got news for you. The US rules for sale of weapons to foreign countries are a lot more restrictive than those of the UN. As for all the mergers of the 1990’s, you can blame that on the Clinton White House and the “Right Size” policy. Winner take all is a lot cheaper in the long run anyway.

As for McDD, what happened there is they didn’t innovate their commercial line, and somehow Boeing beat them in the JSF, I still think it should have been LM and McDD for the final JSF competition, I think McDD design was better than Boeings and would have been a better challenger to LM.

McD and Douglas did build a lot of fighters and bombers, but why go after LM for not making as many fighters as McDD? If you were going to go after one of the two you should have gone after Boeing. What is the last war-bird built by Boeing? LM has the P-38, P-80, F-104, T-50, and F-22 (along with the F-16, F-111, F-117, SR-71, U-2, ect.)

Finally, Boeing still had the F-15, F-18, C-17, V-22, and several UAV’s, they are fine in the military aviation. Boeing has many very powerful political connections as well, don’t be naïve and assume LM has a corner on the market. Actually Boeing is one of the worst, here are a few highlights:
1995-on: Paid $1.6 BILLION to settle 39 misconducts
2006 Paid $615 Million for illegal hiring of government officials and misuse of proprietary information
2008-2010: Spent $52.29 Million on Lobbying, and got $178 Million tax rebate, despite making $9.7 Billion
2010, 3Q: Spent $13.2 Million on lobbying
Not saying you can’t find similar info on LM, just saying Boeing is not an angel.
LM in 2010, 3Q: Spent $9.9 Million on lobbying

Sufa Viper

Good post Sufa, but I will add that Boeing does not own the X32, the USG does. Just as with the F136, the contractor would need right of use approval from the USG to continue development prior to any request for approval for any foreign sale. USG owns the design, does not want it, it's dead.

Not only that, but where is Boeing supposed to get the tens of billions for development?

Internal? Doubtful as that would be one hell of a gamble without much chance of any sales.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

What would happen if the F-35 does get canceled?