The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sublight]

Abraham, are you saying the big costs on the A & C variants have been the integration of the mission systems?

No. I said:

Just looking at the F-35 and the key complexity drivers are keeping weight and cost down while trying to shoe-horn a huge amount of mission systems into an airframe. This driver remains there for the F-35A and F-35C.

But weight and cost are a byproduct of complexity. Wouldn't a non STOVL friendly design have been much less complex?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But weight and cost are a byproduct of complexity. Wouldn't a non STOVL friendly design have been much less complex?

The F-35 is a pretty conventional designs. The lift fan occupies fuel tank space between the inlet ducts that is usually there on most twin inlet aircraft anyway. The only real effect on the conventional design is the tails behind the nozzle and that is pretty straight forward stuff. The real driver for complexity is that it has to carry large weapons bays, huge amounts of black boxes and be stealthy. If you were building a CTOL and CV version of the Yak-141 you wouldn’t be having any of this trouble.

 

[sublight]

But weight and cost are a byproduct of complexity. Wouldn't a non STOVL friendly design have been much less complex?

The F-35 is a pretty conventional designs. The lift fan occupies fuel tank space between the inlet ducts that is usually there on most twin inlet aircraft anyway. The only real effect on the conventional design is the tails behind the nozzle and that is pretty straight forward stuff. The real driver for complexity is that it has to carry large weapons bays, huge amounts of black boxes and be stealthy. If you were building a CTOL and CV version of the Yak-141 you wouldn’t be having any of this trouble.

And yet the Yak was cancelled, even after Lockheed showed up with a huge paycheck.....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And yet the Yak was cancelled, even after Lockheed showed up with a huge paycheck.....

Face Palm. First of all there was no huge paycheck from Lockheed. Certainly not enough to pay for further development of the Yak-141. They just brought an information pack. There was a ~$500m plan for Lockheed to fund Yakolev to build some more aircraft and further development but AFAIK it was never realised.

Secondly none of this has anything to do with the point I made. You just heard a name you knew – “Yak-141” – and blurted out some unrelated factoid. The point was how easy would it be to make conventional take-off and landing versions of the Yak-141? You just remove the lift only jets and the thrust control and presto you have a Yakolev F-41A. You then just strengthen the airframe, extend the wings for lower speed flight, improve the tail for better pitch control and add a tail hook and presto you have a F-41C.

I’m hoping this is getting through to you but I’m sure right now all you are thinking about is responding with another unrelated post to this discussion, probably something to do with tail hooks.

 

[sublight]

And yet the Yak was cancelled, even after Lockheed showed up with a huge paycheck.....

Face Palm. First of all there was no huge paycheck from Lockheed. Certainly not enough to pay for further development of the Yak-141. They just brought an information pack. There was a ~$500m plan for Lockheed to fund Yakolev to build some more aircraft and further development but AFAIK it was never realised.

Secondly none of this has anything to do with the point I made. You just heard a name you knew – “Yak-141” – and blurted out some unrelated factoid. The point was how easy would it be to make conventional take-off and landing versions of the Yak-141? You just remove the lift only jets and the thrust control and presto you have a Yakolev F-41A. You then just strengthen the airframe, extend the wings for lower speed flight, improve the tail for better pitch control and add a tail hook and presto you have a F-41C.

I’m hoping this is getting through to you but I’m sure right now all you are thinking about is responding with another unrelated post to this discussion, probably something to do with tail hooks.

No, all I am thinking about is why you cant find it within yourself not to talk down to other people. If the further development of the Yak had been so easy they would have done it. Lockheed did give them in the $450 million range because they needed VSTOL technology for the JSF program but Yak still pulled the plug. So throw another shrimp on the barbie and take a chill pill, mate.

 

[sferrin]

And yet the Yak was cancelled, even after Lockheed showed up with a huge paycheck.....

Face Palm. First of all there was no huge paycheck from Lockheed. Certainly not enough to pay for further development of the Yak-141. They just brought an information pack. There was a ~$500m plan for Lockheed to fund Yakolev to build some more aircraft and further development but AFAIK it was never realised.

Secondly none of this has anything to do with the point I made. You just heard a name you knew – “Yak-141” – and blurted out some unrelated factoid. The point was how easy would it be to make conventional take-off and landing versions of the Yak-141? You just remove the lift only jets and the thrust control and presto you have a Yakolev F-41A. You then just strengthen the airframe, extend the wings for lower speed flight, improve the tail for better pitch control and add a tail hook and presto you have a F-41C.

I’m hoping this is getting through to you but I’m sure right now all you are thinking about is responding with another unrelated post to this discussion, probably something to do with tail hooks.

No, all I am thinking about is why you cant find it within yourself not to talk down to other people. If the further development of the Yak had been so easy they would have done it. Lockheed did give them in the $450 million range because they needed VSTOL technology for the JSF program but Yak still pulled the plug. So throw another shrimp on the barbie and take a chill pill, mate.

Convair could have done it in the 70's with the Model 200. The Yak-141 wasn't science fiction by any stretch, but it was *available* information, and it made sense to acquire it if only to find out what not to do.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No, all I am thinking about is why you cant find it within yourself not to talk down to other people.

I’m not talking down to you out of some sense of superiority but because you are not maintaining your end of the discussion. If you drop the ball then that’s your fault not mine. Like this ridiculous diversion of the issue at hand (does a STOVL base design make it more complex to develop a CTOL version) into the commercial history of Yakovlev.

If the further development of the Yak had been so easy they would have done it.

LOL. Sure they would have. With no customers and no one to pay the bills. If every project that was easy to complete was then this webpage wouldn’t exist. But someone has to sign a cheque otherwise no one builds an aircraft.

Lockheed did give them in the $450 million range because they needed VSTOL technology for the JSF program but Yak still pulled the plug.

Lockheed brought from Yakovlev a data pack of VSTOL technology because they couldn’t access BAe’s thanks to their partnership with McAir. If you think that cost them $450m then you’re welcome to that belief. I doubt it greatly and without a definitive statement on it will reserve my judgement.

So throw another shrimp on the barbie and take a chill pill, mate.

I am chill mate. But you should stop sucking down that stealth Helium and stay on track with a discussion.

 

[LowObservable]

STOVL, plus LHD/LHA compatibility, dictated the following:

Single engine. Because no twin-engine STOVL fighter yet devised can survive an engine failure in powered lift, two engines make it less safe. The single engine costs more and weighs more than two F414s.

Engine very long and with compressor face unusually far forward, to place nozzle in correct position relative to CG. Results in fat, crowded midriff section.

Overall size/weight. Marines goal was an F/A-18C-size airframe initially, but vertical thrust available set a hard limit to VL weight.

Wing span for A/B (desired number of aircraft on an LHA deck), and overall length (LHA/D elevators). The jet has the OEW of a Super Hornet and is nine feet shorter.

Sharp increase in cross-section area behind cockpit, to accommodate the lift fan.

Alles andere is Unsinn!

 

[Mike Pryce]

STOVL, plus LHD/LHA compatibility, dictated the following:

Engine very long and with compressor face unusually far forward, to place nozzle in correct position relative to CG. Results in fat, crowded midriff section.

Sharp increase in cross-section area behind cockpit, to accommodate the lift fan.

I recall all the fuss over Harrier-like ASTOVL designs having their engines in the middle in the late 1980s, adding to wave drag, that led to a near mandating of an engine at the rear. This then led to things like lift fans to balance the rear-mounted thrust. Hmmm, worked out well....! :

 

[TomS]

Lockheed brought from Yakovlev a data pack of VSTOL technology because they couldn’t access BAe’s thanks to their partnership with McAir. If you think that cost them $450m then you’re welcome to that belief. I doubt it greatly and without a definitive statement on it will reserve my judgement.

The value of the Lockheed-Yakovlev joint partnership was announced at around $385-400 million in 1992. That included several new Yak-41M prototypes that were never actually built, so it's not obvious that all the money was actually provided. Or perhaps the money was all provided and disappeared into the black hole that was the Russian aerospace industry in this era. And it's not obvious to me that the money was all just to buy Yak-41's data package -- they may have genuinely hoped to co-market the Yak-41M itself in some markets (the 90s were crazy optimistic like that, and hey, it's working out for the Yak-130).

 

[Mike Pryce]

Would we perhaps be suggesting that the development of a supersonic STOVL aircraft leads to complex design trade-off's that are not present in "conventional" aircraft?

That's true, but in this case the need to have the thrust disposed around the centre of gravity, plus the need to minimise volume in a supersonic aircraft are actually basic good design issues rather than 'trades'. The complex stuff is in flight control in transition, HGI etc., but by throwing the basic good design stuff into the trading process against these complex issues we got to where we are today.

 

[Triton]

On Feb. 22, 2012, Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Levin flew the first F-35B test flight with external weapons pylons. The test measured flying qualities with external pylons, inert AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and a centerline 25 mm gun pod.

http://youtu.be/ouT1qtgY9qQ

 

[Triton]

On Feb. 24, 2012, the U.S. Marine Corps officially welcomed the latest fighter in its arsenal, the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant, to Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

http://youtu.be/EpIZhFLnjvc

 

[Triton]

The Commander of the 33d Fighter Wing and the aircraft's pilot discuss the first F-35A flight at Eglin AFB, Fla., March 6, 2012.

http://youtu.be/bbEgmCbpzLc

 

[Triton]

http://youtu.be/mub-j09on_4

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Single engine. Because no twin-engine STOVL fighter yet devised can survive an engine failure in powered lift, two engines make it less safe. The single engine costs more and weighs more than two F414s.

Engine very long and with compressor face unusually far forward, to place nozzle in correct position relative to CG. Results in fat, crowded midriff section.

Overall size/weight. Marines goal was an F/A-18C-size airframe initially, but vertical thrust available set a hard limit to VL weight.

Wing span for A/B (desired number of aircraft on an LHA deck), and overall length (LHA/D elevators). The jet has the OEW of a Super Hornet and is nine feet shorter.

Sharp increase in cross-section area behind cockpit, to accommodate the lift fan.

Sure but none of these factors make the aircraft inherently more difficult to build in its A and C versions which was the topic of discussion. They may make the aircraft more costly and less streamlined compared to a longer sleaker, twin F414 sans STOVL JSF but not necessarily harder to design and build. Because that long sleak, twin engine JSF would still need to fit in internal weapons and all the mission systems. Further some of the issues you raise (engine position) are thanks to Lockheed’s particular design solution and are not inherent to STOVL design.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The value of the Lockheed-Yakovlev joint partnership was announced at around $385-400 million in 1992. That included several new Yak-41M prototypes that were never actually built, so it's not obvious that all the money was actually provided. Or perhaps the money was all provided and disappeared into the black hole that was the Russian aerospace industry in this era. And it's not obvious to me that the money was all just to buy Yak-41's data package -- they may have genuinely hoped to co-market the Yak-41M itself in some markets (the 90s were crazy optimistic like that, and hey, it's working out for the Yak-130).

I mentioned the full scope of the Lockheed-Yakovlev agreement in an earlier post.

Face Palm. First of all there was no huge paycheck from Lockheed. Certainly not enough to pay for further development of the Yak-141. They just brought an information pack. There was a ~$500m plan for Lockheed to fund Yakolev to build some more aircraft and further development but AFAIK it was never realised.

I too doubt that Yakovlev received anywhere near the full amount of the agreement. It defies all contracting and payments common sense for Lockheed just to hand over a cool half billion and get nothing but some data packs back when they wanted development and production of several prototypes.

 

[LowObservable]

AG - Nonconcur, as the services tell the GAO. It takes five minutes with an unbuttoned F-35 to see the screaming complexity involved in wrapping subsystems and wire/line runs around the outside of the storm drain where the engine goes. And anything forward of the lift-fan bay has to wrap around another 50 inch hole, conveniently orthogonal to the other one.

It's on the record that much of SWAT had to do with underestimation of the weight of systems hardware, brackets &c. Much to be said for a twin, with a well-protected central spine that can carry services.

It's also on the record that the F-35B was the critical issue in SWAT, so all the manufacturing disasters that followed (due to simple designs being abandoned for lighter and more complex structure) can also be attributed to STOVL.

Interestingly, the X-32 mostly avoided this problem in that the underwing nacelle was separate and had less non-propulsive moving hardware in it. Not to say it would have worked better, overall.

A twin-414 USN/USAF jet would have cost less, been easier to design and offered higher performance... sort of a Super Rafale.

 

[Broncazonk]

Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster
Wired -- David Axe March 21, 2012

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/

Excerpt:

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the supposed backbone of the Pentagon’s future air arsenal, could need additional years of work and billions of dollars in unplanned fixes, the Air Force and the Government Accountability Office revealed on Tuesday. Congressional testimony by Air Force and Navy leaders, plus a new report by the GAO, heaped bad news on a program that was already almost a decade late, hundreds of billions of dollars over its original budget and vexed by mismanagement, safety woes and rigged test results.

In its report the GAO reserved its most dire language for the JSF’s software, which agency expert Michael Sullivan said is “as complicated as anything on earth.” The new jet needs nearly 10 million lines of on-board code, compared to 5 million for the older F-22 and just 1.5 million for the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet. “Software providing essential JSF capability has grown in size and complexity, and is taking longer to complete than expected,” the GAO warned."

GAO Report here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-525T

The F-35 is DEAD--it's time to face the ugly facts--this thing is deader than a road-killed dog. Now we need to round up and execute (by firing squad) everyone involved in the program and start over. (If we would only do this once this kind of nonsense would quit happening. The first Ford-class carrier is already $1 billion over-budget--I say we execute those people too. Our national security is involved--this is life or death.)

Bronc

 

[sferrin]

The F-35 is DEAD--it's time to face the ugly facts--this thing is deader than a road-killed dog. Now we need to round up and execute (by firing squad) everyone involved in the program and start over. (If we would only do this once this kind of nonsense would quit happening. The first Ford-class carrier is already $1 billion over-budget--I say we execute those people too. Our national security is involved--this is life or death.)

Bronc

You forget your meds?

 

[Broncazonk]

You forget your meds?

LOL. Desperate times require desperate measures. Darn near EVERYTHING is trending towards this kind of disaster. The F-35 program is billions over budget. The Ford-class carrier is at least a billion over. The Sea Wolf-class submarine was capped at three (3) boats because of this, and now the "cheap version" the Virgina-class is over a billion over budget so one (1) has gone away. The F-22 got capped at 187 because of cost issues and nonsense. What else? The Nimrod AEW 3 program is FUBAR. The DDG-1000 and LCS are legendary disasters. The Future Combat System (FCS) died because of this. The V-22 was this and probably still is. The replacement for the Ohio-class SSBNs is already too expensive to contemplate. It's crazy.

It's time we start KILLING people. Our national security is being seriously damaged.

Bronc

 

[sublight]

Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster
Wired -- David Axe March 21, 2012

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/

Excerpt:

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the supposed backbone of the Pentagon’s future air arsenal, could need additional years of work and billions of dollars in unplanned fixes, the Air Force and the Government Accountability Office revealed on Tuesday. Congressional testimony by Air Force and Navy leaders, plus a new report by the GAO, heaped bad news on a program that was already almost a decade late, hundreds of billions of dollars over its original budget and vexed by mismanagement, safety woes and rigged test results.

In its report the GAO reserved its most dire language for the JSF’s software, which agency expert Michael Sullivan said is “as complicated as anything on earth.” The new jet needs nearly 10 million lines of on-board code, compared to 5 million for the older F-22 and just 1.5 million for the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet. “Software providing essential JSF capability has grown in size and complexity, and is taking longer to complete than expected,” the GAO warned."

GAO Report here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-525T

The F-35 is DEAD--it's time to face the ugly facts--this thing is deader than a road-killed dog. Now we need to round up and execute (by firing squad) everyone involved in the program and start over. (If we would only do this once this kind of nonsense would quit happening. The first Ford-class carrier is already $1 billion over-budget--I say we execute those people too. Our national security is involved--this is life or death.)

Bronc

But they don't talk about the avionics software needed to fly the plane being a problem, just the helmet/DAS, radar, ecm, and everything else. The Pentagon can (and will) relax the hell out of the requirements to keep the program alive.

 

[GTX]

The F-35 is DEAD--it's time to face the ugly facts--this thing is deader than a road-killed dog.

Talk about laughable. If the program had a dollar for every time a fool made a comment like this then the US Budget Deficit could probably be eliminated!

 

[GTX]

The Pentagon can (and will) relax the hell out of the requirements to keep the program alive.

Rubbish! Whilst the US Defense Forces (especially the USAF, USN and USMC) would be in a world of hurt without the F-35, to suggest that they will relax requirements no matter what is both ridiculous and either deliberately misleading or naive...take your choice!

To read some of the comments here, you would think that Lockheed Martin (and their partners around the world) have never built a aircraft before and that they are some ma & pa operation operating out of a garage that has somehow managed the biggest con job in history with a cardboard cutout of a plane!

Get a grip people! The program is a complex one and has had some hiccups (just like any comparable one has). These are simply magnified by the current economic situation the world finds itself in. It is however delivering and is flying. Moreover it is getting outstanding assessments by all closely connected with the program...especially those who will operate it in conflict! In another 50 odd years time when they start being retired, there will be people complaining that nothing could ever match what the F-35 provided!

 

[Broncazonk]

To read some of the comments here, you would think that Lockheed Martin has never built a aircraft before...

Well, most respectfully, if the design and placement of the tailhook on the F-35B is any indication, LM has never built a naval aircraft before...

Bronc

 

[sublight]

Rubbish! Whilst the US Defense Forces (especially the USAF, USN and USMC) would be in a world of hurt without the F-35, to suggest that they will relax requirements no matter what is both ridiculous and either deliberately misleading or naive...take your choice!

No, they wouldn't ever relax requirements.....
http://insidedefense.com/201203012392003/Inside-Defense-General/Public-Articles/pentagon-waters-down-difficult-to-achieve-jsf-performance-requirements/menu-id-926.html

 

[sferrin]

To read some of the comments here, you would think that Lockheed Martin has never built a aircraft before...

Well, most respectfully, if the design and placement of the tailhook on the F-35B is any indication, LM has never built a naval aircraft before...

Bronc

You mean like the Viking? As has been said really more times than should be necessary, it is in TESTING. It boggles my mind that anybody could think that cancelling the only 5th generation aircraft program we have going and replacing it with 40 year old designs is a cunning plan.

 

[Broncazonk]

It boggles my mind that anybody could think that cancelling the only 5th generation aircraft program we have going and replacing it with 40 year old designs is a cunning plan.

Never said that. We should cancel the F-35 immediately and put that funding into the Next Gen Bomber and UCAV fighter technology. The F-35 is the Ta-152 in 1945. More advanced Me-262 technology was already there, it just need to be developed. Said another way, and this is a categorical statement: The F-35 will be technologically obsolete on the day it enters operational service.

Furthermore, the F-35 will never be excellent at anything, because it's trying to be everything. It will be average at best, and that's not good enough.

Bronc

 

[GTX]

We should cancel the F-35 immediately and put that funding into the Next Gen Bomber and UCAV fighter technology... The F-35 will be technologically obsolete on the day it enters operational service.


Furthermore, the F-35 will never be excellent at anything, because it's trying to be everything. It will be average at best, and that's not good enough.

And what pray tell do the other partners use? Remember that the JSF program is a multi-national program. Moreover, assuming that is not a concern, how do you somehow assume these supposed magic bullets would also not have the same issues? Especially when program's like the NExt Gen Bomber will be relying heavily on F-35 tech to ensure cost affordability/technical viability.

Also, what will you tell the devastated US (and foreign) aerospace industries that you have just destroyed in the middle of an economic crisis by starting the clock at zero and thus removing their earnings?! Or to the workers who get laid off in the thousands?

Comments such as the above show a niavity of how the world really operates...as I said " get a grip!".

 

[GTX]

Rubbish! Whilst the US Defense Forces (especially the USAF, USN and USMC) would be in a world of hurt without the F-35, to suggest that they will relax requirements no matter what is both ridiculous and either deliberately misleading or naive...take your choice!

No, they wouldn't ever relax requirements.....
http://insidedefense.com/201203012392003/Inside-Defense-General/Public-Articles/pentagon-waters-down-difficult-to-achieve-jsf-performance-requirements/menu-id-926.html

Did you actually read what I said? To help, I have highlighted above the key point in what I said. As to the rest, well specs change all the time on a program like this...as anyone who has actually been involved knows full well!

Anyway, have a look a couple of pages back. Some of your supposed doom and gloom example has already be discounted. Moreover with respect to the range issue (all 5 miles or so of it!), have you heard of a thing called aerial refueling? Kind of discounts such concerns when you are talking about such small margins....for that matter, so does a tail wind!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Interestingly, the X-32 mostly avoided this problem in that the underwing nacelle was separate and had less non-propulsive moving hardware in it.

Exactly and this is the point I have been making in this recent discussion. There is not some great inherent issue towards designing a joint fighter that can STOVL and not STOVL that makes it overly complex, impossible, bound to fail, etc. Sure there are problems with the F-35 but that is in part because of the configuration selection by Lockheed.

 

[Stargazer]

Everythime I see a picture of that thing the word, "abomination" comes to mind... For God's sake, what was Boeing thinking.

Same here. Maybe they didn't actually REALLY want to win the competition?? This has happened before in other tenders...

Anyway, just for your enjoyment (and strictly off-topic) here's what an F-32 could have looked like with more consideration for looks...
(existing photo and art reworked by yours truly). If this is inappropriate here, let a mod remove the post, I won't be offended! (I will also post the stuff in my gallery).

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

You forget your meds?

LOL. Desperate times require desperate measures. Darn near EVERYTHING is trending towards this kind of disaster. The F-35 program is billions over budget. The Ford-class carrier is at least a billion over. The Sea Wolf-class submarine was capped at three (3) boats because of this, and now the "cheap version" the Virgina-class is over a billion over budget so one (1) has gone away. The F-22 got capped at 187 because of cost issues and nonsense. What else? The Nimrod AEW 3 program is FUBAR. The DDG-1000 and LCS are legendary disasters. The Future Combat System (FCS) died because of this. The V-22 was this and probably still is. The replacement for the Ohio-class SSBNs is already too expensive to contemplate. It's crazy.

It's time we start KILLING people. Our national security is being seriously damaged.

Bronc

So your suggestion, after mentioning how all these programs are always billions over budget, is to start another program

I do like the Murder idea though. Its realistic and logical. I think most nations that pull stunts like that work out just great. ;D We could change our name to "United States Security Republic" or "USSR" for short.

There are basically two categories of military programs. Those that are over budget, and those that will be soon. Now besides the killing part, you realize that you are advocating canceling programs that go over budget and beginning anew, with programs that only look rosy now because they simply have not yet been given the opportunity to go over time and budget. If we were to develop a UCAV and have it as capable as the F-35 it will inevitably run into similar problems, and the Next Gen Bomber will also experience delays and cost overruns. You can then cancel them as well and advocate the next shiny war machine. This creates a pattern of spending billions, stopping halfway through, killing everyone involved, and starting all over again. Can you see how that won't work in real life and will result in billions gone and thousands dead with not a single program completed?

 

[kulus]

Lockheed ,cha..cha... the F-35 -65OOO OOO
Cancel F-35 and F-15F buy and F/A-18SH III.
Lockheed in India offered F-35 for 65 million, unreal.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/133752/lockheed-vp-promises-%2470m-unit-price-for-australian-f_35s.html

 

[sferrin]

Interestingly, the X-32 mostly avoided this problem in that the underwing nacelle was separate and had less non-propulsive moving hardware in it.

Exactly and this is the point I have been making in this recent discussion. There is not some great inherent issue towards designing a joint fighter that can STOVL and not STOVL that makes it overly complex, impossible, bound to fail, etc. Sure there are problems with the F-35 but that is in part because of the configuration selection by Lockheed.

I still don't see how you get around the fact that the X-32 was going to need a massive redesign (and had yet to cut metal, god only knows what else they'd have discovered once the got into it) and had a less efficient mode of STOVL. We hear people complain about how "squat" the F-35 is despite it being possitively svelte by comparison to the X-32. (Yes, yes, we all know aesthetics are irrelevant, despite the moaning from some quarters.) I have no doubt that if the X-32 had been selected we'd be hearing from Sweetman and APA about how LM should have been selected because of their experience with the F-22, Boeing having not built a fighter since the P-26 (they'd be calling the F-32 the Peashooter 2 in their sniping), Boeing being a conglomeration of 4th,5th,and 6th places in the ATF competition, the X-32 not being able to vertical flight without leaving parts on the ground (allusions to the XFV-12 and how much of a failure it was and hey, they've got Rockwell now too). If anything the X-32 would have had more problems than we're seeing now. I don't doubt the F-32B would have been cancelled by now.

 

[SteveO]

Stop knocking the F-32! ;D

Can't see how the F-32 would have any more problems than the F-35 is having, probably just different ones. So what if the STOVL F-32B didn't look like it had the potential of the F-35B. It was simple and at least you don't have to carry around all that deadweight once you're airborne. As long as it was an improvement over the AV-8B and F/A-18 the operators would have been happy.

F-35 can be fixed, it's just going to be poor value for money.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Exactly and this is the point I have been making in this recent discussion. There is not some great inherent issue towards designing a joint fighter that can STOVL and not STOVL that makes it overly complex, impossible, bound to fail, etc. Sure there are problems with the F-35 but that is in part because of the configuration selection by Lockheed.

No, but it is indisputable that adding a STOVL requirement to a combat aircraft requirement complicates the designing of a solution to that requirement. It may not make the end product "overly" complex but it will, assuming equality of sensors, RCS reduction, flight performance etc with a non-STOVL aircraft, make the designing of that aircraft more challenging than designing a non-STOVL aircraft- even if you have two further variants that remove the STOVL requirement yet have to retain commonality with the STOVL variant. Of course, that is not to say it is impossible or that it should not be attempted but one must understand that adding a STOVL requirement to an otherwise ordinary collection of required performance parameters will complicate the design of all variants by virtue of the required commonality.

 

[sferrin]

F-35 can be fixed, it's just going to be poor value for money.

Compared to what?

 

[SteveO]

F-35 can be fixed, it's just going to be poor value for money.

Compared to what?

Wasn't comparing it so maybe a poor choice of words. Just meant that we will have to pay more than we want for less than we want. Same as every other program really

Maybe the key requirement of a 6th generation combat aircraft should be that it's easy to make! No risk technology, proven techniques, off the shelf kit, predictable costs.

 

[sferrin]

Maybe the key requirement of a 6th generation combat aircraft should be that it's easy to make! No risk technology, proven techniques, off the shelf kit, predictable costs.

The problem with that is you usually end up with a middle of the road product. Back in the 50's, when new fighters were coming online all the time that was less of an issue. Now days when you have to assume you'll be using that fighter for the next 30 or 40 years accepting mediocrity is less acceptable. (Cue the "F-35 is a mediocre aircraft, 4th gen Eurocanards are where it's at" crowd.)