Read the story here.
Damn. The X-32 is looking sexier all the time. I wonder how many Pentagon officials are kicking themselves behind closed doors when they consider the current state of the F-35 and think about what could have been.
Friday, July 18, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
The funny question : Would it be more economic to produce the Avenger that the JSF program has replaced ? I bet on it !
ReplyDeleteCould of been A-10 sexy
ReplyDeleteI would have bet on Boeing, particularly after the addition of the McDonnell guys. But man that plane is ugly.
ReplyDeleteX-32 would probably already be in service as it was a lower risk option plus boeing does have industrial capacity that LM never had,but would still be a hog of a plane ,as VTOL makes for lots of design limitations. And this delta configuraton wouldn't be used as in final configuration as it was found inferior already in that stage of development.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of reasons why Lockheed won that competition even though they shouldn't have. Boeing's STOVL design had to fly with internal weapons bays incorporated. Lockheed Martin was excused from having to include them because of their "proven experience" with the F-22. The then X-35 STOVL version was also able to fly vertically and break mach 1 speeds, where as Boeing's X-32 couldn't. Lockheed was known as a good source of stealth technology, which the US had thought of as some sort of God Mod back then too. However, a lot of speculation and many who were involved with the decision said that Lockheed Martin's design won because Boeing's design was ugly as fuck. Back then, if I had the mindset that the decision makers had and only the knowledge available at that time, I probably would have thought the X-35 was the right choice between the two.
ReplyDeleteIf only they had the known then what is well known about this program now. I have to admit, the X-32 "Monica" was a pretty ugly fighter, but hindsight is 20/20 and it would have had a much better chance at success than the F-35.
Andrew Robertson
DeleteOnly the X-32A had a weapons bay. The X-32B did not, but the airframe was sized to have a weapons bay.
This wasn't the case with the X-35A/B and C, which were much too thinner and slimmer than the actual F-35A/B/C because the airframe wasn't sized to have a weapons bay. When you compare the X-35B to F-35B and the F-35B is a much fatter jet to accomodate the weapons bay, and weigh more as the result.
Overweight from the start, needed the entire front cowling removed before it could retain a hover. In another reality you'd be complaining with the same arguments why we picked the F-32. The whole program might have been too ambitious given the technology available and the requirements demanded of the airframe, but let's not re-write history here. At the time the X-35 was the clear winner
ReplyDeleteno one is saying re-write history you son of a bitch. i linked to an article written on Gizmodo. suck a dick Polaris.
DeletePolaris
DeleteThe F-32A and C would be operational today, because Boeing had a foresight to separate the high-risk F-32B from F-32A/C common airframe. Even if the F-32B went down the gutter, this would not have affected the F-32A and C.
This is not the case with F-35 program, in which A and B were the common airframe. So all of F-35B's problems show up on F-35A and both go down the gutter.
At the time the X-35 was the logical choice and clear winner. Boeing just couldn't get their act together and flubbed the contest. Perhaps you're right but who the hell knows what would have happened if we had an F-32. I'm no huge supporter of LM and the overlap of flight test and LRP is the most idiotic thing the AF has done in a long time, but as an example the F-4 flight test was constantly plagued with problems and the second (?) F-14 crashed on approach. I'm leaning towards it'll work.
DeleteThe X-35 was the clear winner only because they completely glossed over the horrible project and financial managment of the X-35 in order to make it win. The X-35 shouldn't of ever been allowed to cross the finish line. This was so over budget it wasn't funny, and LM couldn't even tell anyone where the money went.
DeleteYep. The NOVA special even pointed out that LM went over-budget on their prototypes, and that this was an auto-lose requirement. But that requirement was of course quietly set aside. Then the project requirements were changed (LM lobbying?), forcing Boeing to show an aircraft that didn't meet them. LM then pulled some PR stunts in their aircraft that Boeing couldn't match at the time, and the rest is history.
DeleteBoeing had the production details figured out from the start. With tools and rigs specifically created to enable faster, cheaper assembly later. Their prototypes used Harrier-like rotating thrust nozzles instead of the F-35's over-complicated (and very fragile) lift-fan system. It would certainly been a cheaper, higher-availability choice then the 100 turkeys we've ended up buying instead.
Anticipating the buried of the Zombie, Boeing should be already studying and Advanced Super Harrier for the Marines.
ReplyDeleteThe USNavy was more prudent allowing Boeing to make studies for the Advanced Super Hornet/Growler.
The Usaf should also have a plan B studying an stealthier version of the still in production F-16, with enclosed weapons pods and an inserted Sniper system and also an electronic attack version of the still in production F-15 or the Silent Eagle.
http://i.imgur.com/FulxJQY.jpg
http://www.ausairpower.net/USAF/F-16-DSI-Demonstrator-1S.jpg
http://www.janes.com/images/assets/295/29295/1517176-main.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0PnDJmvL3ek/UkG_F1qD4WI/AAAAAAAAB74/GTOrgbeMLmY/s1600/F15-Silent-Eagle-Fighter-Korea-Brochure_Page_07.jpg
Not entirely relevant but I just got done reading an article in Air and Space mag about the development of the F-16. What really stood out was the almost manic dedication to keep it simple, cheap, and maneuverable above all else. They fought tooth and nail to keep everyone away that had another "idea" about how to make it more "capable." The design team knew that developments and mods would arise to keep the airframe relevant and capable in the future. Instead of trying to do it all, they decided on what was of prime importance and kept that as their focus.
ReplyDeleteWhat is amazing is that the F-16 is still a great fighter going on 30+ years and that the original design team was spot-on in all of their development decisions.
They seem to have gone the completely different direction with the F-35. Every piece of tech in it, from the HMD to the DAS, to the EOTS is pretty much "all new".
DeleteHow they figured they could keep it "affordable" when barely a damn thing on it is off-the-shelf is beyond me.
A lot of the F-35 is off-the-shelf which I discuss in F-35 -- Lots of COTS. It's the complexity, the putting together of it all and making it work, which is consuming decades of time and billions of dollars.
DeleteDon, that is great that they are spending 300 Million on updating systems in a plane that isn't flying yet. I think the point still stands that designing the aircraft first, getting the bugs worked out so the damn thing doesn't burn on the runway, is more cost effective than re-engineering a radar processing unit before even a tenth of the stated birds have been built.
DeleteSolomon, your answer is 5 (five).
ReplyDelete1 guy to hold that shit in the air,
4 guys to hold him in Congress.
Unfortunately it is the same number of people who need to change a lightbulb Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk in some countries!
:-)
Solomon:
ReplyDeleteOne thing for fun:
http://masterok.livejournal.com/
:-)
For the Blog of Best Fighter for Canada I prepared a set of images of the SH showing how stealht it is thanks to its desing with eliptical shapes that deviates de radar waves to not offer any direct return to the emmiter. I really think this airplane and the Growler should be used by the USAF instead of the F-35. According to the Aussies the Kill ratio between the SH and the F-16 was 20/1 in favor of the SH. What else you need?
ReplyDeletehttp://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1163/6270/original.jpg
http://intercepts.defensenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/F35CVFA101130622-GRB04b11.jpg
http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsf.mil%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2Fsdd%2Ff35_test%2Fc%2Fsdd_f35testc_059.jpg&key=yrlFRHUu2RYaljDR2XjI5A&w=600&h
http://www.ruaviation.com/images/media/600/572.jpg
https://www.spaceroots.org/documents/distance/img26.png
ReplyDeletehttp://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcIII/QuadricSurfaces_files/image001.gif
Or build a proper multirole, catobar compliant, long-range, high-speed, 5th generation, twin engine plane with dual internal weapons bays, plenty of external hardpoints and a sophisticated radar jamming/EW suite to replace the F15, a true successor to the F15 and F111.
ReplyDeleteInstead of screwing around with small low-spec, single-engine, jack-of-all-trades master-of-nothing planes. The reason why the F16 was good was because it was:
A.) Was designed arround the Energy-Maneuverability theory.
B.) Had pleanty of growth room which allowed it to evolve into a strong multi-role plane.
These are the same reasons why the F17/18 were good planes, and the F22 was also built arround this manuever theory. These large planes are not, and I doubt there is much room for weight growth.
The F111, F15s and F18s are pretty old, sure there have been many upgrades to the F15/18s but they were built a long time ago, surely a much better twin engine strike fighter can be built. The JSF program is clearly not the answer, nor is anything the europeans think off, especially considering that the typhoons are still not at full operational readiness.