The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[quellish]

Name your favorite "affordable" jet; anyone could have said the same thing about it 6 years before IOC. :

SENIOR TREND.

 

[GTX]

aren't students of history

So, once again, please point out the lessons of history we are supposed to learn - please be specific though and not simply give irrational rantings. BTW, I am more than willing to challenge you as a "student of history"... B)

I see the Australian 'chap' likes to use the royal plural - very British of him.


Not much point trying to enlighten such an "us"

Well, thanks for that ridiculous statement...contributed a lot :

BTW, my use of "us" was not some bullshit royal approach. It was a request that you enlighten us as in the multiple readers of this thread... :

I guess however, that trying to have a rational debate with someone who is so blinded by their own 'religious' view of the apparent 'evilness' of the F-35 and all who are involved and/or support it is rather pointless...

Here is another one of the many articles on Chris Bogdan's AFA briefing that is making the rounds and just might help -

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/09/21/10953/f-35-deputy-sees-challenges-ahead

Yawn...I also guess that only articles that pander to your own view point are able to be referred to. So pathetic...

Why don't you at least try to critique the comments made by Maj Gen Bogdan yourself, just as I did. At least that way we are getting your own opinion rather then those of others. Show us how it should be interpreted. Who knows, you may even produce a monolith...

 

[Sferrin]

Guess what, the Marines can't use the C.

To replace what, 120 Harriers?

Hardly even matters. Well it might not be an optimal of available ships the US will not start losing wars because Marines cannot launch F-35's from amphibious assault ships.

You should inform the USN and USMC. Apparently you're much smarter than they.

 

[GTX]

Hardly even matters. Well it might not be an optimal of available ships the US will not start losing wars because Marines cannot launch F-35's from amphibious assault ships.

What about the RN FAA as well as the Marina Militare and eventually most likey the Arma Aerea de la Armada Espanola?

 

[AeroFranz]

The US will take care of itself before it begins giving two s#!&$ about what happens to its allies. That's what's happened historically. However, I admit I don't know if foreign partners have any leverage in the issue, so I would welcome any info on the topic.

 

[Triton]

Watching "Battle of the X Planes" from the Nova science television series on PBS again, the program states that one of the goals of the JSF program was to create an aircraft that was one-third the price of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and to break the "death spiral." Lockheed Martin and the JPO have certainly failed that goal.

We were also sold one fighter program with three variants for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. Not three fighter programs with some common shared components. We were sold the goal that the joint approach would save $60 billion over the life cycle of the program.

I am hearing a lot of "should have" from the pro Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II camp. We "should have" known it would be complex. We "should have" known it would be expensive. We "should have" known it would take time.

I am also getting tired of hearing about how ugly the Boeing X-32 was. It's form was dictated by function and with the goal of keeping costs down.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Watching "Battle of the X Planes" from the Nova science television series on PBS again, the program states that one of the goals of the JSF program was to create an aircraft that was one-third the price of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and to break the "death spiral." Lockheed Martin and the JPO have certainly failed that goal.

We won't know the true price until production ceases on the F-35... so lets at least wait to compare and declare failure. Call me old fashioned, but I like letting everyone finish the race before I declare a winner... especially when the race is run in separate heats. in other words the fastest athlete in the morning, may not be the fastest athlete of the day, if you have other athletes competing in the afternoon too.

The unit cost of the six F-22's proposed to be procured with FY00 funds was $300 million per plane.

On 30 December 1999 the Air Force awarded contracts totaling more than $1.5 billion to Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, Marietta, Georgia, and Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, Florida, to build six F-22 Raptor production-representative test vehicles. The contract awards to the F-22's airframe manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, were valued at slightly more than $1.3 billion. These follow an earlier $195.5 million, advance buy contract to the company. A separate contract award of $180 million to Pratt & Whitney funded two F-119 engines for each of the six aircraft, for a total of 12 engines. The first of the F-22 PRTV aircraft was scheduled for delivery to the Air Force by March 2002 for force development evaluation activities at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. In a related effort the same day, the Air Force awarded the same two manufacturers separate, additional F-22 contracts totaling $277.1 million, to support the Lot 1 Advance Buy of l0 production F-22s. Lockheed Martin will receive $275.4 million, while Pratt & Whitney will receive $1.7 million. According to program officials, these contracts will focus on activities preliminary to building actual aircraft, such as buying components, vendor start-up and other procurement costs.

From:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-history.htm

Remember that the last F-22s were about half that 300 million per plane from LRIP.

I think it will avoid the "Death Spiral" better than other alternatives. To what degree? Time will tell. Another way to measure the "death spiral" avoidance will be numbers procured, rather than cost in some ways. The F-22 is a perfect example of an aircraft that is just awesome, but you only got a fraction of what you needed. If the JSF gets into service at lets say 90 percent of the original requested numbers, than you avoided the spiral. big time. because the USAF originally wanted 700 raptors, then they cut it to nearly 400 and ended up with under 200.

I am hearing a lot of "should have" from the pro Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II camp. We "should have" known it would be complex. We "should have" known it would be expensive. We "should have" known it would take time.

I think you "should knowing" that has little to do with the F-35, and more like a quick look at nearly every military program of the last 30 years.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Hardly even matters. Well it might not be an optimal of available ships the US will not start losing wars because Marines cannot launch F-35's from amphibious assault ships.

What about the RN FAA as well as the Marina Militare and eventually most likey the Arma Aerea de la Armada Espanola?

Don't be ridiculous GTX as a student of history I can't think of a single conflict where V/STOL won a war. Not one. Its never ever happened. Especially not the UK. Especially not in 1982. Also did you know that the US always fights alone? So who needs capable allies?

Void you need to take a look at what the military is looking at, because they certainly don't share your sense of confidence.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

one of the goals of the JSF program was to create an aircraft that was one-third the price of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and to break the "death spiral." Lockheed Martin and the JPO have certainly failed that goal.

Have they? What is the price of the F-22 anyways? It always seems to vary... depending on a given writer's argument at a given time. I've read everything from $120mil to $700mil. The lower numbers tend to get trotted out when someone wants to criticize the F-35 program (which is still in LRIP and hence rather expensive right now), but the higher figures seem to be more the style since Romney made his little campaign promise.

I am also getting tired of hearing about how ugly the Boeing X-32 was. It's form was dictated by function and with the goal of keeping costs down.

I've seen that little TV program you watched, seems to have shown pretty well why the X-32 wasn't picked.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I can't think of a single conflict where V/STOL won a war. Not one. Its never ever happened. Especially not the UK. Especially not in 1982.

While it may be said that the Harrier did not "win" the war, it sure as hell kept them from losing it.

Without it, the Argentinians could have had unrestricted access to launch as many bombing and AShM missions as they felt like launching. This likely would have resulted in the UK fleet being decimated and the troops cut off from resupply.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I can't think of a single conflict where V/STOL won a war. Not one. Its never ever happened. Especially not the UK. Especially not in 1982.

While it may be said that the Harrier did not "win" the war, it sure as hell kept them from losing it.

Without it, the Argentinians could have had unrestricted access to launch as many bombing and AShM missions as they felt like launching. This likely would have resulted in the UK fleet being decimated and the troops cut off from resupply.

Well said

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Have they? What is the price of the F-22 anyways? It always seems to vary... depending on a given writer's argument at a given time. I've read everything from $120mil to $700mil.

The way people figured out to bash the F-22 was include the total cost of the entire program including research cost in there with the price of the airplanes and then divide that into the number of raptors produced.

The problem? Accounting doesn't work that way in the civilian or military world. Research can't be used because where does it start or stop? Tech researched from the F-22 could be used in any number of systems. Conversely, the price of the F-22 could be even higher if you include the wright flyer... If you are creative enough the cost of an F-22 is eleventy billion dollars.

The lower numbers tend to get trotted out when someone wants to criticize the F-35 program (which is still in LRIP and hence rather expensive right now), but the higher figures seem to be more the style since Romney made his little campaign promise.

Yep!! You figured that little game out huh? When people wanted to kill the F-22 it was $412 million each (GAO estimate) Hey the F-35 is looking great by that estimate!! When they want to kill the JSF its suddenly 130 million each.

People LRIP aircraft are going to be more expensive. Test aircraft are even more expensive than that. Lockheed and Boeing were both given 750 million dollars each for the X-35 and X-32. so if you calculate using the "divide by aircraft built" method then the X-32 and X-35 were 385 million per plane. Sweet.

I've seen that little TV program you watched, seems to have shown pretty well why the X-32 wasn't picked.

Was it because they had to remove pieces of it to make it fly? ;D Because when I saw that program I remember thinking "hey I bet thats the airplane that doesn't win-- the plane that can't support its own weight. Then the X-35 did a short take took off, broke the sound barrier, and then landed in a hover and I thought "I bet that one wins it" Sorry SPOILERS.

 

[Sferrin]

Was it because they had to remove pieces of it to make it fly? ;D Because when I saw that program I remember thinking "hey I bet thats the airplane that doesn't win-- the plane that can't support its own weight. Then the X-35 did a short take took off, broke the sound barrier, and then landed in a hover and I thought "I bet that one wins it" Sorry SPOILERS.

Yep. When it had to go to sea-level and leave parts on the ground to do vertical flight one just knew it was game over baby. When the inevitable weight gains came along the Bill Sweetman's of the word would have trotted out the XFV-12 for comparison and it would have died anyway. Good riddance to ugly rubbish.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Dont forget the hot gas ingestion. ;D

 

[1st503rdSGT]

Sometimes I think Boeing got picked over MD because MD's proposal was too similar to LM's and the DoD wanted to compare more separated design concepts.

 

[Sferrin]

Sometimes I think Boeing got picked over MD because MD's proposal was too similar to LM's and the DoD wanted to compare more separated design concepts.

McD's had a seperate lift engine (that the USMC didn't want) and the X-32 was seen as the "safer" bet as it's VTOL mode was the same as the Harrier.

 

[DD]

aren't students of history

So, once again, please point out the lessons of history we are supposed to learn - please be specific though and not simply give irrational rantings. BTW, I am more than willing to challenge you as a "student of history"... B)

I see the Australian 'chap' likes to use the royal plural - very British of him.


Not much point trying to enlighten such an "us"

Well, thanks for that ridiculous statement...contributed a lot :

BTW, my use of "us" was not some bullshit royal approach. It was a request that you enlighten us as in the multiple readers of this thread... :

I guess however, that trying to have a rational debate with someone who is so blinded by their own 'religious' view of the apparent 'evilness' of the F-35 and all who are involved and/or support it is rather pointless...

Here is another one of the many articles on Chris Bogdan's AFA briefing that is making the rounds and just might help -

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/09/21/10953/f-35-deputy-sees-challenges-ahead

Yawn...I also guess that only articles that pander to your own view point are able to be referred to. So pathetic...

Why don't you at least try to critique the comments made by Maj Gen Bogdan yourself, just as I did. At least that way we are getting your own opinion rather then those of others. Show us how it should be interpreted. Who knows, you may even produce a monolith...

As before, haven't seen such arrogance and hubris since the room full of JROC Generals signed off on the Joke-Of-a-Requirements-Document back in 2000!

The extraordinary denial behaviour of GTX and the other JSF accolytes is only surpassed by their susceptibility to believing the bullshit fed to them by LM/FWD and the other JSF types from the MICC.

Affordability, Lethality, Survivability, and Supportability - INDEED!

Unlike the norm, all the JSF KPP's were set at the Threshold (i.e. the bare minimum acceptable) Level.

In addition to all those extravagent promises made in marketing the JSF to them and others, that most if not all of these Theshold Level KPPs, along with the underlying KPIs, are barely if not being met is a matter of public record. The real story is a whole lot worse.

If the JSF fanboys don't find that enlightening enough, then they are, sadly, doomed to remaining in the dark, just like all other things that grow in bullshit.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

As before, haven't seen such arrogance and hubris since the room full of JROC Generals signed off on the Joke-Of-a-Requirements-Document back in 2000!

The extraordinary denial behaviour of GTX and the other JSF accolytes is only surpassed by their susceptibility to believing the bullshit fed to them by LM/FWD and the other JSF types from the MICC.

Affordability, Lethality, Survivability, and Supportability - INDEED!

Unlike the norm, all the JSF KPP's were set at the Threshold (i.e. the bare minimum acceptable) Level.

In addition to all those extravagent promises made in marketing the JSF to them and others, that most if not all of these Theshold Level KPPs, along with the underlying KPIs, are barely if not being met is a matter of public record. The real story is a whole lot worse.

If the JSF fanboys don't find that enlightening enough, then they are, sadly, doomed to remaining in the dark, just like all other things that grow in bullshit.

... aaaaand there's the shrill diatribe with no specifics. : Tell us, oh wise one, what we should buy instead. Four rules though: (1) It still has to be single engined. (2) It can't be from the disco-era. (3) It has to be operational by 2020. (4) It has to be usable by all three services.

Let's drop the STOVL requirement to make things easier (we'll just say that the USMC has to share with the USN like it's always done).

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

aren't students of history

So, once again, please point out the lessons of history we are supposed to learn - please be specific though and not simply give irrational rantings. BTW, I am more than willing to challenge you as a "student of history"... B)

I see the Australian 'chap' likes to use the royal plural - very British of him.


Not much point trying to enlighten such an "us"

Well, thanks for that ridiculous statement...contributed a lot :

BTW, my use of "us" was not some bullshit royal approach. It was a request that you enlighten us as in the multiple readers of this thread... :

I guess however, that trying to have a rational debate with someone who is so blinded by their own 'religious' view of the apparent 'evilness' of the F-35 and all who are involved and/or support it is rather pointless...

Here is another one of the many articles on Chris Bogdan's AFA briefing that is making the rounds and just might help -

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/09/21/10953/f-35-deputy-sees-challenges-ahead

Yawn...I also guess that only articles that pander to your own view point are able to be referred to. So pathetic...

Why don't you at least try to critique the comments made by Maj Gen Bogdan yourself, just as I did. At least that way we are getting your own opinion rather then those of others. Show us how it should be interpreted. Who knows, you may even produce a monolith...

As before, haven't seen such arrogance and hubris since the room full of JROC Generals signed off on the Joke-Of-a-Requirements-Document back in 2000!

The extraordinary denial behaviour of GTX and the other JSF accolytes is only surpassed by their susceptibility to believing the bullshit fed to them by LM/FWD and the other JSF types from the MICC.

Affordability, Lethality, Survivability, and Supportability - INDEED!

Unlike the norm, all the JSF KPP's were set at the Threshold (i.e. the bare minimum acceptable) Level.

In addition to all those extravagent promises made in marketing the JSF to them and others, that most if not all of these Theshold Level KPPs, along with the underlying KPIs, are barely if not being met is a matter of public record. The real story is a whole lot worse.

If the JSF fanboys don't find that enlightening enough, then they are, sadly, doomed to remaining in the dark, just like all other things that grow in bullshit.

Are you going to give us real details or just keep talking about how ignorant we are? If you have specifics enlighten us, If you are just going to go on and on about how generally wrong everyone is, take a hike.

 

[GTX]

I just love it when little 'noise makers' enter the fray...it does such wonders for the anti-F-35 argument


DD, at least try to provide an intelligent response rather then going off on a pointless rant each time. As you have been asked numerous times, supply some facts or at least try to provide a coherent argument for your position rather then simply throwing around accusations and pointless comments... :


If you can't manage to do that, try to quietly start preparing yourself for the envitable; that the F-35 is going to be around for a long time... ;D

 

[Sferrin]

by their susceptibility to believing the bullshit fed to them by LM/FWD and the other JSF types from the MICC.

ROFL! You gonna warn us of the evils of HAARP and chemtrails next? Seriously, I think ATS is more your speed.

 

[chuck4]

Let me ask a question about f-35 that is actually about f-35:


What is the reason for the huge jump in designation between f-22, yf-23, and then f-32 and F-35?


What are the intermediate designation being reserved for?


BTW, I agree the VTOL requirement was a disaster for the JSF requirement. 90% of the production run won't have it. It is the tail that is wagging the dog.

 

[GTX]

Re the designation, see here.

As far as is known there is nothing that the F-24 to F-34 group of designations is being held for.

 

[Triton]

The linked article mentions a still classified prototype designated YF-24 according to the official biography of Col. Joseph A. Lanni, United States Air Force.
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_F35

So I presume that the next available designation for the JSF program would be F-25 according to the Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System.

I guess it's also possible that there are additional classified prototypes between YF-23 and F-35.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

BTW, I agree the VTOL requirement was a disaster for the JSF requirement. 90% of the production run won't have it. It is the tail that is wagging the dog.

What VTOL requirement? Has anyone else heard about this? I've yet to hear of any plans for the F-35 to operationally take-off vertically. I don't think it's even been tried outside a few short hover-pit tests. Does anyone know if they've attempted a vertical takeoff, level flight, vertical landing type test?

 

[Sferrin]

What is the reason for the huge jump in designation between f-22, yf-23, and then f-32 and F-35?

A politician made a mistake. Nobody dared correct him.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

90% of the production run won't have it. It is the tail that is wagging the dog.

There are going to be more F-35Bs produced than F-35Cs, and the F-35Bs will be in service with a wider variety of air arms as well.

Happy to help

 

[GTX]

There are going to be more F-35Bs produced than F-35Cs, and the F-35Bs will be in service with a wider variety of air arms as well.

Interesting that we don't hear anyone complaining of undue structural weight issues or over-designed undercarriage due to the unique CV requirements.... :

 

[1st503rdSGT]

Interesting that we don't hear anyone complaining of undue structural weight issues or over-designed undercarriage due to the unique CV requirements.... :

Besides being built in the smallest numbers and having only one customer, it's the C variant that requires the most special treatment and has the least amount in common with the other two. Additionally, the USN doesn't seem very enthusiastic about the program since they didn't get their two engines. It would make more since to cancel that version than the B. Of course, it'd be a real hoot if the gators ended up with more advanced TACAIR than the CVNs ;D

 

[AeroFranz]

[insert blurb here for n-th time about how VTOL is the single greatest overall configuration driver if you want high degree of commonality among three versions].

No question that overall structural strengthening for 24 ft/sec sinkrate adds to the weight (plus folds required, ability to drop engine vertically for maintenance, no major access points behind main gear, etc. etc. etc.)
I can look up a good SAWE presentation that has some good land/naval comparison and give you historical figures for the penalty.
But are you really saying that, as a fraction of empty weight, you think the VTOL-specific stuff adds less weight than the naval-specific does?

 

[Sferrin]

[insert blurb here for n-th time about how VTOL is the single greatest overall configuration driver if you want high degree of commonality among three versions].

No question that overall structural strengthening for 24 ft/sec sinkrate adds to the weight (plus folds required, ability to drop engine vertically for maintenance, no major access points behind main gear, etc. etc. etc.)
I can look up a good SAWE presentation that has some good land/naval comparison and give you historical figures for the penalty.
But are you really saying that, as a fraction of empty weight, you think the VTOL-specific stuff adds less weight than the naval-specific does?

It'd be pretty easy to figure out. Use the A as a baseline. What's the empty weight of a C? Of a B?

A: 29,300
B: 32,300
C: 34,800

Hmmm.

 

[AeroFranz]

Fo' real? I'm curious to know if they are stressed for the same load factors, and the relative TOGW figures. You can strengthen a lot of structures and get more wing for the weight of a lift fan, swiveling nozzle, roll post, added doors.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

Fo' real? I'm curious to know if they are stressed for the same load factors, and the relative TOGW figures. You can strengthen a lot of structures and get more wing for the weight of a lift fan, swiveling nozzle, roll post, added doors.

Well, I would have expected someone with over 1200 posts to know this already, but here's what I recall.

F-35A: 9G

F-35B: 7G

F-35C: 7.5G

 

[chuck4]

90% of the production run won't have it. It is the tail that is wagging the dog.

There are going to be more F-35Bs produced than F-35Cs, and the F-35Bs will be in service with a wider variety of air arms as well.

Happy to help

That misses the point. The requirements for the f-35c had relatively little impact on the design and configuration of F-35A. the particular requirements of f-35c mainly resulted in features unique to f-35c.


Not so with f-35b requirements. The very layout of every f-35 is dictated by the requirements of f-35b. What's worse is much of the delay in f-35 program wasn't because f-35a or c. They would have done fine in the first iteration. The delay was caused by f-35b not being able to meet its requirements. So f-35b had to be substantially modified, and to keep up the pretense that trying to meet the 400 plane f-35b requirement with a run that consist mainly of 2000+ f-35a wasn't a mistake, f-35a was REDESIGNED so it retains commonality with parts that had to be changed to meet f-35b requirements.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

That misses the point. The requirements for the f-35c had relatively little impact on the design and configuration of F-35A. the particular requirements of f-35c mainly resulted in features unique to f-35c.


Not so with f-35b requirements. The very layout of every f-35 is dictated by the requirements of f-35b. What's worse is much of the delay in f-35 program wasn't because f-35a or c. They would have done fine in the first iteration. The delay was caused by f-35b not being able to meet its requirements. So f-35b had to be substantially modified, and to keep up the pretense that trying to meet the 400 plane f-35b requirement with a run that consist mainly of 2000+ f-35a wasn't a mistake, f-35a was REDESIGNED so it retains commonality with parts that had to be changed to meet f-35b requirements.

Exactly how different do you think the JSF would have been without the STOVL requirement? It would still have one engine (as per the largest customer's demand). It would also still have the same LO requirements along with the requisite demands for internal weapons and fuel.

And not to be too cynical here, but a non-STOVL JSF would probably still be just as behind schedule and over budget.

 

[Sferrin]

That misses the point. The requirements for the f-35c had relatively little impact on the design and configuration of F-35A. the particular requirements of f-35c mainly resulted in features unique to f-35c.


Not so with f-35b requirements. The very layout of every f-35 is dictated by the requirements of f-35b. What's worse is much of the delay in f-35 program wasn't because f-35a or c. They would have done fine in the first iteration. The delay was caused by f-35b not being able to meet its requirements. So f-35b had to be substantially modified, and to keep up the pretense that trying to meet the 400 plane f-35b requirement with a run that consist mainly of 2000+ f-35a wasn't a mistake, f-35a was REDESIGNED so it retains commonality with parts that had to be changed to meet f-35b requirements.

Exactly how different do you think the JSF would have been without the STOVL requirement? It would still have one engine (as per the largest customer's demand). It would also still have the same LO requirements along with the requisite demands for internal weapons and fuel.

And not to be too cynical here, but a non-STOVL JSF would probably still be just as behind schedule and over budget.

He's confusing the STOVL requirement with the requirement to fit on a gator's elevators.

 

[Sferrin]

Fo' real? I'm curious to know if they are stressed for the same load factors, and the relative TOGW figures. You can strengthen a lot of structures and get more wing for the weight of a lift fan, swiveling nozzle, roll post, added doors.

If you have something better than "na-uhhh" I'm all ears. I won't be holding my breath though.

 

[uk 75]

This has been a fascinating thread.

As a complete layman I read all with great interest. The exciting thing is that we do not know yet whether the JSF is going to turn into a Phantom (truly great and a massive success), an F111 (remarkable if used in the right variant, rubbish otherwise), or a complete lemon which sucks up vital funds that could have been used for more effective platforms.

I think we still have a few years to go before the verdict comes in....

UK 75

 

[chuck4]

That misses the point. The requirements for the f-35c had relatively little impact on the design and configuration of F-35A. the particular requirements of f-35c mainly resulted in features unique to f-35c.


Not so with f-35b requirements. The very layout of every f-35 is dictated by the requirements of f-35b. What's worse is much of the delay in f-35 program wasn't because f-35a or c. They would have done fine in the first iteration. The delay was caused by f-35b not being able to meet its requirements. So f-35b had to be substantially modified, and to keep up the pretense that trying to meet the 400 plane f-35b requirement with a run that consist mainly of 2000+ f-35a wasn't a mistake, f-35a was REDESIGNED so it retains commonality with parts that had to be changed to meet f-35b requirements.

Exactly how different do you think the JSF would have been without the STOVL requirement? It would still have one engine (as per the largest customer's demand). It would also still have the same LO requirements along with the requisite demands for internal weapons and fuel.

And not to be too cynical here, but a non-STOVL JSF would probably still be just as behind schedule and over ebudget.

Without VTOL requirement, the main engine would have been placed conventionally, that is behind the main structural bulkhead that carries the landing gear and one of the main wing spars like every other modern jet fighter. But the VTOL requirement demand the engine nozzles be placed close to the center of gravity. So the engine is place much further forward than is usual. This makes it necessary to split a single weapon bay into two, at expense of added weight to all three versions. The need to recess the exhaust forward also rules out axial symmetric thrust vectoring in all three versions. The need to cut structural members to accommodate the down swiveling of exhaust nozzle forced the adaptation of what is effectively a twin boom tail configuration, with structurally inefficient and therefore heavy.


All this forced thetargeted performance of f-35a and c be lower than necessary.


But even so the VTOL version was overweight late into pre development stage, when production was already scheduled to begin. The other two version at the time can meet their requirements with existing weight. But to save weight and retain commonality the bomb bays for all three version had to be redesigen and made smaller, delaying all three versions. That still wasnZ't enough. Addition structural changes were needed. Again, commonality demanded all three fighter versions change, thus delaying the project still more.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I don't think its much of a stretch to say that if you took 1/3 of the program away it would go faster. Like taking 8 miles off a marathon. Personal best!

Heres the thing with the B. It was a requirement. Its really that simple. You know what would have made the F-22 easier? 200 pages of requirements instead of 300 pages.

The UK is one of the leading JSF partners, and they had a STVOL requirement. The Italians who also contribute a lot of money also have a STOVL requirement. You want to know how to move an apartment fast? Leave all the heavy crap at your old place. No TVs, Couches, Beds, Sofas, chairs, tables, but thats not really an option is it? How far do you get in life when you do the easy 66 percent and then quit? D student forever.

The Naval Variant may start having problems too, after they get the tailhook squared away and start crash landing it onto some decks. If it encounters problems do we cancel that too? Should the JSF consist of just the A version because that's the "easiest?"

So it really doesn't phase me when people say "You know the B really messed things up" did it? It was one third of the program, based on importance to allied fleets, it will be even more than just one third. Its not a race, its about getting it right and meeting the requirements. Moreover the redesign paid dividends in the form of a lighter aircraft overall. ITs a shame the JSF got lighter and better I know.

It is what it is. The F-35B is reality. You can argue all day as to whether it should have been included in the JSF requirement, but ONCE IT WAS, it was going to happen as obligated by requirements. Requirements are requirements, not suggestions.

Also 503SGT there have been grumblings in the Navy about canceling the C variant and letting the B variant live, I think its very near sited on the USN's part but its "Boeing's Navy" And naval aviation is culturally convinced that airplanes never flew over water until someone invented twin engines. ;D The other thing I have noticed to is that Naval Aviation is beyond reproach. You can't question it anywhere. It doesn't matter how expensive, inefficient, or risk-averse it is.