Trump asks Boeing to price up an F-35 alternative...

[sferrin]

I think the fact the F-35 is not really that good looking of a fighter is a valid reason to replace it.

A good troll isn't so obvious.

 

[sferrin]

Re the "trillion dollar aircraft". From Aviation Week 5/23/2011:

"That idea does not sit well with the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, Ashton Carter, who says the Pentagon has no good alternative to the next-generation stealthy fighter, even though the cost to sustain the program into the future is an eye-popping $1 trillion, adjusted for inflation over its lifespan. That is less than the cost to sustain the F-22, about the same as the F-15, and more than either the F-16 or the F-18."

So for an aircraft replace the F-16 AND F/A-18 AND the Harrier, you're spending about the same as the F-15 fleet. That's a bargain.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Perhaps the ideal would be to cut the electives out of the equation, have instead a department like DARPA who have a remit to have the required product at the best possible cost. Remove the back and forth arguments and changes of direction while spending money to no end. Ensure that the electives do not have the ability to interfere and instead of being over budget and late, have a product at the right time for nearer the right cost and a timetable that means this kit is got to those who we put in a position to defend our nations and principles. We have a department in the UK that is supposed to do similar but their remit is limited to the variety of floor cleaner and polish to put on the floors. Why do we allow so few people to line their own pockets while raping the national budget and failing to ensure our military have kit to keep them safe while they do the same for us. I know it is easy to write stuff here and suggest any of us have the information to back up our opinions. I am not someone who KNOWS everything and I cannot pretend even to myself that I do. I have seen governments and departments waste money and lives. I have personally watched people die due the ignorance of people who pretend they are defending those people and budget alike. Sorry if this is taken as a rant, I have an agenda just like everyone else. I hope eveyone is getting what they need from the holidays and the season. All the best to al of you.l

 

[SpudmanWP]

I think the fact the F-35 is not really that good looking of a fighter is a valid reason to replace it.

Count yourself lucky we did not end up with the F-32

 

[Sundog]

I think the fact the F-35 is not really that good looking of a fighter is a valid reason to replace it.

Count yourself lucky we did not end up with the F-32

You mean the Marines should count themselves lucky, as it couldn't meet the hover requirements. The CTOL version was faster and more maneuverable then the X-35, so it wouldn't have been bad in that regard.

 

[Dragon029]

Source on the faster and more manoeuvrable?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Not to mention that the final design for the -32 was never tested (normal wing/tail, not delta)

 

[kcran567]

Source on the faster and more manoeuvrable?

There were a couple sources saying that the x-32 had better "up and away performance" not to mention the big wing and thrust vectored nozzle.

As far as the x-35 having better VTOL, so what! The x-32 used perfectly good direct lift like the Harrier did for 40 years, much simpler (cheaper) and less complicated than the x-35s fan-shaft system. As far as any difficulty during fly off, it was nothing compared to boondoggle development of f-35.

The x-32s direct lift system would've worked just fine after some kinks worked out.

Much simpler and cheaper as well. Sometimes that's a good thing.

It's not like the F-35b is lifting much more than a few sdb's or jdams anyway. Is the f-35b really going to be lifting much larger loads than the x-32 was expected to?

It's not like the f-35 has to carry the wing bending loads of the A-10. The VTOL x-32 would have done its job just fine for the Marines.

And sorry to sound like a troll on this, but it's a valid point that the f-35 really isn't that good looking of an aircraft. All the more reason to cancel it.

 

[Foo Fighter]

With all due respect to the right to belief in one's own opinions, the looks of an aircraft is the least credible reason for cancelling it. The criteria for doing so should be failure to hit performance, development timetable and financial targets alone.

 

[marauder2048]

Perhaps the ideal would be to cut the electives out of the equation, have instead a department like DARPA who have a remit to have the required product at the best possible cost.

Without DARPA's CALF and ASTOVL, it's unlikely that JSF would have been green lit.

Not to mention that the final design for the -32 was never tested (normal wing/tail, not delta)

And all of the discussions tend to overlook the extent to which NG/LM/BAE/Harris absolutely
murdered Raytheon on the avionics competition front.

 

[Dragon029]

There were a couple sources saying that the x-32 had better "up and away performance" not to mention the big wing and thrust vectored nozzle.

The reason I ask is because the only public study I've seen done into the two put the X-35 ahead: http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/JSFWeisman.pdf
That analysis indicates that the X-32 would have been a better dogfighter, but would also have been slower and had a lower range.

As far as the x-35 having better VTOL, so what! The x-32 used perfectly good direct lift like the Harrier did for 40 years,

The direct lift solution has always been less powerful / efficient and always more prone to hot gas reingestion as on the Harrier.

much simpler (cheaper) and less complicated than the x-35s fan-shaft system. As far as any difficulty during fly off, it was nothing compared to boondoggle development of f-35.

It seems a bit silly to compare a <1 year tech demo test program against that of a production aircraft. If a design has trouble doing the basics, your margins are tighter and it becomes harder to deal with any weight gains, etc.

It's not like the F-35b is lifting much more than a few sdb's or jdams anyway. Is the f-35b really going to be lifting much larger loads than the x-32 was expected to?

Fuel is always important for maritime / naval strike; having a greater T:W also just simply means more futureproofing. The X-32 was a neat design, but it's performance margins were simply too tight.