code20photog Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 The future is all UAVs. This is Boeing trying desperately to save jobs. Not a bad idea, but it's probably going to end up being a bolt-on kit to modify existing airframes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 (edited) That is what I always thought. That is why I always thought that the USAF would be smart to buy 2-300 more F-22s, but put cheaper avionics, engines, no thrust vectoring, and no RAM. This way, you have the airframes that you can upgrade to a full F-22 standard at a later point. Too integrated into a complicated tin can? I am sure some modifications would be needed, mounts, shims, adaptors... I could see LM saying that they cant do it cause they dont want to sell cheap models, they want to push the big expensive ones. How about buy the frames and get contractor to do the modifications if LM wont. "Some modifications" is an extreme understatement. It would require massive modifications, then a duplication of the entire flight test program for basic flying characteristics, weapons employment, and tactics (almost all of which is already paid for in the present F-22). The R&D of that alone would double the cost of this stripped down version. That would be multiplied by the operating costs of separate pipelines for the training of maintainers and pilots plus a separate spare parts pipeline. And when it comes time to upgrade these machines I would not bet the farm that the money will be there. The future is all UAVs. No. This is Boeing trying desperately to save jobs. This is Boeing jumping into a possible market if the F-35 falls on its face entirely or becomes too expensive for some countries to buy. Smart move actually. Regards, Murph Edited September 7, 2010 by Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cobrahistorian Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 The future is all UAVs. This is Boeing trying desperately to save jobs. Not a bad idea, but it's probably going to end up being a bolt-on kit to modify existing airframes. And no gun in the airframe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 And no gun in the airframe. Now Jon, it has the stealthy gunpod ... Everyone knows Marine and Navy F-35s won't be in dogfights in future wars anyway ... :D Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oroka Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 "Some modifications" is an extreme understatement. It would require massive modifications, then a duplication of the entire flight test program for basic flying characteristics, weapons employment, and tactics (almost all of which is already paid for in the present F-22). The R&D of that alone would double the cost of this stripped down version. That would be multiplied by the operating costs of separate pipelines for the training of maintainers and pilots plus a separate spare parts pipeline. And when it comes time to upgrade these machines I would not bet the farm that the money will be there Perhaps, but I would think that would be under the old style of business the heavy weapon manufactures used. Under bid, over promise, drag the contract on and on to milk it for every cent. If I was running the procuring dept of the DOD, I would solicit bids, and if they all bid a lot higher than I thought it would be, I would tell them that if they want the contract, they will do it for 75% their bid, firm, or I am going elsewhere. It would be a fixed price contract, only way more would be paid is if the contractor was going to start losing money on it. At least this way a line stays open and a work force employed. It would be a F-22 with F-15/16/18 guts. No structural changes to the airframe, minimal changes internally. Paint instead of RAM, down rated engines or a cheaper existing version, existing guts. Take gear out of existing F-15s, it is already paid for, and modify it as needed. What needs to happen, is order a bare bones airframe, give it to NASA or DARPA, and tell them to Frankenstein some guts into it. If it works out, is equal to or better than a modern F-15C, produce it. I know it is not that simple, but they did similar things to the F-117 to simplify development (F-16, F/A-18, and F-15 parts). Why reinvent the wheel if you dont need to? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 (edited) It would be a F-22 with F-15/16/18 guts. No structural changes to the airframe, minimal changes internally. Paint instead of RAM, down rated engines or a cheaper existing version, existing guts. Take gear out of existing F-15s, it is already paid for, and modify it as needed.What needs to happen, is order a bare bones airframe, give it to NASA or DARPA, and tell them to Frankenstein some guts into it. If it works out, is equal to or better than a modern F-15C, produce it. I know it is not that simple, but they did similar things to the F-117 to simplify development (F-16, F/A-18, and F-15 parts). Why reinvent the wheel if you dont need to? "If the army acted on the advice of every Tom, Dick and Harry who had an opinion on these matters, we'd all end up with a bunch of B-52s powered by outboard motors." Edited September 7, 2010 by Trigger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rapier01 Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 I'm with Trigger on this one... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oroka Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 True. But is $150m for 1 fighter really acceptable these days? How about $89m? The current system is obviously not working, bid low, promise high, the government wont cancel the project once you win the contract. Innovation is dead, now they just throw a crowd of engineers at a problem for 10 years. A Fraken-Raptor would be innovative. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Marv Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Today's Boeing headline: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Boeing-slims...463870.html?x=0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
William G Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 It would be a F-22 with F-15/16/18 guts. No structural changes to the airframe, minimal changes internally. Paint instead of RAM, down rated engines or a cheaper existing version, existing guts. Take gear out of existing F-15s, it is already paid for, and modify it as needed.What needs to happen, is order a bare bones airframe, give it to NASA or DARPA, and tell them to Frankenstein some guts into it. If it works out, is equal to or better than a modern F-15C, produce it. I know it is not that simple, but they did similar things to the F-117 to simplify development (F-16, F/A-18, and F-15 parts). Why reinvent the wheel if you dont need to? Oroka, As Murph said, and I believe 1000% of his info for the Raptor, It will take a full re-evaluation of the aircraft... While working on the F-16, I was thinking the same thing when looking at the avionics and the capabilities. Avionics the issue isn’t that of just swapping boxes, it is also how they are placed, where the wiring is located, can the cables work with other components, will they work at all without loads of software and hardware updates. and that’s just Avionics. Engine, you are talking about fittings, capabilities, airflow, balance issues as well as again other fun stuff... RAM, well if it is not just a coating it is a structure issue, a weights issue, balance, and more... These are not Minimal changes. It’s not like getting a frame and body from GM for the new Camaro to put in your own powertrain electrics and interior. It’s that these items are so interlinked. Not to say that they may not have a similar item in the works for a downgraded version for export... William G. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 True. But is $150m for 1 fighter really acceptable these days? How about $89m? The current system is obviously not working, bid low, promise high, the government wont cancel the project once you win the contract.Innovation is dead, now they just throw a crowd of engineers at a problem for 10 years. A Fraken-Raptor would be innovative. But what if that single $150 million fighter can shoot down dozens of cheaper fighter with pretty much total superiority? With regard to your last statement, I would rather see them throwing a crowd of engineers at a problem instead of a crowd of accountants, for whatever that is worth John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oroka Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 I would rather see some innovation, rather than throwing a bottomless pit of money at it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 I would rather see some innovation, rather than throwing a bottomless pit of money at it. but sir, we've done nothing and we're all out of ideas Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 (edited) NASA is just one of those groups i DO NOT associate with "cheaper and more efficient" --just my two cents. And just because they are bored and not up to any actual space exploration doesn't mean you need them prodding into aircraft manufacture and procurement than is necessary, especially given the nature of the military procurement process. There is no way you bring NASA onto a program and it somehow gets magically cheaper. Edited September 8, 2010 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 Coming soon...the Shush Phantom! Alvis 3.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oroka Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 NASA is just one of those groups i DO NOT associate with "cheaper and more efficient" --just my two cents. And just because they are bored and not up to any actual space exploration doesn't mean you need them prodding into aircraft manufacture and procurement than is necessary, especially given the nature of the military procurement process. There is no way you bring NASA onto a program and it somehow gets magically cheaper. Well, it doesn't have to be NASA, but some innovative company. Im sure the Israelis could do it at a reasonable price, they seem to know a bit about putting different avionics in an aircraft. I just dont see innovation anymore, just expensive engineering. YF-23, innovative, canned. X-32, innovative, canned. Yes, I know they had their issues, but they had their plus side too. The last innovative aircraft to enter service for the US was the F-117*, program cost? $111m. F-35... may be $380B, including inflation 1610% more. *I dont count the B-2 because it was a old design concept that got engineered to hell. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Barr Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 (edited) The last innovative aircraft to enter service for the US was the F-117*, program cost? $111m. F-35... may be $380B Just a LITTLE bit of apples to oranges comparison on cost there. :) Cost of F-117 for 64 very specialized aircraft operated by 1 service, compared to 2400+ multi-role aircraft build for 3 US services alone and many international customers that have certian needs; so yes more "expense engineering" going into the program. Regards Jim Barr Edited September 8, 2010 by Jim Barr Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 (edited) Well, it doesn't have to be NASA, but some innovative company. Im sure the Israelis could do it at a reasonable price, they seem to know a bit about putting different avionics in an aircraft.I just dont see innovation anymore, just expensive engineering. YF-23, innovative, canned. X-32, innovative, canned. Yes, I know they had their issues, but they had their plus side too. The last innovative aircraft to enter service for the US was the F-117*, program cost? $111m. F-35... may be $380B, including inflation 1610% more. *I dont count the B-2 because it was a old design concept that got engineered to hell. Arent the F-117 and F-35 built by the SAME COMPANY? Every generation gets exponentially more expensive than the last. Adjusted for inflation The F-86 cost four times more than a p-51, and an F-15 eight times than what an f-86 cost. probably because an F-15 can do things like fire BVR missiles, fly twice the speed of sound, pick targets hundreds of miles away, deploy electronic warfare, and chaff and flares... etc. Old design concept? Was there a previous stealth flying wing we never heard about? (and don't say the Horten 229 that thing was LO at best and never reached production) Why wouldn't you count the B-2? Its very innovative, flying wings are not easy aircraft to design especially stealthy flying wings. plus the standards for the B-2 got changed half way through the program causing a massive redesign. How can the YF-23 be "innovative" and yet its contemporary the F-22 is not "Innovative"? The X-32 could not even hover without major parts of the fuselage removed. How is that "innovative"?? --"Hi I have an airplane that doesn't meet specs, but boy its different! totally 'innovative'" The X-32 had more of a harrier style hover system as well. While the X-35 has an amazingly "innovative" twisting jet pipe and lift fan (that worked). I guess I just need to know what your definition of "innovative" is exactly. Maybe the YF-23 and X-32 look good because they were never ordered into production, and thus never got the chance to have cost overruns. The grass is always greener... The F-117 was designed cheap (and in the 80's before you had things like net centric warfare) The F-22 or even the F-35 makes the F-117 look like the Wright Flyer. The F-117 was never designed as a fighter contrary to the name, which was for SALT treaties and what not. in the end it flys in a straight line, drops a couple bombs then returns home. It was also a black program which has a limited budget, and how many F-117s were built compared to how many F-22 or F-35s? lets compare the F-35 to the F-117: Does the F-117 have to take off and land on an aircraft carrier?? Does it have an afterburner? Can it Hover? Can it fire BVR and close range missiles and drop bombs plus many other types of weapons? Does it have a gun? Does it have to worry about hot gas ingestion? does it have a radar? can it be used by all 3 services and a dozen allied nations? Is it equipped for a 21st century battlefield electronically? Does it have a modern cockpit? good visibility for a dogfight? A targeting system able to pick mobile targets on a fluid battlefield? Can it be forward deployed? How does it hold up against salt water? Are there three different specialized version of F-117s? I think the F-35 might be the most innovative aircraft ever designed. Has anyone actually attempted to do this before? A plane for all three services that can also hover? Its a major feat of engineering that the aircraft actually works at all. Its a miracle that the only complaint we have about this aircraft is its cost. Compare this to the V-22 where cost was the least of everyone's worry. The F-35 costs more because it does more. The Reason Israel can do it on the cheap is: A. A smaller fighter force, any changes they make are applied to fewer aircraft B. They are taking a proven design and adding to it, rather than having to design something from scratch, with a deadline, for thousands of fighters. C. The US tries to keep things on the cheap because congress loves canceling programs. Israel is a little more military friendly. D. The US always plans upgrade programs for the future, again thanks to cost. E. Israel can specialize their equipment for the single environment they fight in. The US must plan to fight anywhere. F. Israel does not have to go through a lengthy procurement process. The F-35 is getting more expensive because Lockmart had to juke the numbers. G. The US maintains more aircraft so rather than getting A+ Avionics it sometimes must settle for A- or B+ Avionics so it can be used universally easing logistics, in a fighter fleet that is spread all over the global rather than concentrated in a small nation in the desert. H. Israel does not have to factor in R+D, prototype, and flight test cost. I. We give Israel money. lots of it. The US does not have a rich uncle that gives us money for our defense budget. (wouldn't mind it though) Im not saying that the F-35 is cheap. but this is like complaining that a family with just 1 kid manages to do everything cheaper, better, faster, than the family with 6 kids, and 10 pets. Yep. If you want it easier, have fewer mouths to feed. Edit: Hat tip to Jim Barr who beat me to it! Edited September 8, 2010 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rapier01 Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 I think "weird looking" and "innovative" are getting mixed up here. Take for example the, X-32, looks weird for sure, but had direct lift... which is not innovative. X-35 looks conventional, but had a lift fan, which was a novel idea, hence innovative. Bottom-line, weird/ugly =/= innovative. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GoBlue96 Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 I think "weird looking" and "innovative" are getting mixed up here. Take for example the, X-32, looks weird for sure, but had direct lift... which is not innovative. X-35 looks conventional, but had a lift fan, which was a novel idea, hence innovative. Bottom-line, weird/ugly =/= innovative. Yes. Can I co-sign this? Well said. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Barr Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 X-32, looks weird for sure, but had direct lift... which is not innovative. X-35 looks conventional, but had a lift fan, which was a novel idea, hence innovative Very good points. The TV program 'Battle of the X Planes" covered that very well; both teams had to make design choices, some innovated, some going with known technology as going all innovated was too risky. Boeing went with a "Harrier' type lift system which was a safe bet as they had recently acquired McDonald Douglas, it was a proven system, and they had people who knew that system. They went innovated with the large one piece carbon fiber composite wing which unfortunately did not work out for them. LM went with a conventional airframe design which some people have pooh poohed as a 'mini-me' F-22 but that made sense as after all they did design the F-22 and had a good base to work from. They bet the farm on the lift fan for the STOVL variant that even Boeing admitted that when LM got it to working pretty much sealed the competition. Regards Jim Barr Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 (edited) I think "weird looking" and "innovative" are getting mixed up here. Take for example the, X-32, looks weird for sure, but had direct lift... which is not innovative. X-35 looks conventional, but had a lift fan, which was a novel idea, hence innovative. Bottom-line, weird/ugly =/= innovative. That makes more sense. Thanks! Very good points. The TV program 'Battle of the X Planes" covered that very well; both teams had to make design choices, some innovated, some going with known technology as going all innovated was too risky. Boeing went with a "Harrier' type lift system which was a safe bet as they had recently acquired McDonald Douglas, it was a proven system, and they had people who knew that system. They went innovated with the large one piece carbon fiber composite wing which unfortunately did not work out for them. LM went with a conventional airframe design which some people have pooh poohed as a 'mini-me' F-22 but that made sense as after all they did design the F-22 and had a good base to work from. They bet the farm on the lift fan for the STOVL variant that even Boeing admitted that when LM got it to working pretty much sealed the competition. Regards Jim Barr Thats a great show BTW. Hindsight being what it is too, I am very happy the X-35 won. If the X-32 could only marginally hover empty at the prototype stage what happens when you add more weight? (as inevitably happens with warplanes as they get older) or weapons? Lockheed gambled --and won, big. Edited September 8, 2010 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
loftycomfort Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 (edited) Bottom-line, weird/ugly =/= innovative. <nerdMode> Ahem, it should be: weird|ugly != innovative The "|" is logical OR, and "!" is logical NOT. Hence "weird|ugly != innovative" means "weird or or ugly not equals to innovative". </nerdMode> Ok I'll go back to my corner now. Terry Edited September 8, 2010 by loftycomfort Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 Coming soon...the Shush Phantom! :) Then again, what good is a stealthy Phantom when every half-way modern fighter can get a radar lock on your exhaust plume? ;) You could probably make a P-51 track a stealthy Phantom - provided you could fit one of the ash sampling pods used in the Eyjafjalladingdong episode on a Mustang's hardpoint. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 :) Then again, what good is a stealthy Phantom when every half-way modern fighter can get a radar lock on your exhaust plume? ;) You could probably make a P-51 track a stealthy Phantom - provided you could fit one of the ash sampling pods used in the Eyjafjalladingdong episode on a Mustang's hardpoint. Stealthy, no, quiet , yes. That's why it's the "Shush" Phantom. Ok, you can stop laughing now..... Alvis 3.1 (Who is now thinking of "stealthifying" a Phantom....) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.