Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Whiskey

Boeing F-32 Joint Strike Fighter

Recommended Posts

Just now, plane bum said:

attic aircraft models did one in 1/48 as a resin kit appearently you cannot get there kits anymore

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

I just want to know what the Boeing design team was thinking when they came up with overall design. 


I have a theory that I cannot prove but here it is. I think Boeing had two take-aways from the ATF competition.  One was that going conservative over revolutionary wins. That was one of the reasons Lockheed’s more conventional YF-22 was picked over the more radically designed Northrop YF-23. The other is a kind of historical trend where DoD puts a certain amount of weight into maintaining a manufacturing base. During ATF Northrop had the B-2 program (not yet cut back to only ~20 airframes) and Lockheed had only the F-16. So the theory goes that Lockheed got a nod on ATF to ensure they keep their manufacturing lines open. (at that time I don’t think anyone - including Lockheed - thought F-16 production would outlive F-22 production)

 

Now on JSF you have Lockheed with both F-16 and F-22 production ongoing and their X-35 proposing the risky swivel exhaust and lift fan concept. I think Boeing’s thinking was “let’s wrap the AV-8B proven (low risk) powerplant and lift system in a stealthy new airframe”, combined with a presumption that Boeing would get the nod on JSF to ensure the F-32 would keep their production lines open. This was before the Super Hornet and before the export market started buying upgraded Strike Eagles.  

 

Again, just my armchair ruminations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, habu2 said:


I have a theory that I cannot prove but here it is. I think Boeing had two take-aways from the ATF competition.  One was that going conservative over revolutionary wins. That was one of the reasons Lockheed’s more conventional YF-22 was picked over the more radically designed Northrop YF-23. The other is a kind of historical trend where DoD puts a certain amount of weight into maintaining a manufacturing base. During ATF Northrop had the B-2 program (not yet cut back to only ~20 airframes) and Lockheed had only the F-16. So the theory goes that Lockheed got a nod on ATF to ensure they keep their manufacturing lines open. (at that time I don’t think anyone - including Lockheed - thought F-16 production would outlive F-22 production)

 

Now on JSF you have Lockheed with both F-16 and F-22 production ongoing and their X-35 proposing the risky swivel exhaust and lift fan concept. I think Boeing’s thinking was “let’s wrap the AV-8B proven (low risk) powerplant and lift system in a stealthy new airframe”, combined with a presumption that Boeing would get the nod on JSF to ensure the F-32 would keep their production lines open. This was before the Super Hornet and before the export market started buying upgraded Strike Eagles.  

 

Again, just my armchair ruminations...

 

That actually makes quite a bit of sense. The irony of all of this is that the very design feature that caused so much trouble (VTOL), may become a mute point if the news about the Marines changing their focus is to be believed. The cost and length of development of the F-35 (or should it really be the F-24?) would have been much lower had they not had to incorporate VTOL into the design. And maybe the X-32 would have looked a little more streamlined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

...The cost and length of development of the F-35 (or should it really be the F-24?) ...

The Super Hornet should have been the F-24, so the JSF should have been the F-25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

That actually makes quite a bit of sense. The irony of all of this is that the very design feature that caused so much trouble (VTOL), may become a mute point if the news about the Marines changing their focus is to be believed. The cost and length of development of the F-35 (or should it really be the F-24?) would have been much lower had they not had to incorporate VTOL into the design. And maybe the X-32 would have looked a little more streamlined.

 

And the F-35A/C in general would have looked more streamlined (longer and less fat fuselage) and less draggy and thus would have a more useful performance and range.

 

That VTOL variant for the Marines (and allies like UK, Spain, Italy) should have been a separate design altogether with commonalities where it made sense (cockpit, engines, radar, etc.). Instead, it severely hampered down the performance of the main variants, while making them way too expensive for what they offer.

Edited by ijozic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Joe Hegedus said:

The Super Hornet should have been the F-24, so the JSF should have been the F-25.

 

True. The Super Hornet really is a new design over the Legacy Hornet. But as we all know, it's about funding and politics. 😄

Edited by Darren Roberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing with the JSF program, I was with McDonnell Douglas at the time, we lost because according to the Pentagon was because it was too "advanced" and too much risk in the development phase.  Now look at the penguin (winner) F-35 and all the money racked up try to make that thing work, sheesh!

afgerw.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Viper_944FW said:

The funny thing with the JSF program, I was with McDonnell Douglas at the time, we lost because according to the Pentagon was because it was too "advanced" and too much risk in the development phase.  Now look at the penguin (winner) F-35 and all the money racked up try to make that thing work, sheesh!

afgerw.jpg

Part of the problem concerning the cost was the ever changing requirements, seems like all partners wanted the aircraft to do everything short of making Cole-slaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a lot of that cost is in the software development and testing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

Part of the problem concerning the cost was the ever changing requirements, seems like all partners wanted the aircraft to do everything short of making Cole-slaw.

 

The F-35 developement saga:

Buyer: We need you to make an advanced fighter that can do X,Y, and Z. Can you do it?

Lockheed: Yes we can, for this much per unit.

Buyer: Excellent! Get to it!

 

Later...

Buyer: We'd like to know if you can incorporate A.

Lockheed: We can, but it will cost time and money.

Buyer: That's okay. Get to it.

 

Later....

Buyer: Could you change A to B?

Lockheed: We've already made the changes for A.

Buyer: But we really want B. Can you do it?

Lockheed: It will cost time and money.

Buyer. That's okay. Get to it.

 

Later...

Buyer: What about if we added C?

Lockheed: That would interfere with B that you wanted. It would require a whole redesign for that system.

Buyer: I understand that, but can you do it:

Lockheed: It will cost time and money.

Buyer: That's okay. Get to it.

 

Later.....

Buyer: Hey, wait a minute! Why is this thing so darn expensive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

The F-35 developement saga:

Buyer: We need you to make an advanced fighter that can do X,Y, and Z. Can you do it?

Lockheed: Yes we can, for this much per unit.

Buyer: Excellent! Get to it!

 

Later...

Buyer: We'd like to know if you can incorporate A.

Lockheed: We can, but it will cost time and money.

Buyer: That's okay. Get to it.

 

Later....

Buyer: Could you change A to B?

Lockheed: We've already made the changes for A.

Buyer: But we really want B. Can you do it?

Lockheed: It will cost time and money.

Buyer. That's okay. Get to it.

 

Later...

Buyer: What about if we added C?

Lockheed: That would interfere with B that you wanted. It would require a whole redesign for that system.

Buyer: I understand that, but can you do it:

Lockheed: It will cost time and money.

Buyer: That's okay. Get to it.

 

Later.....

Buyer: Hey, wait a minute! Why is this thing so darn expensive? 

Yep, pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, that Robert NcNamara, he was quite the genius, yes?

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

The F-35 developement saga:

Buyer: We need you to make an advanced fighter that can do X,Y, and Z. Can you do it?

Lockheed: Yes we can, for this much per unit.

Buyer: Excellent! Get to it!

 

Later...

Buyer: We'd like to know if you can incorporate A.

Lockheed: We can, but it will cost time and money.

Buyer: That's okay. Get to it.

 

Later....

Buyer: Could you change A to B?

Lockheed: We've already made the changes for A.

Buyer: But we really want B. Can you do it?

Lockheed: It will cost time and money.

Buyer. That's okay. Get to it.

 

Later...

Buyer: What about if we added C?

Lockheed: That would interfere with B that you wanted. It would require a whole redesign for that system.

Buyer: I understand that, but can you do it:

Lockheed: It will cost time and money.

Buyer: That's okay. Get to it.

 

Later.....

Buyer: Hey, wait a minute! Why is this thing so darn expensive? 

The best part is the Chinese then stole all the design info, got rid of the VTOL capability and got themselves a 5th generation fighter on the cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the JSF Program is a repeat of the F-111 fiasco except we are in too deep to turn around and get out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GW8345 said:

IMO, the JSF Program is a repeat of the F-111 fiasco except we are in too deep to turn around and get out.

 

Since General Dynamics (GD) did all the F-111 development and most of the manufacturing it was basically a one-company show.

 

Lockheed (= GD) learned an important lesson from F-111 and spread out their F-35 subcontracts to as many states as possible (possibly all 50 but I'd have to check).  That means as many jobs (= voters) in as many Congressmen's districts as possible.  That means DoD can't kill the program because Congress will keep it alive to ensure those same Congressmen get those worker's votes (= re-election).  Lockheed took it one step further and got international development and production commitments in addition to domestic work.  For example when I was on the program I worked with Honeywell of Canada on the PTMS system.  For that reason the F-35 will never die and may well live forever, costs be damned.  This program was designed in the boardroom, not the engineering department.

 

I'm sure Boeing would have done the same thing with the F-32(?) had they won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, habu2 said:

 

Since General Dynamics (GD) did all the F-111 development and most of the manufacturing it was basically a one-company show.

 

Lockheed (= GD) learned an important lesson from F-111 and spread out their F-35 subcontracts to as many states as possible (possibly all 50 but I'd have to check).  That means as many jobs (= voters) in as many Congressmen's districts as possible.  That means DoD can't kill the program because Congress will keep it alive to ensure those same Congressmen get those worker's votes (= re-election).  Lockheed took it one step further and got international development and production commitments in addition to domestic work.  For example when I was on the program I worked with Honeywell of Canada on the PTMS system.  For that reason the F-35 will never die and may well live forever, costs be damned.  This program was designed in the boardroom, not the engineering department.

 

I'm sure Boeing would have done the same thing with the F-32(?) had they won.

I don't think you can find a major program that isn't sub-contracted out to all the Congressional Districts.

The really frustrating part, the sub-contracting increases the over-all costs and increases risk (see V-22).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GW8345 said:

IMO, the JSF Program is a repeat of the F-111 fiasco except we are in too deep to turn around and get out.

But in reality, the F-111 actually worked (after a crapload of money being spent). 

 

No other US aircraft could do what it did during the Vietnam War, same for long range strike missions against the Warsaw Pact during the cold war.   It also did a fantastic job during DS.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 11bee said:

But in reality, the F-111 actually worked (after a crapload of money being spent). 

 

No other US aircraft could do what it did during the Vietnam War, same for long range strike missions against the Warsaw Pact during the cold war.   It also did a fantastic job during DS.   

 

 


One of the two variants worked. The other one, arguably the more important of the two, was a dismal failure and only the ability of Grumman to deliver an entirely new airframe wrapped around the same engines and weapons system in fairly short measure offset that failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, mawz said:


One of the two variants worked. The other one, arguably the more important of the two, was a dismal failure and only the ability of Grumman to deliver an entirely new airframe wrapped around the same engines and weapons system in fairly short measure offset that failure. 

 

The other was forced on the Navy due to politics and should have never been used in that role.  The bottom line is that the -111 did it's job very well every time it was called on to fight, although at significant cost and with a pretty poor maint to flight hour ratio.  I'd also argue that the early F-14 was hardly a stellar success either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 11bee said:

 

The other was forced on the Navy due to politics and should have never been used in that role.  The bottom line is that the -111 did it's job very well every time it was called on to fight, although at significant cost and with a pretty poor maint to flight hour ratio.  I'd also argue that the early F-14 was hardly a stellar success either.  

 

The F-111 in USAF service was fantastic. It proved (once more)what should have been common sense, but wasn't. You can turn a Navy design into an effective AF design (F-4, A-7, etc.), but you can't go the other way around. To be honest, the F-14 was the perfect airframe for the ADC tasking. With the Phoenix missiles and AWG-9 radar system, it was ready-made to knock down bombers coming over the pole. In hindsight we see that the decision by the USAF to not go with the Tomcat worked out, but that's only because a war never broke out. At one time, the AF was considering buying F-35C's in addition to A's. They liked the larger wing. Of course, it could also have been that they were concerned the C would be canceled, and then the whole program would be canceled. 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 11bee said:

But in reality, the F-111 actually worked (after a crapload of money being spent). 

 

No other US aircraft could do what it did during the Vietnam War, same for long range strike missions against the Warsaw Pact during the cold war.   It also did a fantastic job during DS.   

 

 

I never said the F-111 wasn't a good aircraft, I said the F-111 program was a fiasco., budget overruns, mismanagement, etc.

 

Just like the F-35, the Pentagon tried to make the F-111 a "jack of all trades" and we saw how that worked out for the Navy.

 

While the F-35 may be good for one service, I don't think it's the perfect aircraft for all services.

 

I also think the USN/USMC are repeating the mistakes of the past, such as no internal gun and single engine just to name a few.

 

And you said "I'd also argue that the early F-14 was hardly a stellar success either.", care to elaborate on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

And you said "I'd also argue that the early F-14 was hardly a stellar success either.", care to elaborate on that?

 

Just based on the loss rate due to those early engine issues....   Honestly, not too sure how the AIM-56 would have done in real life as well.   From talking with an ex-Tomcat pilot who flew this thing in the 80's (obviously a very small sample set), he said the AWG-9/AIM-56 was "rough".  The radar was down more than it was up and every live fire he ever heard of with the -56 was carefully scripted to provide the best chance of a hit and it still had a pretty good miss rate.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, 11bee said:

 

Just based on the loss rate due to those early engine issues....   Honestly, not too sure how the AIM-56 would have done in real life as well.   From talking with an ex-Tomcat pilot who flew this thing in the 80's (obviously a very small sample set), he said the AWG-9/AIM-56 was "rough".  The radar was down more than it was up and every live fire he ever heard of with the -56 was carefully scripted to provide the best chance of a hit and it still had a pretty good miss rate.   

The early engine issues weren't as bad as they were made out to be, the biggest issue was pilots getting into flat spins and not being able to get out, training solved that.

 

As for the AIM-54, it was a good system but was a maintenance hog. I've seen some squadrons not maintain their systems while others took pride in having the best systems. I've participated in over 15 AIM-54 missile shoots and each one of them hit the target, it all comes down to how the squadron maintained the system.

 

Also, all the of the kills scored with the Tomcat were with Alpha's, the engine wasn't that big of an issue. And if you want to know how the AIM-54 did in combat, ask the Iraqis, they lost 57 aircraft to Iranian Phoniex's and were so scared of the Tomcat during Desert Storm that they refused to engage our F-14's. Instead of engaging our Tomcats, the Iraqis ran anytime they encountered a Tomcat, that's how the F-18's from the Saratoga got their Mig kills, the -21's were running from VF-74 and VF-103 Tomcats and flew right into the Hornet's formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GW8345 said:

The early engine issues weren't as bad as they were made out to be, the biggest issue was pilots getting into flat spins and not being able to get out, training solved that.

 

As for the AIM-54, it was a good system but was a maintenance hog. I've seen some squadrons not maintain their systems while others took pride in having the best systems. I've participated in over 15 AIM-54 missile shoots and each one of them hit the target, it all comes down to how the squadron maintained the system.

 

Also, all the of the kills scored with the Tomcat were with Alpha's, the engine wasn't that big of an issue. And if you want to know how the AIM-54 did in combat, ask the Iraqis, they lost 57 aircraft to Iranian Phoniex's and were so scared of the Tomcat during Desert Storm that they refused to engage our F-14's. Instead of engaging our Tomcats, the Iraqis ran anytime they encountered a Tomcat, that's how the F-18's from the Saratoga got their Mig kills, the -21's were running from VF-74 and VF-103 Tomcats and flew right into the Hornet's formation.

 

That's also how some F-15's got their kills, or so I've heard. I was reading a book years ago that interviewed an Eagle pilot. He said something to the effect that the Tomcat was the best thing for them. The Iraqi's would get painted by to the AWG-9, turn tail, and run right into the F-15 kill box. He said it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Whether that was true or not, I don't know. But that's what the Eagle driver stated in the book.

Edited by Darren Roberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...