#-B777-# From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3207 times:
Does anyone have good informations about the JSF evaluation? It seems to me the Boeing concept is very radical in simplicity, but Lockheed claims they make the plane stealthy without painting. This should save tons of money in production and service. Who will win?
Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1301 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2988 times:
The Boeing X-32 concept demonstartor seems to have a slight advantage in the test flights schedule but we must remember that the ultimate Boeing design is very different from the X-32. Boeing infact decided to modify its project adding conventional tail planes and a redesigned wing but the construction of the prototype X-32 was already began so they are currently carring on test flights with a different version of their JSF concept!!
Lockheed_Martin on the other hand, built its X-35 in a very close manner to the ultimate design. Both aircrafts seems to have good performances. In my opinion the X-35 is a better overall project especially if it has to replace F-16s and AV-8 ( its STOVL system is more powerful and reliable in my opinion) but the X-32 seems to be more suitable for carrier operations and it resembles the A-6. You must also add that if Lockheed-Martin will win the contract, USA will have just one big supplier of advanced military fighters while Boeing will have a secon place in military forniture and of course will keep its leadership in civil aviation. There is always the problem of costs but I think that US DoD should buy the X-35 as an F-16/AV-8 replacement and the X-32 as an A-6/F-18A/C replacement.
For export customer, and for Italy in particular, I would like to see the Lochkeed-Martin project.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12971 posts, RR: 79 Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2928 times:
Overall, the X-35 looks more like the lower-risk, more mature concept.
The X-32 STOVL version may have less potential problems with hot-gas ingestion in the hover. X-35 may have the edge in air combat.
May all be academic, I wouldn't rate JSF's chances of survival too highly. The Bush administration talk of 'skipping a generation', which probably means pressing ahead with UCAV development.
Donald Rumsfeld has hinted that the US cannot afford 3 fighter projects. USAF will do everything to keep the F-22, the USN see F-18E/F as essential to replace an fast ageing fleet. USMC aviation has far less political clout than the others. The expensive STOVL JSF is the most vunerable part of the programme. Axeing that hit USMC, the Royal Navy and RAF only.
Axeing JSF as a whole would leave the US without an exportable fighter post 2010, that may save the CTOL model.
If some SCUDS had managed to get lucky and disrupt operations at those huge, crowded Saudi air bases in 1991, the USAF would be going for STOVL JSF too.
Hope I'm wrong!
Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1301 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2939 times:
In my opinion the US DoD has gone too far to cancel the project.
Let's think to all the Countries involved: United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Singapore already contributed with funds in different stages and levels according to their status. Italy has recently agreed on funding the following stage of collaboration as bothe the Air Force and the Navy are interested in up to 150 examples, with at least 50 in the STOVL variant.
If USA don't want to loose the leading in the aerospace industry they have to go on with the JSF programme as well as all the other (F-22, F/A-18E/F, UCAV, and so on)
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12971 posts, RR: 79 Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2913 times:
International collaboration helps JSF's credibility, but the STOVL version is the most expensive, yet will be built in the smallest numbers.
USMC requires 600, the RAF/RN 150-160, Italy, (assuming JSF will be for the carrier wing only), probably 30-40.
Another problem is that USMC has the most urgent requirement, so the most difficult phase, the testing of STOVL version, cannot slip too much.
Possibly USMC might then be forced to take some CTOL/CV versions as an interim buy, thus undermining the STOVL version.
The RN could then be forced into the CV version, so a decision on the JSF's future is needed soon so RN knows what type of carrier the CVF will be. The UK taking the CV version will put pressure on the RAF to take the CTOL JSF as a Tornado IDS replacement, which would not meet the probable requirements.
This would damage European industry as it would blow away a follow-on to Eurofighter. As the only likely major European military aircraft programme post Eurofighter would be the Tornado replacement for UK/Germany/Italy, and possibly also France's Mirage 2000D/H fleet.
It's good to be on JSF, but it is no subsitute for a European fighter design and build capability.
Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1301 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2903 times:
In the designs of the Italian Air Force,
the JSF,being it a STOVL or a CTOL, is a replacement for the light weight fighter bomber AMX Ghibli, not for the Tornado IDS/ECR.
AMI (Italian Air Force) plans to dedicate two Typhoon squadron to the air to ground role (keeping the air to air role as seconday). Tornado needs a replacement but it seems that the planned British FOAS has been dropped and so the Anglo/French collaboration on a replacement for Typhoon and Rafale. It's not a JSF fault if the European Aerospace Industry is going to loose its know-how.
But I agree with you on one point: the STOVL variant is threaten the entire project. It is the most expensive one though the one who will be procured in the smallest number. Moreover, the other versions will suffer from the limitations of an airframe designed also for a STOVL variant.
That's why in a previous post I expressed my opinion that they should develop one design (the X-32?) only for the STOVL version and the other for the CTOL and CV versions, not only improving the overall quality of both projects but also keeping the competition and the know-how between the two main manufacturer.