If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by DeltaV »

It was all designed and tested and everything. Too late now. 187 is not enough.
NEW VIDEO: US Air Superiority in Jeopardy?
Oh well, there's always diplomacy.

(Edit - fixed dead link)
Last edited by DeltaV on Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

Until this particular decision, I thought Robert Gates was a pretty smart guy. I suppose it comes down to the fact the F/A-22 will never survive a carrier landing nor be suitable for the USMC.

I think Secretary Gates was painted into a corner by the money available and the US DOD says it needs a new fighter for the USN and USMC. The F-35 won the competition (digression: would you want the Boeing fighter?) and we get to make the best of bad situation.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

rjaypeters wrote:Until this particular decision, I thought Robert Gates was a pretty smart guy. I suppose it comes down to the fact the F/A-22 will never survive a carrier landing nor be suitable for the USMC.

I think Secretary Gates was painted into a corner by the money available and the US DOD says it needs a new fighter for the USN and USMC. The F-35 won the competition (digression: would you want the Boeing fighter?) and we get to make the best of bad situation.
Yes. Boeing won the competition. The plane they came up with looked real screwy, and if you wanna know what the future looks like then look for something screwy-looking. I though it was great, and if the rules of the competition hadn't been changed in favour of L-M [when they started falling behind on the prescribed timing schedule] then Boeing shoud've been declared winner.

I rather tend to think it'd now be in full service, under budget and with some extra development/re-fits under its belt by now.

Picking a prototype that looks hi-tech today means it'll be outmoded once it gets into production.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

The X-32 was just too hot! I mean the ground heating and exhaust gas recirculation problems. Also, Boeing wasn't able build a light wing. And there was the need to add elevators...

It is a shame people judge funny-looking designs on looks first and ignore technical merit. I heard a similar argument used against the Northrop YF-23. "Yeah, but the F-22 looks like it's ready to turn and burn!"

Lest we forget, the F-22 is no poster child for efficient defense procurement.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

JSF Afloat is not tested yet. It is predicted to have significant deck heating/burning issues, like the Osprey has.

As far as F-22 goes, the F-15 and F-16 can't land on Carriers either, nor are they as robust for unimproved field ops as what the Marines currently operate.

On the bright side, going to one base platform with JSF makes it cheaper for our adversaries to counter.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by GIThruster »

DeltaV wrote:It was all designed and tested and everything. Too late now. 187 is not enough.
NEW VIDEO: US Air Superiority in Jeopardy?
Oh well, there's always diplomacy.
187 is plenty. They're already obsolete. Ask yourself why we've already retired our F117's and you'll have your answer. We're flying UCAV's and it will probably be another decade until we all know the full story.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Boing's final JSF prototype was not even ready. The delta original wing prototype was flown, but Boing decided to go to a more conventional wing, but this was only on paper. A prototype was not aviable for the competition. The only way it could possibly have competed would be if the DOD put the competition on hold for another 2-5 years. Talk about cost escalation.
As far as obsolescence, I doubt such could be applied to the F22 for at least a couple of decades. My limited understanding was that cost was most important. The JSF was cheaper (of course it is now growing in cost and delays), and the F35 is more multipurpose, and I assume with it's stealth, advanced sensors and missles it was judged to have a significant advantage over any nonstelth fighter, even if they are much more maneuverable. Assumptions that have been repeatedly proved wrong in the past.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by rjaypeters »

ladajo wrote:JSF Afloat is not tested yet. It is predicted to have significant deck heating/burning issues, like the Osprey has.
The Boeing design would have been that much worse!
ladajo wrote:On the bright side, going to one base platform with JSF makes it cheaper for our adversaries to counter.
That is a serious problem which US DOD cannot counteract because there isn't enough money to create diversified threats.
GIThruster wrote:187 is plenty. They're already obsolete. Ask yourself why we've already retired our F117's and you'll have your answer. We're flying UCAV's and it will probably be another decade until we all know the full story.
The F-117 (digression: should have been A-117) for all its virtues was the first generation of stealth aircraft. Should be retired by now.

While UCAVs are available, they don't match F-22 performance or versitility, yet. Autonomous UCAVs will be needed for real air battles and it is hard to trust machines with bombs, missiles and guns. Datalinks help some, but they can be jammed and we'd best believe potential adversaries have that trick up their sleeves.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

rjaypeters wrote:The X-32 was just too hot! I mean the ground heating and exhaust gas recirculation problems. Also, Boeing wasn't able build a light wing. And there was the need to add elevators...
D Tibbets wrote:Boing's final JSF prototype was not even ready. The delta original wing prototype was flown, but Boing decided to go to a more conventional wing, but this was only on paper. A prototype was not aviable for the competition.
I admit that the only stuff I know about it is what I saw in a documentary that followed each team as they competed for the JSF project.

What I saw was a Boeing team that fulfilled the milestones on time, and a L-M team that needed more time beyond the deadlines - and were then given it after some political lobbying. I watched this, these conversations, in front of my eyes. So I am either mistaken, or just mislead, if it is not so.

It is also a gaulling matter that the stated reason for going with the F-35 was that it had vertical-horizontal transitions that F-32 could not manage. Yet, this capability was NOT in the specification. So the stated reason for going with F-35 was for a reason not even requested in the original spec.

Mission creep, anyone!!......

The whole JSF programme came about beause the USAF figured out that with technology moving on as it was they desperately needed a LOW COST fighter. Otherwise, by 2050 they'd only be able to afford ONE aircraft!!! Again... mission creep???

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

chrismb wrote:I admit that the only stuff I know about it is what I saw in a documentary that followed each team as they competed for the JSF project.
I saw the same, I think, documentary and your points are well taken.

The LockMart folks were smart to do things not required, but IIRC it was the fan that won the competition for them. A few months back I saw a posted video from one of the chief LockMart designers where he talked about their development process with special attention to the fan. I'll look around for it.

FWIW, I think the original Boeing delta design had good advantages, especially in manufacturability (eventually), weight and stealth. Except for the USMC requirements, I think the Boeing design was better.

It is irksome the increased maneuverability requirements required Boeing to make changes when it is very likely the wars in which the F-35 will be involved will not hinge on its ability to turn and burn.

Because of beauty contests like the JSF and ATF, I make it a point to keep a part of my heart and mind open to the 'funny-looking ones.'

You know, maybe I should be harder on the Polywell because it is so cool looking?
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

The afloat operations testing remains a contentious point for the Navy. If the JSF can not validate itself as an afloat VSTOL, it will not meet Marine Corp and Navy needs. Last I heard it just finished drop testing in July. I think the afloat phase will be in July 11. It has been a moooooving target. USS WASP is the designated unit, but eventually that clock will run out...

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

chrismb wrote:
rjaypeters wrote:The X-32 was just too hot! I mean the ground heating and exhaust gas recirculation problems. Also, Boeing wasn't able build a light wing. And there was the need to add elevators...
D Tibbets wrote:Boing's final JSF prototype was not even ready. The delta original wing prototype was flown, but Boing decided to go to a more conventional wing, but this was only on paper. A prototype was not aviable for the competition.
I admit that the only stuff I know about it is what I saw in a documentary that followed each team as they competed for the JSF project.

What I saw was a Boeing team that fulfilled the milestones on time, and a L-M team that needed more time beyond the deadlines - and were then given it after some political lobbying. I watched this, these conversations, in front of my eyes. So I am either mistaken, or just mislead, if it is not so.

It is also a gaulling matter that the stated reason for going with the F-35 was that it had vertical-horizontal transitions that F-32 could not manage. Yet, this capability was NOT in the specification. So the stated reason for going with F-35 was for a reason not even requested in the original spec.

Mission creep, anyone!!......

The whole JSF programme came about beause the USAF figured out that with technology moving on as it was they desperately needed a LOW COST fighter. Otherwise, by 2050 they'd only be able to afford ONE aircraft!!! Again... mission creep???
IIRC, the real competition for F-35 was not between L-M and Boeing, it was between L-M and N-G. The award was granted L-M because as always, USAF considers L-M more trustworthy as regards actually producing on time and on budget.

How stupid is that in an environment where no one performs on time and on budget?

In any event, F-35 is a dopey idea. It's intended to drive costs down but the crazy environment in which these things flourish never promotes such. F-35 is likely to set new records for being over budget, but no one will care because the expense is spread out over so many US defense services as well as foreign interests.

F-35 is cool, especially the hover-fighter version, but it underperforms compared to the F-22 and what one expects we already have in UCAV's.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

We don't really have any strategic enemies anymore. Who are next-gen air superiority fighters aimed at? China is liberalizing and becoming economically interdependent with us, India is friendly, and there are no other real powers to speak of. Iran? A bad joke. North Korea? Rusting. I bet half their artillery pieces don't even fire.

Fukuyama was right: history is over. The only question is how soon and how violently the bass-ackwards countries that aren't yet liberal democracies yield to the morally inevitable. 9/11 just gave the process a swift kick forward.

The focus now is MRAPs, robots, and nation-building.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

TallDave wrote:Fukuyama was right: history is over.
I disagree. Just like stocks have reached a permanently high level? Real estate values will never decline?

Shall we start a new thread? Keyboards and mice at Internet paces?
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

I wouldn't say "War is dead" too soon. Nations that get peaceful too quickly have tended to get hit upside the head with a great big clue-by-four.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

Post Reply