Talk-Polywell.org

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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???

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?

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.