Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-14D vs F-35C

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
    To be honest, the F-35 JSF will not be cut. There's too many people in the stake and too much money has been already spent. Hell almost all the R&D is almost finished. Once production begins, the price will likely fall. If the JSF was cut, that would be the largest political disaster and I doubt any country will ever join the US in a collaberation effort after this.
    Almost all the R&D is finished?

    What planet is that on?

    They havn't even tackled the lion's share of the A or C versions development to pre-production fighters yet.

    The R&D is hardly "almost finished".

    PS: The majority(maybe even the vast majority) of these collaborative efforts fail. The more partners, the more likely it is to fail. Just too many people pulling in too many divergent directions.

    It's the F-111 on an international scale, but with a VTOL variant and "Stealth" thrown in.

    LOL.......i called this debacle 5 years ago. :)

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by jgetti
      That's where you really start to find all the design flaws, and the producibility problems that come with developing a new jet. Reliability and Maintainability can eat you up here, because it's where the whole aircraft as a system gets first tested out. It could still get REAL ugly. That's the nature of any EMD, not just JSF.
      Heh, or as i call it, 'the beggining of the end'.

      These jets are going to be the most scrutinized in history. They're gonna have to be 'perfect' to satisfy the critics, and they're reaaaaaaaaaaally far from perfect.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
        To be honest, the F-35 JSF will not be cut. There's too many people in the stake and too much money has been already spent. Hell almost all the R&D is almost finished. Once production begins, the price will likely fall. If the JSF was cut, that would be the largest political disaster and I doubt any country will ever join the US in a collaberation effort after this.
        F-35A will be making it's first flight in September, F-35B next year and F-35C in 2009. IOC for the A is scheduled for 2011 and B and C for 2012. There is still 5 years to go for the JSF, but whoever cancels the JSF, a huge program, would be hurting themselves causing the loss of so many jobs, so much money, etc. for the US. I agree with everything, except for the fact that the R&D is almost finished. They're still trying to lower the weight of the B, and that might take a while.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by hello
          F-35A will be making it's first flight in September, F-35B next year and F-35C in 2009. IOC for the A is scheduled for 2011 and B and C for 2012. There is still 5 years to go for the JSF, but whoever cancels the JSF, a huge program, would be hurting themselves causing the loss of so many jobs, so much money, etc. for the US. I agree with everything, except for the fact that the R&D is almost finished. They're still trying to lower the weight of the B, and that might take a while.
          They're all overweight, but the A is closest to making the 'cut'. The C is going to take a lot of work to get it where they want it weight wise, but the B is not going to ever hit it's programmed weight. It's just too Boo-que.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            They're all overweight, but the A is closest to making the 'cut'. The C is going to take a lot of work to get it where they want it weight wise, but the B is not going to ever hit it's programmed weight. It's just too Boo-que.
            A and C are overweight too? Where did you get that info? I understand that if B is overweight, it may cause STOVL problems, but A and C take off from runways and catapults. What problem will 1000lb extra weight cause (you said the B is 2000lb overweight so obviously A and C are lighter than B)? I suggest they should just beef up the landing gear a bit and uprate engine power than cutting everything. They also need more than a pathetic 180 rounds of ammo in the A.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
              To be honest, the F-35 JSF will not be cut. There's too many people in the stake and too much money has been already spent. Hell almost all the R&D is almost finished. Once production begins, the price will likely fall. If the JSF was cut, that would be the largest political disaster and I doubt any country will ever join the US in a collaberation effort after this.
              Ask the "Commanche" guys if they thought their system would get cut....

              Comment


              • #82
                The difference between the Comanche and the F-35 is that we never really did much to try to export the Comanche to other countries, and as Burning Kid said, it would be a political disaster if we backed out of it now.
                "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by hello
                  A and C are overweight too? Where did you get that info? I understand that if B is overweight, it may cause STOVL problems, but A and C take off from runways and catapults. What problem will 1000lb extra weight cause (you said the B is 2000lb overweight so obviously A and C are lighter than B)? I suggest they should just beef up the landing gear a bit and uprate engine power than cutting everything. They also need more than a pathetic 180 rounds of ammo in the A.
                  Why would B be overweight ive seen the prottypes do STOVL just fine?!?!?!?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                    To be honest, the F-35 JSF will not be cut. There's too many people in the stake and too much money has been already spent. Hell almost all the R&D is almost finished. Once production begins, the price will likely fall. If the JSF was cut, that would be the largest political disaster and I doubt any country will ever join the US in a collaberation effort after this.
                    That's what they said about VentureStar too.

                    Is the F-35 going to be finished by 2008? Because IMO that's the ONLY chance it has to survive, if there's a power shift in the US.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      The reason why the JSF is not like the other programs is because this is an international program not a domestic one. Being international means that if you cut it, the other nations will have wasted their money too. Do you think they will ever really feel safe being with the US in an another project after that? I don't think so, it would be a huge political blow to the US.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Jimmy
                        That's what they said about VentureStar too.

                        Is the F-35 going to be finished by 2008? Because IMO that's the ONLY chance it has to survive, if there's a power shift in the US.
                        Isn't VentureStar the thing that was supposed to replace the STS Space Shuttles?

                        F-35A gets IOC in 2011, F-35B and C in 2012. F-35A is making it's first flight in September this year.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by urmomma158
                          Why would B be overweight ive seen the prottypes do STOVL just fine?!?!?!?
                          Making a prototype, and making a producible aircraft are two different things. Also, the modularity of the airframes which was to be such a huge selling point was not completely incorporated into the prototype. The prototypes were technology demonstrators, not production representative aircraft. Anyway, to make things interchangeable between three different variants of an aircraft is going to REQUIRE more structure be present and hence more weight. In an effort to reduce weight, I really think the modularity of the airframes had to decrease, another reason costs are inflating.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                            The reason why the JSF is not like the other programs is because this is an international program not a domestic one. Being international means that if you cut it, the other nations will have wasted their money too. Do you think they will ever really feel safe being with the US in an another project after that? I don't think so, it would be a huge political blow to the US.
                            I dont really think that the International aspect of things would prevent a cancellation, not if it was in the USA's best interests to do so. It also assumes that none of the international partners drops out. The international share of the bill is quite limited in anycase, although I suppose the partners may have a claim for compensation.

                            I dont really think that the political fallout would unduly trouble the USA.

                            There are often massive problems with collaborative efforts like the JSF - the history of Europe is littered with them: EF2000, Horizon, Boxer MRAV etc...

                            The extent to which the USA needs rather than would like future ventures is also open to question. I suspect that the USA would happily go it alone if required.
                            Last edited by PubFather; 15 May 06,, 16:39.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by TillerNOS
                              Ask the "Commanche" guys if they thought their system would get cut....
                              Of course it did! Cheney is in the whitehouse, we went to war in the persian gulf,, time to cancel a Boeing/McDonnell program! Let's see,, which program shall we cancel to fund this war,, eeenie meeenie miney Comanche.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by PubFather
                                I dont really think that the International aspect of things would prevent a cancellation, not if it was in the USA's best interests to do so. It also assumes that none of the international partners drops out. The international share of the bill is quite limited in anycase, although I suppose the partners may have a claim for compensation.

                                I dont really think that the political fallout would unduly trouble the USA.

                                There are often massive problems with collaborative efforts like the JSF - the history of Europe is littered with them: EF2000, Horizon, Boxer MRAV etc...

                                The extent to which the USA needs rather than would like future ventures is also open to question. I suspect that the USA would happily go it alone if required.
                                The political fallout would be bad for the US. $2 billion may not sound a lot for the US but that is for other nations. They will most likely be extremely angry at the US if it pulls out. Afterall, if it pulls out greater than 95% of the funding is cut from the project. That would be a waste for the other nations and they would be forced to take losses and get nothing. They basically sent $2 billion down the drain or whatever amount they spent. I doubt they will be jolly-roger with the US afterwards and will likely not be in any partnership with the US for a while, too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X