Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Miloch <Miloch_member@newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Subject: Re: Donald Trump Now Asking For Impossible Magic Fantasy Jet
Date: 23 Dec 2016 10:42:30 -0800
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <o3jr6m0rjj@drn.newsguy.com>
References: <o3i6se02ils@drn.newsguy.com> <j92q5claq5nun9ulvuadvrt3ib0fhravsd@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p0490365909b535dbdd4037f4c120d41ce75e86800761195d.newsdawg.com
User-Agent: Direct Read News 5.60
X-Received-Bytes: 6948
X-Received-Body-CRC: 414573152
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:5197
In article <j92q5claq5nun9ulvuadvrt3ib0fhravsd@4ax.com>, not my real pseudonym
says...
>
>On 22 Dec 2016 19:49:34 -0800, Miloch <Miloch_member@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/donald-trump-now-asking-for-impossible-magic-fantasy-je-1790421607
>>
>>about the F-35 fighter jet. Last week, he said the F-35 program costs have gone
>>appears to be a physically impossible fantasy plane. God help us.
>>
>>capabilities to the F-35:
>>
>>
>>Donald J. Trump
>>
>>Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I
>>have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
>>
>>2:26 PM - 22 Dec 2016
>>
>>
>>
>>One of the reasons the F-35 is so expensive is because the variant built for the
>>United States Marine Corps, the F-35B, is capable of hovering, along with the
>>ability to take off and land vertically like a helicopter. To make an F/A-18 do
>>space for a cool-air lift fan, like the F-35B has, to avoid melting every single
>>to design an entirely new plane.
>>
>>
>>it nearly invisible to radar. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, with a shape inspired
>>by its F/A-18 C/D Hornet predecessor, is not nearly invisible to radar. It has
>>so, you would have to change the shape of the plane entirely. Which would make
>>it not an F/A-18. It would make it something else.
>>
>>It would make it an entirely new plane.
>>
>>An entirely new plane from the ground up.
>>
>>An entirely new and costly weapons system.
>>
>>Not an F/A-18.
>>
>>The F-35 program is a complete nightmare, and Donald Trump somehow managed to
>>imagine something even worse.
>>
>>
>>What.
>>
>>stealth-ier F/A-18 Super Hornet at one point, but it appears not to have been
>>good enough to keep it out of the scrap heap. When we first saw it, we guessed
>>one of the main stealth features of the F-35 is its internal weapons bay, which
>>hides missiles and bombs from enemy radar. That would still be an issue for the
>>the F-35, as the F-35 needs to be able to dart in past enemy radar and attack
>
>Didn't Boeing already try this with the [X]F-32 'Basking Shark'?
As per
http://gizmodo.com/the-fighter-jet-we-could-have-built-instead-of-the-f-35-1603031982
conclusion:
"However, Boeing's performance prediction ability wasn't enough to convince the
Department of Defense, and in October 2001, the Pentagon awarded the JSF
contract to Lockheed. The DoD made this decision based in large part to the
X-32's STOVL difficulties compared to the X-35; the Boeing prototype tended to
suck hot air back in from the exhaust and cause the engine the overheat. As such
the DoD determined the X-35's more complicated thrust vectoring system to be
worth the risk.
"Overall, the X-32 simply failed to impress. Its delta wing proved too
cumbersome, its STOVL system too ungainly to win the hearts and minds of the DoD
brass. The X-35, on the other hand, passed its initial flight tests handedly.
The resulting contract netted Lockheed Martin more than $19 billion, while
Boeing made due with "Strategic investments."
"Whenever we hear about Lockheed's difficulties with the JSF, we all look at
each other, and say, "They didn't pick the right product,'" Cynthia Cole, a
former flight test engineer on the Boeing program from 1997 through 2002, told
Biz Journals.
"I thought our vertical takeoff model was far superior," she continued. "The
design was definitely cutting edge, it was new technology. We really thought it
was going to win the day for us."
"Given the numerous cost overruns, delays, and groundings that the F-35 fleet
has suffered since being developed from the X-35 concept, not to mention the
fact that the entire program has had to be restructured twice in just two years
to keep from going bankrupt, it's easy to see greener grass on Boeing's side of
the fence. On the other hand, who's to say that the X-32 would ever have been
able to incorporate both halves of its combat functionality?
"And as Philip Ewing of DoD Buzz points out:
"We'll never know what 10 years of development and hundreds of billions of
squadrons off Navy amphibious ships today. (Doubtful.) The real lesson is that
even when the Defense Department sets up a program designed to save money and be
it produced a very expensive "joint" program in which only one of the
did produce the perfect plane for the Marines, the nature of the competition
also meant that DoD couldn't buy it.
"Still, the competition did allow Boeing to develop a number of new technologies
as the prototype X-45A Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle. Even when they lose, Boeing
seems to win.
*
|
|