Duncan Aviation and Elliot Aviation are the only maintenance shops in Omaha, NE. Neither has hangars big enough for anything in the size of even a 737. I wonder where he thought they could build/assemble planes in Omaha. This isn’t Lawrence, KS.

The JSF program is resembling the McNamara’s F-111 Folly with every fiscal report. If the USN has to pull another “Phantom Works”, what would it be? I’m not so sure the F-35C is getting a fair rap considering it’s one of easier versions of the F-35 to get out the door. It’s the least harsh flight regime. The least weapons integration. Static goals across the board.

The USAF has driven the JSF like every other program. A bunch of PC wishy-washy do-gooders that can’t be blamed for any decisions and insist on moving design goals. We used to call them snakes in the grass.

It would make more sense to categorize each subsystem of an aircraft and not limit ourselves to five generations. Take radars for example. The ground attack and air intercept radars are merging today. However, each type had a different evolution process to get there. The same can be said of just about every other subcomponent from radio to rack mount, from windshields to whatever other graularity you want to argue about. From a superficial standpoint the 5 generations typically cited are more than adequate.

To quibble over loose definitions is nonsense.

Big projects like this require forethought to evolve; instead they are trying to run before they’ve even taken a footstep. And they keep adding stuff to it before it has even flown outside the prototype form; how do you hit a moving target?!

It would have helped if they got the USN version out first and made the initial USAF purchase the same until a dedicated land-version was developed. The F-35A should have been the designation for the -C model and the landbased version the -B model, with a whole new model number for the current -B model.

F-35A = current F-35C; bigger wing
F-35B = current F-35A
F-24? = current F-35B; VTOL

Take a page out of the Phantom II program and keep the costs down early on by starting with a simpler goal. The navalized -A model wouldn’t need to be the super stealth level initially, it could be a block 30 or 40 goal, with block 20 more concerned with electronic integration of gee whiz-ardry. BOTH services should be forced to use the -A model. As time allows get out the new -B model would be a more specialized land version that aims for the highest level of stealth sought. Lowest priority should be the VTOL version that has the most risk.

Its a week early for April Fools.

Both the AF and Navy used the F-4B that didn’t have the gun.

The USAF had the -C, -D, -E, and -G models. Only the F-4E and its derivatives had the internal gun. And the AF had derivatives of each model for reconnaissance and wild weasel work, backseat controls by default, plus they all got computers for targeting with free fall bombs. Its safe to say the USAF Phantom IIs were the cream of the crop.

The Navy moved to the F-4J, one true version change. The Navy was so underfunded in this regard that they stuck with the F-4B and upgraded – at least the ones with decent life left in them – to the F-4N model. (To add insult to injury the -J models were replaced by -N models, basically taking planes out of storage to replace a newer model!) The Navy was late getting the slotted stabilizers. The slatted wing didn’t even get into the Navy versions until they upgraded their -J model to the -S model, near the end of the line. And because they couldn’t afford to fund the slat-fitting at the onset they started the conversion of -Js to -Ss without the slats for the first three dozen.

Money definitely played a role.

What the USN needs right now is a stripped down first generation F-35C. They should be able to get the airframe out in the 2014 timeframe, just not with all the goodies that were projected. The airframe itself is a game changer.

The winglets add 11′ to the 767 wingspan.

So we’re looking at 167′ wingspan on their bid? I remember reading something about using 777 wings on the KC-X. If we extrapolate the numbers a little bit we can compare the widths.

KC-767 w/normal wings = 156′ wingspan
KC-X w/777-200 wings = 196.5′ wingspan
KC-X w/777-200LR wings = 208.5′ wingspan
KC-135R = 130.9′ wingspan
KC-10 = 165.4′ wingspan
KC-30A = 198′ wingspan
KC-45 = 197.9′ wingspan

How I figured approx, for the 777 wings on KC-X:

767-200/300 = 156′ wingspan – 16.5′ fuselag width = 69.75′ long ea. wing
767-400 = 170.33′ wingspan – 16.5′ fuselage width = 77′ long ea. wing
777-200/300 = 200′ wingspan – 20.33′ fuselage width = 90′ long ea. wing
777-200LR/300ER = 212.6′ – 20.33′ fuselage width = 96′ long ea. wing