View Single Post
Old 10th Jul 2015, 15:01
  #6704 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,555
Since Ken is once again following his "With due respect" by a string of insults, let's review his history lecture.

"Two forerunners of JSF were JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) program and ASTOVL (Advanced STOVL - the Harrier replacement)"

Wrong. ASTOVL was long dead. It had been superseded by CALF, a nascent DARPA project already aimed at Marine, RN and USAF needs.

"Congress (not industry) got into the act and required by law that this program also produce a fighter and it became A/F-X. The law also required a dem/val phase that included flying prototypes."

It was never close to being funded.

"Another program with a big influence on JSF was MRF (multi-role fighter). This was to be a small, cheap lightweight fighter to replace the F-16 and the Harrier"

MRF could barely have been described as a program. In any case it was AF and CTOL only.

"USN was very unhappy that their twin-engine, two-crew airplane was being forced by Congress to be single engine, single crew, but USN was not able to overcome the political pressure."

It was the JAST office that reached the conclusion that a single aircraft could meet all service needs. This was actually an idea that originated with Boeing's internal studies.

"There were FIVE contractor teams competing for what would become JSF."

Wrong again. Initially, it was Northrop, Macs, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Northrop threw in its lot with Macs before proposals went in.

"MDC's proposal failed the next cut when its STOVL proposal failed to meet tCogress's requirement"

False. There was no Congressional requirement in that area that Macs failed to meet, although there was customer prejudice against LPLC.
LowObservable is offline