Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 9/21/2001 6:45:50 AM EST
Has the government selected the winner of the Joint Strike Fighter between Lockheed and Boeing? If not, does anybody know the favorite? What about the F22? What is it's status? TIA
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:42:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 9:07:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2001 9:06:50 AM EST by AeroE]
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 9:17:40 AM EST
I doubt that either plane will make it into the feild for the simple reason that technology has fundmentaly changed in combat aircraft since there development began. The replacements for the F-15, F-16, and FA-18 will almost certinaly end up being UCAV's. They can be more capable then there manned counterparts, and have a lower cost of ownership allowing a larger force for the same budget. Also 'areal robots' are much more useful from a political standpoint because there is no loss of american lives if they are shot down. It's a shame really because the F-22 is a wonderfull aircraft, and the JSF will most likley go down in history as the last manned combat aircraft developed. [rail]
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 9:19:35 AM EST
They arent intended for this war anyways. They are needed to fight China and North Korea. The air defense of the countries we may have to fight, not just Afganistan, in this one is a joke. But China and North Korea have fighters in large numbers and might try to engage us in air combat.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 9:21:34 AM EST
Dont hold your breath AS. The death of the manned fighter has been imminent for the last 50 years.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 12:37:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2001 12:39:20 PM EST by AeroE]
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 12:55:11 PM EST
Originally Posted By AeroE: Frankly, IMHO, the JSF in its current configuration (either contractor's airplane) is a bad deal for US taxpayers. On the bright side, any production version won't look much like the POS's both companies propose because the deficiencies will have to be fixed. There is talk of deleting the STO/VL (Short Take Off / Vertical Landing) capability to speed up development and aquisition. This will probably kill the program - the USAF and USN support is very weak for this airplane, only the UK and USMC are really pushing hard for the project, and they both want the STO/VL capability.
View Quote
UK? What does the UK have to do with our choice in aircraft capability?
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 1:12:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2001 1:11:50 PM EST by ArmdLbrl]
They want it to replace Harrier. Has naval avation got a death wish? JSF is their ONLY choice for a modern combat aircraft in this half century.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 1:16:52 PM EST
I know they are a close ally but I see something very wrong if we allow them to be part of the decision process.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 2:07:47 PM EST
Hey AreoE, Which side are you on LockMart, or Boeing? [rail]
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 2:12:31 PM EST
The UK is part of the decision process because they are paying up front to participate in the JSF program. I believe they have already agreed to pay $1.5 billion to participate in the EMD phase of the program.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 3:14:46 PM EST
Recent article about the lockheed X-35 indicated that 2 of 6 pilots were Brits, one from British Aerospace, and the other a military Harrier pilot. One of the USMC pilots was also a Harrier pilot. AeroE, you must know something I don't, because it didn't seem like the X-35 at least was a disaster. At least it went supersonic/vertical in the last flight. Course, there is a big difference in a successful loaded combat plane and a successful test aircraft, but it seems to have some promise. If the F119 turbofan is reliable enough and the JSF proves to have adequate legs for longer missions, it seems like the JSF would at least have some possibilities. Everyone was bashing the M1 Abrams once too, along with the AH 64, and the AH64 had its roots in earlier attack aircraft as far back as 1967. All of these things do take a little time to mature. I guess if we go broke developing a POS, that's not good though.
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 6:43:13 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 8:31:39 AM EST
I liked the F23, better performer but just cost to much.
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 9:14:27 AM EST
Frankly after initially being a Boeing X-32 fan I became disappointed that the Boeing demonstartor needs to be redesigned with a completely new wing configuration for a production version. In addition, the X-32 couldn't even fly in some tests without taking off part of the inlet structure. While the X-32 did meet all required flight tests as specified by the govt., Boeing did not attempt other flights that were successfully done by the X-35. The Lockheed Martin X-35, except for a slightly larger wing for the Navy version (building upon the existing)is basically in it's production configuration. Neither version had any significant down time compared to the X-32. The STOVL version had no problems with the gearbox arrangement, and performed above expectations. Boeing even admitted that the X-35 had "tons of lift". I think we all know that there will be some design modifications to a production version but the X-35 should have the least. Regarding internal weapons carriage. Some changes/improvements are to be expected, but it was clear that external weapons pylons would be standard features. The design of small smart bombs is on going for all aircraft to increase efficiency. I was a big fan of the former MDC, but their JSF STOVL proposal depended on a second "lift" engine compared to the existing proposals. This would have added much complexity, fuel consumption and a weight penalty for hauling around significant dead weight except for take-off and landings. As with the former Grumman Corp. MDC just couldn't come up with the designs or corporate will to remain competitive. The JSF is a next step ahead in the "low-end" mix for fighter/strike aircraft. To me the X-35 is the design that has the capability and configuration to be available relatively quickly. My opinions of course. Talyn
Link Posted: 9/22/2001 9:40:21 AM EST
Top Top