User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/27/2001 11:14:48 AM EDT
[#1]
Bad informatrion AeroE? Better double-check your post. No need to rant just the facts.
The production Marine STOVL versions are due in 2008-09, followed by the other varients, not the EMD's in 2008 and production versions in 2015. Regarding..."The X-35 only produces reduced deck temperatures under the lift fan. The bloody engine nozzle rotates to blow turbine air directly down for nozzle born lift!". According to AWST, temps and noise with the X-35 in hover, were near Harrier levels with an aircraft with a much larger engine. Finally, it was a given that either aircraft would have external pylons, and limitations on internal carriage, just like the F-22 which has provisions for 4 external pylons. Internal carriage will be improved with the EMD aircraft and usefullness will be improved with the new Small smart bomds under development. If you want max. internal carriage go with B1, B2 or B52. Other info.... The Air Force insiders say the F-35 was the clear winner. The YF-22 that crashed was rebuilt and used on a pylon mount for RCS tests at Griffiss AFB. The second YF-22 is in a museum. It stopped flying once the EMD F-22's became available. No EMD, pre-production or production F-22's have crashed. One YF-23 is at Edwards AFB, the other is at the Western Museum of Flight in LA. The lift fan on the X-35 was started and stopped in flight many times with no problems. I think we can all expect further improvements to all aircraft systems with the move to EMD and production, just like everything else. The Navy will get their version (non-STOVL) where the STOVL will go to the Marines and Royal Navy, although the Air Force has expressed some interest in perhaps getting some STOVL versions. The A-10 is fills a unique niche that cannot be replaced by any current or planned aircraft. The JSF will be wasted in this low and slow role. Albeit old,the F14 is probably the most versitile aircraft (especially the F-14D)that the Navy has since it's been modified to near F15E standards for attack missions while retaining the fighter role. The F18E/F are basically bomb trucks with lower performance in some areas than the F18C/D. The cancellation of the AAAM a few years back nixed any hope the F18E/F could replace the F14 in the LR defense role. Future versions of the AIM-120 may regain some of that capability. Aside from the various attributes of either aircraft, I don't think Boeing marketed their version very well. Lockheed made the effort to make the X-35 look like a service aircraft by painting it as such. I never saw a TV ad for the X-32, where Lockheed was on the Sunday morning tube & CNN all the time. You've got to know who your buyers are & what they want. Boeing should have a bright future building K/C-135 replacements (767's) if they get their act together. My opinions and experience of course. Regards, Talyn |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2001 11:39:52 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: - The flight Lockheed did with normal takeoff, transition to supersonic flight, and vertical landing was done with the fan clutch engaged for the entire flight. The reason is that the clutch/gearbox assembly is very immature; the risk was too great to engage the clutch in in flight. I know more than a little about this topic from working on the shaft coupled lift fan for the MDC Advanced V/STOL airplane (the predecessor to JSF). - What was the last carrier suitable airplane built by Lockheed? MDC is far and away the more experience than any other company in the world at designing and building carrier aircraft - this is not a trivial task. The lift fan clutch was disengaged during the supersonic flights. The lift fan continues to turn, generating thrust, if it isn't disengaged and would damage the lift fan doors. Lockheed did the design and integration for the S-3. Went operational in '75 on the USS Kennedy and are still in service today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2001 12:15:55 PM EDT
[#3]
Ditto DnPRK!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2001 1:05:43 PM EDT
[#4]
After taking a look at pics, I have to agree that the Boeing is a reall mutt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2001 1:19:25 PM EDT
[#5]
This is really a new twist. My wife thinks gun webs. are for plain ole gun nuts, like me. Must let her se that intelligent technical people, who happen to have an interest in shooting also frequent the web. Must check on some of the information presented here.
As an x-army Cobra pilot, I remember some flack over the AH-64. Always wondered what the big deal was on the improved cobra w 20 mm gun. The J model (USMC) had it all the time. It may be a matter of politics. To bad politicians and Generals; who very often retire and go to work for the contractors they once supervised as a Project Managers; don't do the best procurement job for the guy who has to strap that project on to the seat of his pants and defend there right to continue being ploiticians and getting another star. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2001 1:42:01 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: It may be a matter of politics. To bad politicians and Generals; who very often retire and go to work for the contractors they once supervised as a Project Managers; don't do the best procurement job for the guy who has to strap that project on to the seat of his pants and defend there right to continue being ploiticians and getting another star. Most of the time it boils down to money and time (but time is money too). Most DoD contracts are not adequately funded to get a job done right the first time. Weapons acquisition and upgrade projects always take a back seat to mission commitments, training and logistics. That's why we have airplanes older than their pilots and ships old enough for grandfather, father and son to have served on. DoD contracts are generally fixed price with a profit in the 7-10% range. If the contractor goofs and overruns or falls behind shcedule, he has to make it up out of profit. Generals and politicians aren't hired to "run" a program, but are expected to keep it sold with the DoD customer. As DoD mission priorities change from year to year, there is a strong urge to steal monies from acquisition and upgrades and spend it on new mission committments. During the Clinton years the acquisition dollars fell by 90% due to new commitments like Bosnia and Kosovo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2001 1:51:04 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: After taking a look at pics, I have to agree that the Boeing is a reall mutt. Boeing / McDonnell Douglas designs/builds fighters to go to [size=3][b][red]WAR[/red][/b][/size=3] not a fucking [size=3][b][blue]DOG SHOW[/blue][/b][/size=3] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2001 3:35:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Winston,
I partially feel your pain sir. McDD (may it regretfully rest in peace) builds fighters that go to war. Boeing hasn't sold a fighter to the Navy since before WW2. McDD's JSF concept was a very nice proposal, except what killed it was it had a seperate lift engine which added much more dead weight + complexity (2 engines)than either Boeing or LM proposals. Plus, the company was on shaky ground, like Grumman, and when it didn't get the development contract it was absorbed by Boeing. Back to Mr. AeroE, The X-35B (STOVL version) engaged and disengaged it's lift fan 21 times in flight. It was tested hot & high at Edwards AFB. The lift fan was run up to 90% power, with the X-32B hovering for over 5 minutes continuously, with, as Boeing admits,..."tons more lift than the X-32". The X-32 STOVL tests occurred at Pautuxet at or near sea level. Therefore, the X-35B has even more performance at sea level. The major demonstration of the X-32B's was a short takeoff, a supersonic flight followed by a vertical landing. A feat that the X-32 couldn't do because of the inlet situation that you accurately described. Look for the X-32 in some museum. The party's over, turn out the lights. Talyn |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2001 9:02:03 AM EDT
[#9]
Winston_Wolf
I worked in the strength department in the 80's (F-15 and AV-8B), went to Advanced Design about 1989, and currently work on proprietary projects. I supported the Boeing JSF proposal in 1999 and 2000 by designing and manufacturing components for one of the test fixtures; Tom Hunter at Mesa supplied components for my project. Implementation of CATIA is going to be a real burr under our saddles in St. Louis; fortunately, I only need to be proficient enough to take drawings apart for my modeling. We have a few folks using CATIA, but the hard core users like the functionality of UG better (some of the features that are used for lofting and other specialized geometry generation are reported to be poor or unsupported by CATIA). Of course, in the early 80's we used drawing boards, MDC's CADD product and boards in the mid 80's to early 90's (overlapping UG), switched to UG in the early 90's, and have adapted to several major revisions of UG. Painful and unproductive, but not impossible. Talyn and others - Aviation Week is not an authority on the inner workings of Boeing, Lockheed, or any other company, nor priveleged to proprietary information. Many of the articles they publish are written by the company whose product is being reported on; reference several X-35 articles written by Lockheed. I've got no bone to pick with anyone that favors one airplane or the other, and you won't hurt my feeling by bad mouthing Boeing - it's just a job. X-32 is cosmetically ugly, and the EMD airplane woud have been cosmetically and engineering ugly (the plan view doesn't look too bad). You missed my point - JSF is a bad deal for the taxpayers, and I guarantee that the EMD airplane will be substantially different than the X-35. JSF will also have external weapons carriage. They probably won't show up until after the airplane is in full scale production -there will be plenty of work to certify the internal bays carriage. The MDC proposal for JSF was plain stupid - when a Marine general tells you that you will lose the contract (for the demonstator) if you submit an airplane with a lift engine, then you would think that we would have listened. Unfortunately, the program manager responsible for this decision did not get fired, however he only recently reappeared from the basement. The MDC ASTOVL (then JSF) configurations progressed from an airplane with canards and a shaft coupled lift fan, followed by a gas coupled lift fan (talk about high risk) in a similar airframe, some thrashing around, and then the lift engine equipped airplane. MDC was not on the ropes before the merger with Boeing. If not for that merger, MDC probably would have bought Honeywell and some other electronics/avionics/space application/communication companies, and would have gotten out of the airliner business. Douglas' business was a dog well before McDonnell Aircraft bought it, and continued to be a dog except fot two or three years of MD-80 production. Boeing will be building large airplanes and fighters, simply because the need for immediately available airplanes will continue. I doubt that JSF will be the last manned fighter contract for the next 20, 30, or 40 years. However, Boeing might be a completely different type of company in 30 to 50 years - who knows, if I could predict that ... In the mean time, layoffs are probably coming soon in the military aircraft division t Boeing St. Louis and Seattle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2001 9:49:35 AM EDT
[#10]
Joe, surprisingly at least to me was the announcement that Lockheed had the authority to name or not name Boeing as the prime subcontractor.
Yes I do understand that was just a public announcement but was surprised to hear even the mention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2001 9:58:31 AM EDT
[#11]
The whole idea of one fighter-for-all scares the hell out of me.
The Air Force needs a sort of vanilla plane. The Navy needs a plane capable of withstanding many, many controlled crash landings on carriers. The Marines need what the Navy needs plus VTOL. I admit to being prejudiced against this approach because that "ARCH IDIOT" McNamara wanted go with this deal in the 60's. Didn't work out real well. Course I can't remember anything that fool touched that did work-out well. Although I detested John Kennedy he should be credited with saving Ford Motor Company - he got McNamara out of there !! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2001 5:21:25 AM EDT
[#12]
Does anyone know the top speed of the JSF? Does it have super cruise?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2001 7:42:11 AM EDT
[#13]
Yes. On July 20, 2001 the X-35B STOVL variant demonstrated a short-take off, super cruise and vertical landing in one flight. The only JSF demonstrator to do so.
X-35 SPECIFICATIONS Engine: F119 (Pratt & Whitney) Span: 43 ft. (carrier variant) Max. Take-off Weight: about 25 tons Length: 50.8 ft. (carrier variant) Speed: Mach 1.8 (carrier variant) Range: 600+ nautical miles Seats: Single seat ORDERS U.S. Air Force: 1,763 U.S. Marine Corps: 609 U.S. Navy: 480 U.K. Royal Navy: 150 More info: Boeing's "A" Effort Falls To Lockheed Martin's "A+" - By Stephen Trimble/AviationNow.com 30-Oct-2001 6:11 PM U.S. EST Lockheed Martin's lift-fan hover technology might have tipped an otherwise balanced competition with Boeing for the Pentagon's prized Joint Strike Fighter development contract. In a debriefing Monday with top Pentagon officials, Boeing's JSF manager Jerry Daniels learned the losing proposal for the at least $200 billion program came surprisingly close to tying the score with Lockheed Martin. Air Force Secretary Jim Roche, awarding the contract to Lockheed Martin Oct. 26, said the winner achieved a "clear" margin of victory over Boeing, but largely declined to elaborate. In eight scoring categories, Boeing's proposal won two - program management and past performance - and tied Lockheed Martin on its proposal's cost and affordability, a key measure in the JSF acquisition strategy, Daniels said. But Lockheed Martin swept all five design and performance categories by thin margins, said Daniels, who added Boeing doesn't dispute the Pentagon's findings. "I saw this as a 'grade-A' proposal very sadly losing out to a guy who did an 'A-plus' job," Daniels said. But Lockheed Martin's short-takeoff-vertical-landing (STOVL) variant, ordered by the U.S. Marine Corps and Britain's Royal Navy, might have tipped the balance in the competition, Daniels said. Boeing employed a direct lift thrust system already in use and proven by the AV-8B Harrier jet to achieve the Marine Corps' desired hovering capability. But that system couldn't compete with the lift-fan technology developed and successfully tested this summer by Lockheed Martin, Daniels said. That aircraft, the X-35B demonstrator, claimed a share of aerial history by performing a short takeoff, a supersonic cruise and vertical landing during the same flight. "We needed the Lockheed lift fan not to perform in order to win," Daniels said. For the JSF's other two variants - a conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) aircraft and a carrier jet -- Boeing's demonstrators fared better, but still ranked just shy of Lockheed Martin's X-35A and X-35C demonstrators, Daniels said. "I can only tell you that the [non-STOVL] variants measured up quite well," Daniels added. "Not only did our design meet the requirements of the government, they exceeded them in some areas," Daniels said. "Lockheed Martin exceeded in even more areas … At the end of the day Lockheed had an aircraft design that gave the government a clear advantage over our design." Daniels said the topic of Boeing's potential role in the JSF program as a subcontractor was not discussed during the debriefing with the Pentagon officials, who included the U.S. Defense Dept.'s JSF program manager, Maj. Gen. Michael Hough. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
