Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on July 13, 2004, 09:35:52 PM
-
Had to rip-n-paste, sorry.
Within striking distance
Assembly begins on section of first test plane in $244 billion Joint Strike Fighter project
By Barry Shlachter
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
FORT WORTH - Lockheed Martin on Monday marked a new stage in the development of its lucrative F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the start of forward fuselage assembly for the initial test plane.
Final assembly of the test aircraft is scheduled to begin in May, with flight tests to follow in the summer of 2006.
In January, the Pentagon increased the JSF development cost estimate by $5 billion to $40.5 billion and added a year to what some consider an overly optimistic development timetable.
This spring, the Defense Department estimated the JSF's total cost through at least 2037 at $244 billion, which includes the purchase of 2,457 planes.
Most speakers in the 1942 bomber plant building referred to the emotional moment in 2001 when Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman's joint proposal was selected after a grueling four-year competition.
Plans call for 22 test aircraft to be built, 14 of which would fly. Others would be used to test radar and other systems. The first deployable aircraft is scheduled for delivery in December 2009.
Far from the glare of TV lights, at scores of identical, beige-walled cubicles in another section of the sprawling complex, a group of engineers known as SWAT is working at computers trying to shave ounces, if not pounds, from an F-35 version for the Marines and Britain's Royal Air Force and Navy.
SWAT is an acronym piled onto another acronym: STOVL (short-takeoff/vertical landing) weight attack team.
The goal is to pare the aircraft by more than 2,000 pounds.
A review panel appointed by Michael Wynne, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, recently warned that the STOVL F-35's weight "may be greater than previously recognized."
But Arthur E. Sheridan, SWAT's director, expressed confidence that enough needed trimmings would take place by mid-August.
There are no magic fixes, no "helium-filled fasteners," to lighten the load, Sheridan said.
His team reached out beyond its 500 members to outside suppliers, co-contractors Northrop Grumman and Britain's BAE Systems, and just about everybody at Lockheed.
The plant held a so-called stand-down day so that all hands -- from vice presidents to secretaries -- could make suggestions, Sheridan said.
Three thousand "legitimate" ideas emerged from the session of which the team mulled over a couple of hundred, he said. And there are incentives: $100 checks for bona fide suggestions and larger, undisclosed, sums for those actually implemented -- based on per-pound savings.
Among other measures, the team so far has saved more than 222 pounds by reducing four electric power panels to three.
Lighter lithium-ion batteries replaced nickel-cadmium ones: a 30-pound cut.
The STOVL version has an auxiliary inlet to push more air toward the engine. By rounding the corners of its lip, thrust was increased.
Titanium replaced steel where it paid off, aluminum for titanium. Lighter and fewer bolts and other fasteners were employed, or spaced farther apart if practical.
Final assembly of all versions of the JSF will take place in Fort Worth, with Northrop providing the midfuselage and radar-filled nose, BAE building the aft fuselage and tails, and Lockheed Martin the forward fuselage and wings.
About 4,000 Lockheed employees in Fort Worth are working on the JSF, along with employees for Lockheed's partners.
-
When did this program begin?
If its to enter service in 2009 and probably later I guess due to the usual delays I gotta think its gonna be a 20 year project before service.. :(
-
The contract was awarded in 2001. Most know it as the Joint Strike Fighter.
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/fighter/x35-i.jpg)
-
Originally posted by rpm371
The contract was awarded in 2001. Most know it as the Joint Strike Fighter.
I know its JSF, and I know the basic history. In 2001 they selected the F-35 after a flyoff betwwn 2 prototypes.
What I'm wondering is how old the whole program was.
-
The prototype competetion began in 1996. How long they had been working prior to that in preperation for the selection, I have no clue.
-
It beats the development time of the F-22, which started in the 4th century BC.
-
DARPA started it in 1993 I think, concept contracts were awarded in 1994, reviewed in 1995, prime contractors signed in 1996 (Boeing, Lockheed)...
So the whole thing is about 10 years old...
-
$244 billion for $2,457 planes? That's $100 million per plane.
I thought the JSF was going to be cheaper?
-
Kurt Tank designs are not cheap. :D
-
Kinda sucks....I'll be leaving Edwards before the test cycle begins here.
The thing has a newer Gen. Martin Baker ejection system....something I have yet to work on.
Either way we'll see how it turns out.
-
F-35...
Is this plane manuverable and fast enough to handle against the Euro Typhoon and some 4.5 generation Russian Fighters?
-
Originally posted by 1K3
F-35...
Is this plane manuverable and fast enough to handle against the Euro Typhoon and some 4.5 generation Russian Fighters?
who cares? they wouldn't be able to get in the air.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/fighter/x35-i.jpg)
Look real close...
Can you name the plane that the rear landing gear came from?
-
F-117?
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
Look real close...
Can you name the plane that the rear landing gear came from?
The Space Shuttle!
-
really, I'd be guessing, but f-16
-
The F-16 has stockier gear:
(http://www.avonds.com/C~000002.jpg)
-
Its F-15 gear
-
Everyone uses F-15 landing gear in the beginning... I'd believe it.
-
The F-15 landing gear does seem pretty sturdy:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f15/pics04.shtml
....
Boy I'd hate to be the driver of THAT car.
Duh...
-
For the RAF, in a nutshell, the Eurofighter Typhoon is the replacement for the Tornado; the JSF is the replacement for the Harrier.
Yes, it's rather more complex than that, I know.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
F-35...
Is this plane manuverable and fast enough to handle against the Euro Typhoon and some 4.5 generation Russian Fighters?
No, but abit more stealthy than the eurofighter.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
No, but abit more stealthy than the eurofighter.
Eurofighter would make a nice sport plane...
-
Maybe grun......dunno much about sportplanes
-
Heh there was someone saying about Eurofighters stealth characteristics that it shows in a radar like an oiltanker.
Anyways with new radar technologies the stealth planes aren't that stealthy anymore.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Maybe grun......dunno much about sportplanes
It looks like a lot of fun. But in some ways Rafale looks better I think. :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Heh there was someone saying about Eurofighters stealth characteristics that it shows in a radar like an oiltanker.
Anyways with new radar technologies the stealth planes aren't that stealthy anymore.
I doubt it's real stealthy at all, too many projections and vertical surfaces.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It looks like a lot of fun. But in some ways Rafale looks better I think. :)
Agree.... both the Rafale and Jas looks better. I also think the Mirage2000 is a very beautiful plane.
-
I was fortunate to have a go on a F35 JSF simulator. All I can say is that it totally blew me away. There's only about 20 odd switches in the cockpit and everthing else is touch screen or voice operated. Head mounted sight with HUD projected onto visor. The MFDs are absolutely huge, the main MFD is like two merged together and about 22" wide. FLIR and other cameras are located all around the machine so you can see all around you either on the MFD or through the visor projection (a demonstration included hovering whilst being able to look directly beneath you).
When I had a go I was told how to engage two aircraft with AMRAAMs and then shot both down. All information to the radar was supplied through Link 16 from AWACs so you had a full 360 deg view, including ground targets. I then made an approach to a runway and 'converged' to the vertical landing mode. In that mode you just move the joystick forward to lower the aircraft and up to raise the aircraft, all on the hover. The throttle in the hover controls forward direction.
One thing about this aircraft was that it made me realise you don't need pilots anymore!
-
Anyone else think stealth could also sometimes be a drawback?
I mean sometimes you want the enemy to know you are there, like enforcing a no-fly zone. I know it has many benefits but sometimes its probably good to intimidate the enemy by showing force.
-
I bet they could shave thousands of pounds off the weight by using smaller fuel tanks. I got that idea from Cessna.
Also if they replaced the pilot with a helium filled blow up doll they would save another 200 lbs at least.
Where do I send these ideas to get my my $100 cheque?
-
Originally posted by Furball
Anyone else think stealth could also sometimes be a drawback?
I mean sometimes you want the enemy to know you are there, like enforcing a no-fly zone. I know it has many benefits but sometimes its probably good to intimidate the enemy by showing force.
Yup....if you want to be seen you can just swich on your radar transponder or whatever its called. lights you plane up like a xmas tree.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Anyone else think stealth could also sometimes be a drawback?
I mean sometimes you want the enemy to know you are there, like enforcing a no-fly zone. I know it has many benefits but sometimes its probably good to intimidate the enemy by showing force.
I'm pretty sure the current stealth planes we have can deliberatly turn on a "non stealth" mode.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I doubt it's real stealthy at all, too many projections and vertical surfaces.
Yeah, guess it's stealthy like an oiltanker. Sigh.
-
The eurofighter has half the RCS of the F-16. If both are fully loaded with ord the eurofighters RCS is less than half that of the F-16.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Had to rip-n-paste, sorry.
No need to apologize, what were you going to do? Make up the story yourself? ;) ;)
-
LOL, no. But I could not post a link...subscription site. ;)
-
(http://www.milori.com/images/articles/f35btest.jpg)
(http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/images/jsf_day.jpg)
(http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/images/jsf_nite.jpg)
-
The F-35 sim payed a visit to norway a couple of weeks ago. Pilots were impressed.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
Look real close...
Can you name the plane that the rear landing gear came from?
f-18?
Anyway, the f-35 looks like a really cool plane. That comment about the enemy planes not being able to get off the ground is pretty much one of the purposes of stealth. However, it still has yet to prove itself in combat, so we will just have to wait until then.
-
Originally posted by acepilot2
f-18?
Anyway, the f-35 looks like a really cool plane. That comment about the enemy planes not being able to get off the ground is pretty much one of the purposes of stealth. However, it still has yet to prove itself in combat, so we will just have to wait until then.
f-117?
-
The rear gear are directly off the Grumman A-6 Intruder...
I'm not to sure about the front gear, because the article I read in Airpower didnt mention them.
-
The dutch are gonna have them.
:)
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
The dutch are gonna have them.
:)
Which version?
-
Britain are going to have the STOVL variant to replace the Harrier GR.9
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
The dutch are gonna have them.
:)
So will norway i guess then. Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal and Norway are gonna work together in international operations....Agreement was signed in Istanbul a few weeks back.
-
F-35 has average performance. It will be dogmeat to Migs. I hope its good at bombing.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
The dutch are gonna have them.
:)
we're getting them too...but they can keep em, should've held out for the F-22
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
F-35 has average performance. It will be dogmeat to Migs. I hope its good at bombing.
There will be very few Migs to tangle with. Most will be destroyed on the ground. The F-35 also is hypermaneuverable. The few Migs it faces will only have the hope of stumbling into one.
-
I don't know what version but alot of companys are gonna build them in licence i guess.
I believe our last gouvernment gave the green light.
We still have our f16 to beat the mig's anyway.
A dutch 16 killed 1 mig 29 over servia (bvr).
:aok
-
Originally posted by rpm371
There will be very few Migs to tangle with. Most will be destroyed on the ground. The F-35 also is hypermaneuverable. The few Migs it faces will only have the hope of stumbling into one.
Explain hypermaneuverable please?
-
F-35 won't have thrust vectoring for in flight maneuvers. So if by "hypermaneuverable" you mean "turns the same as an F-16", well then you are right.
-
As for stealth being a drawback, I saw a television show highlighting the F-22 on DW, A pilot in a Simulator using amazing tactics....
He was in a Two Ship Formation, His Wingman was 30-40 Miles at his Six O'clock. Four Su-27's were approaching from his 1 O'clock from 30-40 Miles away, He had his radar off, he was recieving an uplink from his winggie, so he closes a littler closer Arms his Amraams, Turns his radar on, and has a shoot cue immediatley, squeezes one off and he just switches to the next one, and so on.
Of course this was in a Sim, but Thats still pretty cool...:cool: