Posted on 07/07/2006 12:41:01 PM PDT by RDTF
Lightning II, Lockheed Martin's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, made its debut today in a rock-show/unveiling ceremony that would have made Madonna jealous. At an estimated cost of $276 billion to the U.S. government, the F-35 will be the most expensive weapons program ever.
"The F-35 Lightning II will carry on the legacy of two of the greatest and most capable fighter aircraft of all time," said Ralph D. Heath, president of Lockheed, in a statement Friday. "Just as the P-38 and the British Lightning were at the top fo their class during their day, the F-35 will redefine multi-role fighter capability in the 21st century."
Among the dignitaries at Friday's ceremony were U.S. senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, congresswoman Kay Granger, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley; and representatives from the eight countries partnering with the United States in the F-35's development: Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.
The Lightning nickname first graced one of the most famous fighters in World War II - Lockheed's twin fuselage P-38 , known as the "fork-tailed devil" by the German Luftwaffe.
Lightning II is expected to make its inaugural flight in October.
(Excerpt) Read more at dfw.com ...
Yet, the F-35 JSF will also be one of the most flexible weapons programs ever, with applications for every branch that flies fighter jets.
Plus, our allies will be buying these over Harriers, and the increase of ease of integration in cooperative military actions will be a bonus.
How does this plane compare to the Raptor, performance wise?
Yes, they look like the same airplane.
My question, too, do we "need" both?
Not sure, but I think the Raptor will be stronger in air superiority.
Check out: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3168.html
they are not the same, the JSF is capable of so much more
The Raptor is a twin engined Air Dominance fighter, designed to replace the F-15. The Lightning II is a single engined multirole figher/attack aircraft designed to replace the F-16, AV-8B, and F/a-18 in three different variants.
The Raptor and Lightning II complement each other, they don't compete against each other.
Every new weapons program is going to be "most expensive weapons program ever" because the costs are always higher.......
I don't think the Raptor can be made aircraft carrier capable for the navy.
I forget, is the Raptor a VTOL, or just the Lightning?
What are you talking about?
The program’s hallmark is affordability achieved through a high degree of aircraft commonality among three variants: conventional takeoff/landing (CTOL), carrier variant (CV) and short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft.<...and this...
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be:* Four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements
* Eight times more effective than legacy fighters in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets
* Three times more effective than legacy fighters in non-traditional Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions
* About the same in procurement cost as legacy fighters, but requires significantly less tanker/transport and less infrastructure with a smaller basing footprint
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm
The JSF program will demonstrate two competing weapon system concepts for a tri-service family of aircraft to affordably meet these service needs:
USAF-Multi-role aircraft (primarily air-to-ground) to replace F-16 and A-10 and to complement F-22. The Air Force JSF variant poses the smallest relative engineering challenge. The aircraft has no hover criteria to satisfy, and the characteristics and handling qualities associated with carrier operations do not come into play. As the biggest customer for the JSF, the service will not accept a multirole F-16 fighter replacement that doesn't significantly improve on the original.
USN-Multi-role, stealthy strike fighter to complement F/A-18E/F. Carrier operations account for most of the differences between the Navy version and the other JSF variants. The aircraft has larger wing and tail control surfaces to better manage low-speed approaches. The internal structure of the Navy variant is strengthened up to handle the loads associated with catapult launches and arrested landings. The aircraft has a carrier-suitable tailhook. Its landing gear has a longer stroke and higher load capacity. The aircraft has almost twice the range of an F-18C on internal fuel. The design is also optimized for survivability.
USMC-Multi-role Short Take-Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) strike fighter to replace AV-8B and F/A-18A/C/D. The Marine variant distinguishes itself from the other variants with its short takeoff/vertical landing capability.
UK-STOVL (supersonic) aircraft to replace the Sea Harrier. Britain's Royal Navy JSF will be very similar to the U.S. Marine variant.
The JSF concept is building these three highly common variants on the same production line using flexible manufacturing technology. Cost benefits result from using a flexible manufacturing approach and common subsystems to gain economies of scale. Cost commonality is projected in the range of 70-90 percent; parts commonality will be lower, but emphasis is on commonality in the higher-priced parts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.