Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

F-35 review results imminent, says Lockheed Martin
Flight Global ^ | 12/3/2010 | Craig Hoyle

Posted on 12/03/2010 9:33:27 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld

Lockheed Martin expects to learn the outcome of a recent review into its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme around mid-December, as it also starts adjusting to a major shift announced by its main international partner, the UK.

The US Defense Acquisition Board met in late November to discuss potential cost and schedule overruns on the F-35, believed to have been outlined during a technical baseline review. With the outcome of their recommendations to be included in the next fiscal year budget, it had been thought that details would not emerge until early next year.

"The budget is going to lock down in the next couple of weeks, and my sense is that we are going to get strong support out of the Department of Defense," says Tom Burbage, Lockheed's executive vice-president F-35 programmes. "I don't expect to hear anything as dramatic as a variant change," he adds, referring to suggestions that the short take-off and vertical landing B-model could be cancelled.

(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; f35; jsf; lockheed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 12/03/2010 9:33:33 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Obama chomping at the bit to cut this one as well...


2 posted on 12/03/2010 9:35:06 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Why is this jet taking forever? They need to be spanked HARD for this.

Maybe Boeing with their ugly ass design would’ve had it out by now.


3 posted on 12/03/2010 9:36:29 PM PST by Tolsti2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolsti2

One Word:Politics


4 posted on 12/03/2010 9:39:47 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolsti2
Maybe Boeing with their ugly ass design would’ve had it out by now.

Yeah, maybe they could put their 787 team on it.

5 posted on 12/03/2010 9:42:25 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

It’s a damn shame that this stuff happens. You got fatcats in Lockheed and the government laughing at us all.

Lockheed derseves to be shutdown for this isnane overrun BS.

This project is needed of course, but it’s a disaster. This is kinda showing all that is wrong with our fascist sytem now. Government run projects and their playboy cashola prize top guys at the companies that laugh at us.


6 posted on 12/03/2010 9:44:36 PM PST by Tolsti2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Yep, all a joke.

Terrible, awful.. Ripoffs for taxpayers. Bad, lousy companies now both.

I know the types up high that think this way. It’s a sad situation, they’ll kill their mothers for a dollar.


7 posted on 12/03/2010 9:46:15 PM PST by Tolsti2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolsti2
The Boeing STOVL version didn't work because the engine sucked in hot exhaust gases when it neared the ground. That is also a problem with the Harrier.

The F-35 STOVL doesn't have the same problem because of the Ducted Fan design innovation. Cool fresh air is drawn in and expelled under the fuselage, so the engine intake is not fed hot exhaust gases.

8 posted on 12/03/2010 9:46:17 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the Axis of Fascism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

I know all that.

But it might’ve been better to work on that Boeing design than this insane Lockheed one that apparently is just as inept.

(I don’t think it’s a bad design, it’s all a bunch of Lockheed guys saying ‘drag it out, that’s where the $ is’)

Dragging this stuff out is the huge huge $ maker.


9 posted on 12/03/2010 9:48:50 PM PST by Tolsti2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
The current F-35 as modified by all the competing interests:


10 posted on 12/03/2010 10:04:49 PM PST by freedumb2003 (FYI: everything I post is IMHO -- YOU JACKWAGON! [no offense -- I just like that word])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolsti2
Boeing attempted to be cutting edge and they failed miserably. They actually revised the entire wing structure half way through the development process to keep costs down from what I understand.

The STOVL version was the stake through the heart. They couldn't fix it and they actually tried to get the testing rigged so the plane didn't have to have all the fuselage panels attached to save weight and improve performance against the F-35.

Oh yeah, and the Boeing version was butt ugly. LOL

11 posted on 12/03/2010 10:07:12 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the Axis of Fascism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

The F35 should be killed off, and many of the people involved should be fired or sent to prison.

Use the saved funds to buy more F22’s. Once you have air surperiority, you can fly A-10s, BFUBS (52s), helicopters, whatever.

The idea of this “does everything” plane is stupid, driven by politics, and backed by people who don’t understand basic military doctrine. To wit: Once you own the air, you OWN THE AIR, so you can fly whatever you want.


12 posted on 12/03/2010 11:56:00 PM PST by piytar (0's idea of power: the capacity to inflict unlimited pain and suffering on another human being. 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

STOVL performance was the thing that won in for Lockheed. They had a better design that didn’t suffer from hot gas ingestion, and could demonstrate it better than the Boeing model did.


13 posted on 12/04/2010 12:02:21 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

Their new design looked very good. Too bad they didn’t have time to get it working because that might have made the difference.


14 posted on 12/04/2010 12:03:59 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Could someone please tell me what is so great about this aircraft and what it has over what we already have in the air now?

Payload.....nope.
Range........nope.
Supercruise....nope.
Thrust vectoring...nope.

I just don’t get it. Seems like an overpriced turkey to me.


15 posted on 12/04/2010 12:33:37 AM PST by Carbonsteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carbonsteel

Thrust vectoring...nope.
***I got my rear end chewed on this forum 5 years ago for suggesting that Thrust Vectoring was desirable. Would Viffing improve this plane’s performance?


16 posted on 12/04/2010 2:44:26 AM PST by Kevmo (Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: piytar
F-35=F-111/TFX of the 21st century.

You're right. More F-22's...if we need a new "do it all" aircraft in addition the golden oldies you mention, F-18 fit's the bill.

17 posted on 12/04/2010 3:05:19 AM PST by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Carbonsteel

Here’s the thread from 2005

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1342535/posts


18 posted on 12/04/2010 3:50:01 AM PST by Kevmo (Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
The Harrier also blows down fresh air from the forward ducts because they are fed from the engine's bypass fan. Early Harriers did have an air circulation problem that could cause settling with power when blown disturbed air built up under the aircraft. It was was solved by adding fences along the bottom of the aircraft.

The F-35B does the same thing, but uses two of its weapons bay doors as fences. Notice that in all the F-35B hover pics you see, the weapon doors are open, but in all of the pics of short takeoff, they're closed.

Another thing that helps prevent settling with power is that while the Harrier has blow-in doors to allow more air in during hover, the F-35B has an auxiliary air inlet that opens up on the top of the fuselage to feed more air into the engine during STOVL operations.

The forward door on the top of the aircraft allows air into the forward lift fan, while the second set of doors behind it let fresh air into the engine.

19 posted on 12/04/2010 5:38:36 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Carbonsteel

If you see the F-35 as a first day of war weapon, it’s range and payload are more or less acceptable. It can haul a lot of ordnance under its wings. While the F-35’s ‘stealth’ payload is modest, it’s range in such a configuration would be better than most rivals. Besides a conventional aircraft would need to carry external fuel tanks (Super Hornets, Rafales are usually seen with three) and IR/laser guidance pods.


20 posted on 12/04/2010 7:46:25 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson