Battle of the X-Planes (the JSF project)

NOVA ^ | Feb 4, 2003

[spetznaz]

From 1996 to 2001, Boeing and Lockheed Martin produced rival designs and prototypes for the Joint Strike Fighter, a stealthy, affordable combat plane intended for the 21st century needs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marines. In "Battle of the X-Planes," NOVA goes behind the scenes to show the world's newest fighter taking shape, as Boeing and Lockheed Martin compete to win the largest contract in military history.

NOVA's film crew was part of a small group allowed into both camps, in the first-ever inside look at a Department of Defense weapons competition. The team filmed inside installations where cameras have never been allowed: the famous Skunk Works, where Lockheed Martin designed the celebrated U-2 and SR-71 spy planes, and Boeing's equally hush-hush Phantom Works.

The result is a fascinating glimpse of creative minds at work on one of the most difficult and potentially lucrative aeronautical projects ever undertaken, which is expected to earn the winner $200 billion, with the potential to earn up to $1 trillion over the life of the project. Many aviation experts believe the Joint Strike Fighter will be the last manned fighter built by the United States.

The program captures the clandestine world where amazing flying machines are hatched amid freewheeling brainstorming, cost-conscious compromising, and nervous speculation about what the other side has up its sleeve. It also chronicles hair-raising moments inside the cockpit, with a pilot's-eye view of the prototypes in flight.

The Joint Strike Fighter must meet the disparate needs of three different services. For the Air Force: an inexpensive, multi-role stealth fighter to replace the versatile but aging F-16. For the Navy: everything the Air Force gets, but with the durability to withstand operations at sea. For the Marines, the most daunting specs of all: a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) fighter to support Marine operations virtually anywhere. No other fighter has ever had to serve so many different roles. The goal is to save billions of dollars with a family of aircraft having an overwhelming number of parts and systems in common.

But at the back of everyone's mind is the F-111, the Defense Department's previous foray into fighter commonality, which is widely regarded as a disaster. In the 1960s Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the Air Force and Navy to collaborate on a new fighter-bomber. The severely compromised result left both services dissatisfied. The F-111 was subsequently dropped by the Navy and put into only limited operation by the Air Force. Pentagon managers are determined that things will be different this time.

Lockheed Martin's prototype, the X-35, draws on the company's experience designing the F-22 stealth fighter, which the X-35 resembles. By contrast, Boeing's X-32 has an unconventional appearance that reflects its simpler approach to the STOVL problem. While the Lockheed Martin X-35 has a traditional rear-mounted engine, with a separate lift fan mounted in front for vertical landings, the Boeing X-32 does the entire job with one engine. This power plant is placed in the center of the aircraft, which gives the X-32 its stubby, bat-like look.

The STOVL trials provide by far the most nail-biting moments of flight-testing, because any flaws in performance can send the plane plunging like a brick. But there are plenty of other dramatic moments, as the X-Planes battle it out for leadership in the fighter aircraft industry and the right to rule the skies wherever wars are fought.

[VaBthang4]

Hahaha...I get ADD when reading about Russian planes...hence my spotty quotes. LOL

[Optimist]

References were made to development programs that aren't even public. It's a shame we can't witness the tremendous accomplishments of the military aero system until (at best) they are retired (a la SR-71)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Jeff Head]

Nick name for the Yak was "FUGSD"

FLY UP ... GET SHOT DOWN.

[tophat9000]

The X-32 is no uglier then an A-6 Intruder or say a P-47.

Hey! big old "Jugs" (P-47) are beautiful! ;>

[illumini]

Great photos! Yak 48 built in Saratov at S.A.Z.(...Been there) One of the ejection seat companies at Farnborough was showing off a video of their seat saving a Russian pilot when his Yak 48 crashed onto an aircraft carrier.

[spetznaz]

I cannot stop laughing at that picture! I was actually making up my place (its kinda messy ....LOL, blame that on college) and once i spotted that picture i just fell into a series of guffaws that i yet have to recover from!

That is just plain hilarious! The bastard child of 'Thomas the Tank Engine' and a Sea Plane! Gosh! If a Boeing dude saw that he would probably hit you over the head LOL.

However i have to say that although the X-32 will not win any 'aesthetic' competition saying it looks like Thomas the Tank engine is just a tad bit too much .....however i do see certain similarities (LOL).

Ay caramba!

With all seriosuness thought it reminds me of a Corsair with its dentures out!

For what i mean look at the air intake of the following corsairs .....they look like the gaping maw of the X-32 ....with the only difference being the maw of the X-32 is bigger!

[ContentiousObjector]

(sarcasm)well would you look at that, more socialist sludge from PBS(/sarcasm)

[spetznaz]

Don't worry VaB, no offense taken (actually it reminded me of the great 'battles' we used to have around 5-6 months ago ....remember the ones that would range from KA-52 copters to stealth MiGs ....posts that would compose virtually half the thread).

Gosh, those were the days. I actually saved some of those threads, and every now and then i will look at the posts and chuckle!

Anyways take care of yourself and be safe.

[spetznaz]

By the way you never got back to me VaB on why the 5.56 caliber is used instead of the 7.62 (and by the way i am not trying to 'push' the Kalashnikov ...LOL ....although something tells me there is not a lot you can find to criticize that rifle since it is the only gun i know you can bury in mud for a month and it still fires .....why you would want to bury in mud for a month is a totally different question). Anyways it is just a honest question. Why not the 7.62 round which will bring any rag-head down instead of the 5.56 which requires several hits to bring down a 'dedicated fool' (read: silly rag-head who believes dying for Allah will give him a bevy of virgins)?

I have heard reports (and i believe some were from you) that it required several body hits with the 5.56 (unless you are a crack shot and can put a round in the dude's ear) to drop a rag-head and keep him down. If that is the case why did the powers that be adopt the 5.56 those decades ago (i am certain the Vietcong also required several body hits ....and i know that was the reason the army in the WW2 went back to their trusty .45 side arms when the service .38s were found to only annoy the enemy but the 45 put him to rest).

Back to you.

[spetznaz]

By the way in the above post i used diction that implied the Vietcong were fought against in WW2. I believe the exact phrase is as follows:

i am certain the Vietcong also required several body hits ....and i know that was the reason the army in the WW2 went back to their trusty .45 side arms when the service .38s were found to only annoy the enemy but the 45 put him to rest

That was the result of questionable sentence structure! What i meant was that i am certain during the Vietnam war the Vietcong also took several 5.56 shots before going down .....and during WW2 in the Phillipines soldiers who had to rely on .38s sidearms (after their rifles ran out of rounds or gave up ghost) found that it really had no stopping power against marauding enemy combatants high on drugs and bloodlust ....but that the .45 would bring those kooks down on the first shot.

I believe that is considerably better (and i hopefulyl avoided some over-zealous person trying to 'inform' me there was no Vietcong in WW2)

LOL

[Myrddin]

The 5.56mm round allows you to carry nearly 3 times as many rounds as the 7.62 X 51. Reduced recoil and reduced muzzle climb when fired full auto in the M16. M16 can be configured (full-auto or 3-shot multi-burst) AND semi-auto. The M14 fired 7.62 X 51. In full auto mode, you would be pointing into the sky by the 3rd round. Most "engagements" occur in a 150 to 300 yard range. This is ideal for 5.56. The Marines train for useful (iron sights) accuracy to 550 yards. Beyond that point, the effectiveness of the 5.56 round drops off due to the light (55 gr to 62 gr) weight of the projectile. The 7.62 X 51 with a 168 gr bullet is useful out to 1000 yards.

Another philosophical reason for 5.56. It was intended as a "wounding" round rather than a killing round. The theory is that 1 wounded soldier occupies the attention of two more soldiers to carry him to safety. The 7.62 X 51 is usually a one shot kill.

The Soviet 7.62 X 39 cartridge strikes a balance. The reduced power compared to the 7.62 X 51 makes it more controllable in a full auto AK-47 style mechanism. The AK-47 and SKS rifles offer 2 to 5 MOA accuracy with the 7.62 X 39. A good M14 is a sub MOA rifle by comparison. Same for the M16.

[GunRunner]

...or Israeli.

[Norman Arbuthnot]

I have heard reports (and i believe some were from you) that it required several body hits with the 5.56 (unless you are a crack shot and can put a round in the dude's ear) to drop a rag-head and keep him down.

I think the DC snipers provided ample evidence of the fact that you can put individuals down with one round of 5.56 mm.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

However this aircraft, although it has the distinction of being the first supersonic VTOL jet

Sorry but that distinction belongs to the EWR VJ-101.

The French also built some Mirage IIIV fighters that not only went supersonic but were bisonic, Mach 2.0+.

These planes all flew in the mid 60s, long before the Yak 141.

[VaBthang4]

I think I did get back on that.

Apparently the mentality was that 5.56 causes a military to have to use up more manpower to help severely wounded [with a 5.56 round] soldier get attention versus a dead [with a 7.62 round] soldier.

At least that is the best crappy arguement I have ever heard.

As for the multiple hit requirements...I have heard the same complaints since Vietnam. It always occured to me that you just put a round in their grape instead of body.

What? Is that hard for some people?

~Grin~

9 out of 10 rounds were headshots from 600 yards [with a peephole sight].

[spetznaz]

Extremely interesting. Thanks for the link (which has made me bookmark this thread).

Gracias!

[ffusco]

DESIGN CRITERIA JSF:
(a) the Lockheed craft was able to land vertically AND exceed Mach with the same configuration.
(b) the Boeing craft was butt-ugly.


As read in Janes Defense Review? LOL

[Nephi]

The F-35 is one sweet bird.

And the US and UK get a plane that is extremely capable...

I don't understand the connection with the RAF? Since when is the US defense department making joint military purchases with Britain?

Is the government dropping the pretenses of American military autonomy in exchange for a well regulated UN?

[dixie sass]

Airplanes