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

Skip to comments.

Battle of the X-Planes (the JSF project)
NOVA ^ | Feb 4, 2003

Posted on 02/04/2003 7:29:39 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: f35; harrier; jointstrikefighter; jsf; stealth; vtol; x32; yak141freestyle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: spetznaz
I just watched it myself.

Is it just me or is it blatantly obvious that the Boeing project head knew 100% before the decision was announced that Boeing had lost? Seemed obvious from his facial expression and body language (and they got the decision in the CEO's office, no workers around, in contrast to LockMart.)

Was there a leak, or did he pretty much know by how things had gone the previous few weeks? I don't rememeber much around the time period of the decision.
21 posted on 02/04/2003 8:07:49 PM PST by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
Tell that to the A-4 and A-7 drivers...they don't trust airplanes with more than one throttle lever, twice as many things to get fodded.
22 posted on 02/04/2003 8:08:24 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
the Boeing craft was butt-ugly.

LOL....and it took the JSF team a few years to figure out how to come up with the right wording to let Boeing down easy without saying, "but it's so ugly....there is NO WAY we want to look at that for 40 years".

23 posted on 02/04/2003 8:09:55 PM PST by ZinGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: John H K
No. The people that make these decisions make them based on set parameters. Boeing and LM knew who fit within those parameters. DOD contractors always know when they will win and when they will lose.
24 posted on 02/04/2003 8:14:14 PM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ZinGirl
I laugh at the bit above where it is stated that the Boeing nose configuration was nicknamed 'the Monica.'

I also thought the Boeing team was almost 'going through the motions' and knew they needed more time to completely redesign (in a direction of the Lockheed configuration, though they didn't know at the time).

I personally was talking to my television set when Boeing took their craft to sea-level for VTOL testing. I have a liberal arts education, and even I know that this was a serious cop-out.

25 posted on 02/04/2003 8:17:42 PM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ZinGirl
The X-32 is no uglier then an A-6 Intruder or say a P-47.
26 posted on 02/04/2003 8:18:04 PM PST by usmcobra (cobra is not here right now, call back later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
BTW, the 'Pelican' tail configuration is very cool. I wonder if we will ever see it.
27 posted on 02/04/2003 8:19:38 PM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Actually I know a lot of Crusader pilots who made the transition to dual engine. And every one I know would agree with the dual engine mentality. You fod an engine, you still have one to get you home. You take IADS fire, you PS (probability of survival) goes up considerably. On the other hand if you were going to FOD two engines, you certainly would have FODed one. I'll take two engines anyday. The only reason to have less is to show off your balls. Remember 'old pilots' vs 'Bold pilots?'
28 posted on 02/04/2003 8:20:07 PM PST by Magnum44 (remember the Challenger 7, remember the Columbia 7, and never forget 9-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4; Gunrunner2
Now see Spetz... You know I love you

I know ...LOL. By the way that sounds like what a dad would say before he spanked the daylights out of his naughty kid (LOL)

You just used a Nova story on America's JSF to drop in some Russian desgns that are basically "crap". The JSF is more advanced than even the F-15 which I am sure you'd agree would make quick work of the two Russian examples you listed.

If you read my comments you will notice i clearly said both the Yak designs were crappy ...and not even nearly as compatible. And i was comparing them to the harrier ....meaning against the F-15 or JSF they are even less than crap. Comeon VaB, give a dude a break

It was a laugher and everyone knew it. I know you know it...I'll assume you listed it as a cheesy example of incompetence when designing effective Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft.~

Yes, that is what i meant. Which is why i said it was not nearly as good as the Harrier.

Then you said: "Yak-141 Freestyle (Now this was an aircraft that was formidable..." Let me jump in here. No it wasnt! LOL...A harrier would destroy this plane. The Harrier can perform a million and one different functions at low speed...this russian crap cant. I appreciate their having a similar design as far using the rear nozzle as a lift but it was basically a huge gas guzzling VSTOL that could hit Mach. I have no doubt that it's agility was severely limited due to its size and feul requirements.

You were right that i said the following words: ""Yak-141 Freestyle (Now this was an aircraft that was formidable..... I did say them. But maybe you missed what i said after that. I said: However this aircraft, although it has the distinction of being the first supersonic VTOL jet, does not even come close to matching the JSF, meaning it is already obsolete ....unless it is facing Harriers. And even that is questionable because based on UK Falklands results British pilots were able to use the subsonic harriers to great effect .....and a harrier in the hands of a competent ...read UK or US ....pilot is still an extremely deadly aircraft Basically the only thing i saw of worth on that craft was its disticntion of being the first VTOL to go faster than sound. I actually believe i said it was already obsolete, had nothing to hold up to the JSF, and even against Harriers flown by UK or US would not hold up. I did not push it

Basically i was not trying to push any aircract (even the pictures of the F-22 and YF-23 were just there because i had mentioned them on the previous post). Everything tied in to what i was discussing, and if you read what i said there was nothing there that should make you think i was advocating Russian designs.

Unless my calling them 'obsolete' and 'not nearly as good' is somewhat to be taken as a push-tactic on my part. Gosh, if what you said about me was halftrue i think Sukhoi and Mikoyan would be paying me to sell there stuff! LOL

Come-on VaB ...you know this time i was not pushing.

29 posted on 02/04/2003 8:21:04 PM PST by spetznaz (This time around i am innocent...........this time around .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
watch it.....the A-6 had a funky fuel probe, perhaps.....but it didn't look at a greyhound bus. (you struck a nerve....my brother flew an A-6 during the Gulf War)
30 posted on 02/04/2003 8:21:24 PM PST by ZinGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
OK, and there are some Phantom/Tomcat drivers who will cheerfully point out that two engines means TWO sets of instrument gauges to monitor, and that means the A-4/A-7 drivers will have to take off their flight boots to make sure they can count high enough :^P
31 posted on 02/04/2003 8:21:58 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ZinGirl
at = like

as in "that x-32 looked a LOT like a flying greyhound bus....and I sure as heck don't want to go supersonic in a greyhound"

32 posted on 02/04/2003 8:22:50 PM PST by ZinGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
well, go ahead a built a prototype, Petronski....I'll give it the once over and have my brother fly it.....what do you think?

lol...yes...I was hoping to see something different, too.

33 posted on 02/04/2003 8:24:02 PM PST by ZinGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Like walking and chewing gum at the same time. I knew you couldn't restrain that sense of humor of yours. {:^D
34 posted on 02/04/2003 8:26:10 PM PST by Magnum44 (remember the Challenger 7, remember the Columbia 7, and never forget 9-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
It was a great NOVA program, I Watched it even though I knew the outcome, it was exciting. Very informative as well.
35 posted on 02/04/2003 8:26:40 PM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
Fascinating program.

Interesting that Public TV Nova got the nod to do it.

Lot's of hints in the program that it was going to be literally a 'battle to the death' but I doubt it...especially with Boeing's leg up on unmanned a/c.

BTW....you sound like a very sharp young man from your bio.

Try not to trip on your ego as you climb the ladder of life.

Best regards from JimVT

36 posted on 02/04/2003 8:31:30 PM PST by JimVT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ZinGirl
Not all of Boeing designs are ugly. The Bird of Prey is one such plane (actual photos of demonstrator in flight):



http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021018m.html
37 posted on 02/04/2003 9:01:14 PM PST by gaucho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ZinGirl
I'll give it the once over and have my brother fly it.....what do you think?

Hmmm. With Excel and Paint Shop Pro, hell, I can give it a whirl.

;o)

38 posted on 02/04/2003 9:09:16 PM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: gaucho
That thing is wild! Is that really a flying prototype? Insane!

It would sure scare the poop out of some Iraqi grunt in a MiG!

39 posted on 02/04/2003 9:11:02 PM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You REALLY picked a rather innocuous photo of the X-32. THIS image, however, lives up to the butt-ugly references on this thread. IMO it appears to be wearing a goofy grin(but "Monica" is also fitting).

Looks like the child of "thomas the tank engine" and a seaplane.


40 posted on 02/04/2003 9:15:46 PM PST by Optimist (I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 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