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.
FLY UP ... GET SHOT DOWN.
Hey! big old "Jugs" (P-47) are beautiful! ;>
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
I think the DC snipers provided ample evidence of the fact that you can put individuals down with one round of 5.56 mm.
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.
Gracias!
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?
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.