Inside the Joint Strike Fighter Competition

jonerik writes "The June issue of the Atlantic Monthly has this account of the history of the Joint Strike Fighter competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin (which the latter company ended up winning this past fall, with Boeing now touting its expanding line of unmanned aircraft as the true future of tactical aviation). The article does a fine job of showing how the competitors dealt with the challenge of producing an aircraft (now dubbed the F-35) that the Air Force, Navy, Marines, RAF, and Royal Navy could all live with. Funniest part: Boeing's X-32 entry, with its enormous pelican-like jet intake, had some questioning whether the plane's bizarre appearance didn't hurt its chances more than its performance. 'Helpful as my contacts at Boeing were, no one was eager to claim credit for the design of the plane,' says the article's writer James Fallows." Fascinating article.

Comments

Re:Future of Unmanned Aircraft?

[Wyatt Earp]

Right now, the world of Combat Aviation is at a crossroads, the first crossroads since the end of World War Two.

1. Build aircraft that support a fragile and expensive pilot and be limited from a design and performance stand-point

2. Build UCAVs that have the same level of reliability as 1950s and early 60s jet fighters, and leave the pilots out of the loop and safe at home.

While the remote aircraft idea isn't new, the technologies involved are at the point where it is a do-able product. And right now, the UCAVs in the United States have about the same level of reliability as the single engine jet fighters the Navy and Air Force had up to the Phantom came into service.

'Looks' thing stupid and baseless

[stoolpigeon]

I liked the article. It seems a pretty good run down of the history of the JSF program. One of the more intelligent things to come from our military.

But this whole - 'Boeing's plane was ugly' thing is sensationalistic journalism. The author throws it out there and then goes on to show that the author alone holds that opinion. It didn't make sense to me.

I've watched the whole thing closely for quite a while. (My wife works for Lockheed and my sister in law for Boeing) They were both good but the article rightly states that the VSTOL variant put together by Lockheed is exceptional. It is a daring - effective design.

Don't take away anything from either party with this 'It was about looks' nonsense. If that is what is was about we would be flying nothing but F-14s and not all these little plastic fag fighters that are out there now.

.

Re:'Looks' thing stupid and baseless

[geekoid]

also, the day time approach visability of a soft blue aircraft is much closer then black.
Interesting note, a plane with 'dim'(with respect to other aircraft lights)lights on as a much closer approach visability as well.

The JSF

[Veteran]

The Boeing design was known as "Monica" after Lewinsky. The Air Force was not to happy with the way it looked. The better design, in my opinion, won the competition.

The Lockheed plane can fly nose down at speeds as low as 20 Knots (for strafing) - while being able to run away from an F-15 on the top end. It has the radar profile of a bird. The plane is unlike anything that has ever flown before. It can cruise at supersonic speeds without afterburners. The Marine Corps version can take off vertically - go supersonic - then land vertically at the end of the mission. It is a better air superiority fighter than anything we have in service now - while being a better ground support plane than an A-10 Warthog. Computerized control is what makes all of that possible.

This will probably be the last manned fighter that the U.S. builds. Drones are cheaper, don't put a pilot at risk, and can make more violent maneuvers than any manned airplane - eventually they'll take over the air.

The series of unmanned fighting aircraft that Boeing is developing can be thought of as reusable cruise missiles; instead of crashing into their targets they drop bombs and return for another mission.

Re:The JSF

[Brian Stretch]

The Boeing design was known as "Monica" after Lewinsky.

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to post that (heh).

It (the JSF) is a better air superiority fighter than anything we have in service now - while being a better ground support plane than an A-10 Warthog.

Can it absorb AAA and small arms fire like an A-10? Can it survive a SAM hit like an A-10? Does it carry a gun remotely comparable to the tank-shredding Avenger? Didn't think so.

Sorry, it annoys me every time someone says they're going to replace the A-10 with some fragile supersonic fighter. Close air support requires serious armor and armament, which no fighter aircraft is ever going to have. The Air Force should transfer the A-10's to the Army where they'd be appreciated. Then we'd see the A-10's and Apaches go tag-team, which would be a beautiful thing.

Or the Air Force should be merged back into the Army, which isn't such a bad idea.

Re:Limiting privately-spent design money?

[Detritus]

It's in the taxpayer's interest for there to be multiple companies capable of designing and building weapons systems. A competition that kills the losing companies would be bad for future procurement. There has already been an amazing amount of consolidation in the military aircraft industry. We will be in deep trouble if LockMart is the only company capable of bidding on military contracts.