Slashdot Mirror
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.
bash$
For what it's worth, it's generally recognized that the design that won was better technically. Which design is actually better is usually a secondary concern when it comes to choosing defense contracts...
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Do you think stories could use fewer links so readers can just focus on the specific article instead of having to sort through every link under the sun? Most stories should have just one link (additional cool pictures excepted, of course).
The direction of these technologies has never been to _replace_ manned platforms, but to supplement the manned fighter and bomber force, particularly in the context of dangerous missions.
Gmanske.
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.
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.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Gmanske.
Think "remotely piloted fighter aircraft."
Sure, such craft could be used as computer controlled drones but the real benefit is going to be when you have squadrons of these piloted by top-gun pilots sitting safely away from the action.
If you were a fighter pilot would you care to engage in a dogfight with a remotely piloted aircraft that could pull more G's than you could? That could pull off manouveres that would literally break a pilot's neck? Or that could simply be made to explode like a SAM if you got too close it?
Would you like knowing that even if you shoot one out of the air the remote pilot is simply going to say "Dammit! He got me! Lets see if he can do it again." and then he is going to select and take over control of another one of a trio of inbound RPVs under computer control heading to your location and use it to try to kill you again?
I don't think any fighter pilot would like to face such remotely piloted craft. Chances of survival against them would be slim. Especially combined with new missle technologies that allow missles to be fired at targets behind and alongside of aircraft.
The F-22 raptor is a new fighter built for the air force.
The F-35 will have variants for all the branches of the military as well as foreign militaries. The F-35 will use much of the technology developed in the F-22 program (started prior to the F-35) and will save the government quite a bit of money as it uses standardized components.
More than one aircraft is necessary because they can perform different jobs. Just like the navy has more than one kind of ship, and the army has more than one kind of land vehicle.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I've read a lot about the JSF program over the last 2 years or so, and it seems they did pick the best aircraft. Lockheed Martin simply has more (recent) experience with this type of aircraft, since they also designed the F-22.
On the other hand, I thanked God they didn't pick the hideous looking Boeing contraption. No self respecting fighter pilot would want to be seen in that.
Fast Company also had an article on this recently.
The F-22A is a replacement for the high hour F-15 A/B and C/D models of single seat interceptor and the two seat trainer versions of those aircraft which are in service with the United States Air Force, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserver, Israeli Defence Forces, Saudi Arabian Air Force.
The F-35 is a replacement for the F-16, Sea Harrier, Harrier GR, Harrier II, F-104, FA-18 A/B and other older single-seat fighters in service with the United States Air Force, United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Dutch, Belgan, Israeli militaries and possibly the Turkish and Italian, as well as others.
The F-35 is a single seat, single engined aircraft with a top speed of about Mach 1.3. The F-22 is a single seat, twin engined aircraft that can go Mach 1.4 without turning on it's afterburners and has a higher celling than the 35.
In short, there are 2 new fighter planes coming out because there are different roles that need filling.
In formal and informal comments to military officers, civilian analysts, politicians, consultants, reporters, and other members of the defense community, Boeing representatives were careful never to speak dismissively of the JSF.
Boy, I wish I worked in an industry where the primary competitors (while competing all-out in every other arena) deliberately avoided trying to FUD each other into the dirt at every opportunity.
And while I'm at it, I want a pony. One that can fly.
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.
It is much more stable and feasible than Boeing's version. In fact the fact that Boeing built it off the Harrier should be a dead give away that there had to be a better way.
The stealth issues are genuine but this would be the case w/any VSTOL variant. They are going to be landing in places that are not as clear of FOD as the AirForce/Navy versions. And when those Marine pilots are providing close ground support the stealth thing will not be as big an issue.
Is it perfect? No. Will it kick a lot of ass? You bet.
And getting to the main point- even the lockheed model is ugly. (all stealth anything are in my opinion)
You could argue back and forth about who had the better aircraft. I'm a bit biased to begin with - but you can't argue that aesthetics were the deciding factor.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
If this project was done according to the New Economy model, each competitor would have created a separate startup to develop their prototypes, hired engineers by promising them stock options, and run them separately from their main companies. The winning company would have been "acquired" by its sponsor, and the losing one would have gone away. This seems to be the main contribution of the New Economy IMHO, that companies are created not to endure for decades, but to bring products to market. After that, the exit strategies are well known: aquisition, IPO, or bankruptcy court.
we called it "Vogon Poetry in motion"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... the WW II P-47 and F4U wouldn't have won any beauty contests, and neither would the F-4 from the 60s. Yet their pilots swore by them, and the stats proved them to be world beaters. You don't know what you're talking about.
Infuriate left and right
1st a little background. When LM 1st decided to tender for the JSF they put forward plans for a smaller cunard foreplane aircraft (a la the Israeli Lavi, the Eurofighter, the Dassault Rafale etc). They even developed a Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) to demonstrate their JAST concept. A number of Small Scale Powered Models (SSPMs) were also tested to develop a basic understanding of the hover and transition regions. But pretty quicky they realised they could not get the design sorted out within the timeframe, so they went & knocked on the door of the Yakovlev OKB in Russia. In 1992, Lockheed Martin signed an agreement with the Russian Yakovlev Design Bureau & Pratt & Whitney signed one with the Soyuz Aero Engine Company for information on the supersonic Yak-141 STOVL fighter and its three bearing swivel duct nozzle, etc. Yakovlev was paid 'several dozen million dollars', P&W also spent some small change on a license from the Soyuz Aero Engine Company . Its no big secret outside of the US.
..In 1992/93 Lockheed contracted Yakovlev on some work pertaining to short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft studies in reference to the JAST (JSF) project. Yakovlev shared its STOVL technologies with the US company for several dozen million dollars.
...Lockheed Martin is also cooperating with the Yakovlev Design Bureau to build an advanced fighter/attack jet for Air Force and Navy use. The deal is still pending Russian government approval, but plans call for a prototype to be ready by 2000 and operational plane by 2010. The plane could end up replacing the F-14, 15E, 16, 111, 117, and AV-8B. Yakovlev's contribution will be based on its
... Lockheed Martin also turned to Russia for technical expertise, purchasing design data from Yakovlev...
...The rise and rise of western dominance since the end of the cold war has given many in countries like India the impression that the former ``eastern bloc'', and particularly Russia, has nothing left of any scientific or technological value. It will therefore surprise many that Lockheed Martin went ahead with development of its successful JSF bid only after getting the design cleared by Russia's Yakovlev aeronautical bureau because they were so impressed by the latter's short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) prototype, the Yak 41. This naval fighter was flying a dozen years ago (!) and only an explosion on board the aircraft carrier `Sergei Gorshkov' (which the Indian Navy is in the process of purchasing) and the economic travails of the disintegrating Soviet Union stopped further development.
...In a postCold War irony, Lockheed Martin consulted with the Yakovlev design bureau of Russia early in the JSF design process because the Yak-141 used a similar approach, though that airplane never made it to series production...
...The swiveling rear exhaust is a licensed design from the Yakovlev design bureau in Russia, which triedit out on the Yak-141 STOVL fighter...
...The exhaust from the engine flows through the 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN). The 3BSN nozzle, developed by Rolls-Royce, was patterned along the lines of the exhaust system on the Yakovlev Yak-141 STOVL prototype that flew at the 1992 Farnborough air show....
Now lets see what AeroWorld Net has to say:
Former Yakovlev employees accuse Yakovlev heads of taking personal interest out of the deal with Lockheed, because the official sum of the contract did not correspond with the value of the information presented to the US company. The data was on the Yak-141 test program, aerodynamics and design features, including the design of the R-79 engine nozzles.
After a careful study of those materials, Lockheed - without much noise - changed its initial JSF proposal, including a design of the engine nozzles that is now very similar to those of the Yak-141...
H'mm I wonder what the Russian Aerospace guide has to say, more specifically the archived July/August 95 issue of Cosmonautics
recent experience with the Yak-141 VTOL fighter.
...
Now that website may have a Russian slant so lets see what Jane's has to say:
I wonder what is says in Aviation Week & Space Technology 1995, v142n25, Jun 19, p. 74-77
Lockheed Martin is turning to Russia's Yakovlev Design Bureau for help in designing short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) competition.
Maybe even The Hindu , 'India's National Newspaper' has something to say on the subject.
Now I wonder what the Google cached pages of the Airforce Magazine have on the subject
I wonder what they say on the actual JSF page:
I'd suggest you also check out the French Prototypes.com website . In partuclar their (Googlised into English) pages that explain the whole process on & the evolution from the Yak-36 to the Yak-38 to the Yak-141 & finally the Yak-41 & the stillborn Yak-43, which so heavily influenced the winning JSF design that LM terminated their double diamond canard foreplane CALF/JAST program to & started all over again using the Yak-43 design they got in their technolgy tranfer agreement with Yakovlev as their new starting point.
& Too finish off, whats say we look at some profile pics
The Yak-141
The stillborn Yak-43 circa 1993
The LM X-35
It seems the LM X-35 looks a lot more like the Yak-43 than the LM's canard foreplane CALF/JAST prototype. Basically the differances are a more stealthy body, uncanted wings & a lift fan rather than a lift jet. Funny thing is back then in the early 90's the Soyuz Engine Company was right in the process of designing a shafted lift fan to replace the old Rybinsk lift jet setup. I won't even start on the vectored rear nozzle setup on the P$W 135 engine which appears to be an exact copy of the Soyuz R79 (ie I'll save the nozzle pics for another day).
While there are many cost advantages, the one airplace for all services is not a good idea. If Boeing wins some, and Lockheed wins some, then each time some branch wants a new plane they can get bids. If only one plane is used, it is cheaper, but next time Boeing says "Guess what, we didn't make any money last time, so we had to get rid of our military designers, at which point Lockheed has a monopoly. If each branch was different, then both would win a few contracts, so both would keep designing planes.
I'm also not sure that one size fits all is a good idea anyway. The air force doesn't care about carrier landings, or even the ability to make them. They would much prefer a plane that they can afford the fuel to send anywhere in the world from one of two desert air strips. (if you fly commercially you will notice the ex-navy pilots hit the breaks as soon as they land, and throw you against the belts, the air force pilots barely hit the last turn off. I prefer air force from a comfort standpoint, and it really doesn't matter most of the time)
Like everything else, it is more complex then the above. As a tax payer, anything to get costs down without cutting defense too much is a good thing. (the definition of too much is one penny over whatever it takes to maintain my way of life, which doens't even begin to show how complex that is)
This seems a little weird to me. The companies should damn-well know that there aren't any guarantees (especially because of the aforementioned B-2 and F-22 programs), they shouldn't be forced to limit their own spending. And so what is Boeing outspends the others? I would think that taxpayers should be trying to get the most for their bucks, and if Boeing stockholders want to subsidize us taxpayers, that's fine with me.
Were the people in charge of spending my money, really thinking in terms of "we don't want Boeing to develop too good/affordable of a product at their expense, because that wouldn't be fair to the other companies"?
(BTW, good submission, jonerik.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Back on the Secret Ranch, RMS perfects his GPL'ed ultralight, which (for some bizarre reason) has all the features of the bigger planes at none of the cost. However, due to licensing constraints, whenever the plane is brought into battle a copy of all the blueprints and materials must be given to the opponent. Additionally, they occasionally explode due to forgetful pilots leaving out a couple of right parentheses, as the only interface to the flight computer is through M-x and M-;.
- undoware.ca
A friend of mine is a pilot, and he and I have talked about the JSF competition. I was hoping Boeing would win, since that would be good for the economy in my area, but the LockMart plane was better.
The Boeing plane was a fairly traditional design. The LockMart plane was a radical new design. My pilot friend said that LockMart bet everything on the radical design; either the new design would fail and they would lose hugely, or else the new design would work and they would win hugely.
In particular, the Boeing design uses conventional hydraulics for actuating its various parts, but the LockMart plane uses an electrical bus to distribute power to motors that actuate the various parts. It turns out that while the two systems weigh about the same and perform about the same, there are second and third order effects that favor the electrical bus:
While a hydraulic system is constantly under pressure, which means pump motors run constantly and heat must be constantly dissipated, the electrical bus just sits there while you aren't using it. So the power systems and cooling systems for the LockMart plane don't have to be as heavy-duty as the Boeing plane. And you can make an electrical bus redundant more easily, just by running extra cables, much easier than making hydraulics redundant. And think how much easier it will be to repair and service an electrical bus compared to a bunch of heavy-duty hoses and pipes full of hydraulic fluid!
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
True enough, but all stealth aircraft face that same liability, from the weapons bay doors.
I thought that the Boeing plane should have won the competition, mostly because it fulfilled the specification better; while being smaller, lighter, and immeasurably simpler. The Boeing plane didn't take off vertically, it's true, but that is also not in the specification -- it's not what was asked for. Similarly, there was no line-item for aesthetics. The Boeing direct-lift concept is the same that powers the Harrier, and is the only demonstrated successful direct lift formula. The clutch-driven lift fan is an Osprey-scale debacle waiting to happen -- mechanically clutching in 40,000 HP in a few seconds with an extremely lightweight gearbox is, I believe, untenable. They finally got it to work for a few tests, but there were a number of fairly spectacular failures along the way. The Boeing design lets the pilot shift from forward to vertical thrust and back again in a few seconds, at will, and they did it more than 100 times during the flight test program -- the Lockheed one was only clutched a handful of times.
The very wide-chord wing of the Boeing design is good for a number of structural, aerodynamic, and stealth reasons. Unfortunately, Boeing elected to change the design for the actual plane to a separate tail, rather than the delta wing -- Lockheed partisans claimed (rightly, IMHO) that this meant that the demonstrator that Boeing flew wasn't really representative of the final plane.
The one terrific thing that the Lockheed design has, the one true aerodynamic innovation, is the bump intake. There's a big bump right in front of the intakes on the Lockheed plane; it performs all of the functions of the typical intake splitter plate, purging the boundary layer, with a far more elegant, lighter, simpler, stealthier, easier-to-maintain design. Hats off to the engineers that came up with that.
I think that the Boeing design is prettier, too, but that's just me -- I'm a low-aspect ratio kind of guy.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
we don't use those pilots anymore really. The US has been moving steadily towards long range engagement where the combatants don't even see their enemy, rather they fire when the enemy is spotted on radar.
think fully automated.
Photos.
besides, if you saw a 2 ton pelican bearing down on you at 800mph, you'd be screaming
There was a story on the net recently about military RC land vehicles. They mentioned that the controls were modelled after the Playstation gamepad, since it made the learning curve shorter for the twentysomething soldiers training with it.
You're confusing some of the performance characteristics of the ATF (which turned into the F-22 Raptor) with the JSF (the now F-35).
The F-22 is a high-performance, air-superiority fighter intended to superceed the F-15. It has a 2nd-gen stealth (very low radar cross-section and low observability infrared/visible features) design, coupled with a high speed (~ Mach 1.4 without afterburners, ~2.2 full burner), and is primarily a missile-platform (ie, no bombs). It is the premier air-superiority fighter in the world.
The F-35 is a ground-attack AKA strike fighter (NOT a close-support aircraft). It tops out at about Mach 1.5 or so at altitude, and is not anywhere near as stealthy as the F-22 (though much, much better than the F-16, F-15, or F-18). One version will have VSTOL cabilities. It carries laser designators and other ground-attack sensors, and has a modest bomb-load (though smart weapons will be it's primary payload).
All things said, the F-35 is a good design, and a reasonable compromise on cost, performance, and advanced technology. HOWEVER, it is NOT an air-superiority fighter (though the Royal Navy will use it as such off their carriers), neither is it a dedicated close-support aircraft (though the US Marines will use is in such a roll). It is primarily a multi-role strike craft. It's really a blend of the features of the F-18, Harrier, F-16, and F-22, with some compromises.
The A-10 will probably remain the best close-support aircraft around for general use (the Harrier and similar craft are superior, but only in specific uses), and the F-15 and F-14 (and of course the F-22, plus the MiG-29) are better air-superiority fighers.
My major concern with the F-35 is the low payload cability compared to the F-16/18 (though it's superior to the Harrier). It's probably OK, since it looks like the "bomb dumptruck" role of massive dumb firepower is being relegated to the B-52 bomber and AC-130 gunships these days.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
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
Ground battles are for the police: real wars are fought with aircraft and missiles.
Seriuosly, fighting on the ground is passe. The army has been irrelevant since their failure in the island hopping campaign of WW2. (credit the marines for most of the irrelevant ground fighting anyway)
Even then, an air/naval blockade and nukes was more than enough to eliminate japan. The army's main role was as a peacekeeper. This has become moreso ever since.
Did anybody else read that headline as
some sort of gaming in prison?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The bizarre appearance of the fighter's enormous single air intake, coupled with an understanding of the inherent dangers for flight-deck personnel in carrier operations, caused one US Navy officer to dub the X-32 with the sobriquet of "the Sailor Inhaler."
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
Except that with "welfare for everyone else" you just get more lazy jobless people.
With "welfare for engineers" you get a fleet of bad@$$ fighter planes that can fly around real fast and blow stuff up.
I suppose you also think that when you buy groceries you are paying "welfare for grocery store employees".
Actually, ground battles are unpopular but necessary. What you fail to remember is that we've pretty much taken on small, disorganized, underfunded governments and their armies. That's fairly easy to do with quick strikes and cruise missiles, but if you ever need to take out a major target you just plain have to land ground troops.
Besides, there is no way to occupy territory from the air. What, do you want to sit out on a boat 30 miles off shore and broadcast, "HEY, YOU ALL BEHAVE IN THERE!!!" without anything on the ground to back it up? Sorry, but ground force becomes inevitable, regardless of how the American public seems to forget that not only do people die in war, but it's a lot scarier in real life than on CNN.
jamming a specific frequency isn't hard
If you know what it is
and you have the right equipment
and that equipment is in the right place.
and you can crank out more power than the signal you are trying to jam
and you STILL are basically fucked if, like search radars used by the military, the command/control link is set to shift freqs on some complex algorithm.
or even a simple one really.
although movies may have you believe that you can push a button in front of you on your Star Wars (tm) land speeder and "jam" the entire electromagnetic spectrum, in practice it takes a wee little bit more than that.
The US can conceivably do it but often we don't really bother. The infrastructure would be a nuisance. Jamming radar is easy and useful. Jamming comms is a real pain in the ass. Even if some magic antenna were created that would radiate immense power to jam all possible frequencies the enemy might use, then you have the slight problem of 1. microwaved technicians and 2. you just screwed yourself out of any chance of communicating with your own people.
In order to be effective, you have to have a signals exploitation system/team/whatever. They have to find and identify the frequency you need to target. And they need to do so in time to have it actually do any good. Then you need to have the jamming equipment to deal with that frequency band. And you have to be able to broadcast towards the target with more power than the base station you are trying to block is capable of reaching the target with. Sending a puny signal to block a strong one obviously wouldn't work. You also need to have your jamming antenna last longer than 2 or 3 seconds. And the US Military has electronics warfare people who take almost child-like delight in smashing other peoples antennas with Anti-Radiation Missiles. Just ask any Iraqi who pushed the "send" button on anything larger than a walkie-talkie back in the Persian Gulf Ass Kicking Festival. The reason he won't answer you is because he's dead. And that was over 10 years ago. Our missiles haven't been sitting around getting arthritis, they're faster, more accurate, blah blah blah. You could even have a nice big fat UCAV with a halfassed AI and a whole pile of HARM missiles, doing nothing but flying circles and transmitting on the same frequency, just to get someone to turn on the jammer. A transmitting antenna is screaming its own position to a HARM missile, they really don't even need a targetting system.
They actually decided that the best color was some sort of pastel. However, the pilots assured them that "real men don't fly pastel planes".
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Through a variety of means, drones took down five MiGs.
It amazes me when people talk about how amazing this new technology is, when, in reality, it is simply a refinement of something that dates back quite some time. I suppose it helps pad defence budgets.
(How was I exposed to this? This web page helped., though I know a man who flew the CH-3 part of the equation.
Although, the page has been removed from the Boeing site, this google cache provides good links to several video feeds of Boeing JSF flights and testing.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
... and Lockheed JSF videos may be found here.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Fun Fact: The Stealth design built into aircraft can be negated to some degree by syncronizing several radars spread over a wide area. Since a stealth fighter's design reflects radar waves away from the point of origin to decrease it's cross section, the theory is that multiple radar sites working in unison will see "enough" of the fighter at once to accurately track.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Here at Boeing, everything old is new again! You want a Sailor Inhaler? Suck on this; The A-7 Corsair strike fighter and it's cousin, the F-8 Crusader fighter. Both were slowly fazed out in favor of dual engine aircraft (over-water redundancy).
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I work in an aviation acquisition role for the US Navy. I help evaluate aviation products. I think I can speak to this with some background knowledge.
Actually despite the performance compromises, we find our country (the US) in a position where budget takes a front seat to absolute function.
In this arena, a plane that minimizes the huge complexity of a support infrastructure is a good thing. The one thing this design will do, and do very well, is to create a multi-service purchasing and support system advantage. The majority of the cost of an aviation weapon is the pieces-parts that keep it flying. Those fees get paid LONG after the initial investment. With one highly common set of parts, all three services (Air Force, Navy, Marines) get to all buy the same parts - making it cheaper by far to maintain and operate many years into the future. Furthermore, with some exceptions, doing the testing and development on upgrades and parts replacements will also be cheaper for the life of the plane.
Sure, you give up performance. But for the forseeable future, we are not going to really need (for example) a Mach 3 fighter. So why pay for one, that can't do anything else?
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
Makers of the P-38 Lightning (the first all-aluminum skinned fighter, flown by the top 2 aces in the Pacific Theater during WW2), the P-80 Shooting Star (first operational US jet fighter), the SR-71 Blackbird (fastest aircraft in the world, high speed, high altitude photo recon) and the new F-22 Raptor. Wonder if Lockheed will be putting the same powerplant that's in the F-22 into their JSF bird. It'd be nice since the thing can produce Mach 1 without afterburner/reheat.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Everyone is missing the obvious. Manned vehicles are limited by their payload. namely, a human being. We have the materials for a/c to pull > 10g sustained. However, human beings tend to not like that. Elimnate the human, eliminate the need to limit the load curves on a V-n diagram. Further more, a general will be far more willing to drop $30 million behind enemy lines on a dangerous mission than $14 + a human life.
"If nothing else, value the truth."
Sure Boeing lost because of a really, really stupid looking aircraft.
Look at the B-2. I don't think anyone could say (with any amount of seriousness) that it is ugly. The plane serves its purpose even while sitting on the ground. We only have 19, not really enough for a full-scale war, yet they still work as a deterent. You don't have to know what it is to be scared of it, if you know it's gonna come after you.
Being 'scared' of military technology is all part of the game. Boeing could not produce a scary looking aircraft, so they lost.
-twb
"The army has been irrelevant since their failure"
You must have missed the entire Cold War. You know, the one where the old Soviet Union had hundreds of tanks waiting to rush into West Germany? Or the massive, one-sided land engagement in "that desert war" in 97? It wasn't all air power, though it went a long way in the outcome. Think of it this way; Somebody with heavy weapons on the ground has to actually claim the land from other people with heavy weapons. I guess you could theoretically carpet bomb every fox hole and bunker, but it's not realistic.
"Even then, an air/naval blockade and nukes was more than enough to eliminate japan."
Make no mistake, without those bombs, the cost of invading Japan would have been astronomical in lives, probably more than dropping the bombs themselves. Refer to planned operations Cornet and Olympic as to the scope of this undertaking. This article describes it as well as anything could. Yeah, we had the fleets and airforce, but the Imperial Japanese didn't care. It was going to be to the last man, woman and child with a conventional war. Think Vietnam, only a thousand times worse.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
One factor was that Boeing was going after a more well-rounded entry that would be of use to all branches of the military, so they put a lot more emphasis on the VTOL capability than they should have.
The LockMart JSF, on the other hand, was designed more as a conventional fighter with the VTOL added on.
Only the Marine Corps were really interested in VTOL, and given that they would have only bought tens of aircraft (as opposed to the thousands the Air Force was looking for), the Air Force had much more sway. So LockMart correctly wooed the Air Force with fighter performance as the priority.
The drive system that interconnects the V-22 engines is the mechanical linkage from hell. It runs at 6500 RPM, has many flexible couplings, five gearboxes, and a clutch in the middle. Plus, the whole thing is a transformer; the wings and props fold. It's amazing that they can get it to hold together.
The F-111 was in service into the 90s. I believe the EF-111 jamming plane is still in service. In fact, the F-111 proved itself a pretty good plane in Desert Storm.
i havent personally worked on the pane, but many fellow INCOSE members of mine are directly involved. i have learned many things about the plane, and i am about to give my 2 cents worth. for starters, it will have in its first production run over 10 times the amount of planes produced than the F-22. One reason for the name JSF is that it is a joint venture between aumy, navy, royal navy, etc...this is the first plane that all military divisions have agreed on the specifications and will train on and use. if im not mistaken, it is also the only plane to perform STOVL (short take off and vertical landing) in the same test flight. its computer systems are much more advanced require less maintanence, and more reliability through redundant systems. it also uses hardware that is not-so-proprietary so the electrical systems can be repaired quickly if necessary. also because of technological advances, and the amazing force produced by the engines, it is able to carry a larger payload than any previous fighter jet. one way it produces so much force and is able to to vertical takeoff is by a clutch mechanism that was previously thought impossible with the engines rotating at 20000-30000 rpm. they accomplished this by taking the brake pads directly from a commercial airplane and modifying them to implement a clutch in the actual engine so that the force can be directed from straight back to directly down. thats all the information i can think of to dish to the slashdot crowd now.
Boeing and Lockheed are both stupid. The obvious design is to shape the plane like, and paint it like, a shark. That way, when other pilots see the plane, they won't try to shoot it down. They'll just be like "Oh, air shark." and go about their business.
The sad thing is, BAE wanted to build a supersonic capable Harrier II back in the 70's, but the government wouldn't let them...
It'll be a sad day when the Harriers go out of service, they really are wonderful aircraft.
"Information wants to be paid"
Whereas the key point of the fan-supported design is not that it uses HVLP (high-volume, low-pressure) reaction, which it does, but that the exhaust is cold, so you can use as much of it as you want, and keep as much excess energy in reserve as you might need. According to the article, the first time they turned it on, intending to hover at 10 cm or so, the plane shot up to 10 m!
This was a breakthrough idea, similar to the invention of the original Harrier. Lockheed received a patent on it and everyone in the aerospace industry feels it was well deserved.
Funny thing is, at one point the JSF team was considering confiscating Lockheed's patent and giving it to McDonnnel-Douglas (Boeing), as Lockheed couldn't keep their program under control.
Anyway, a very good article all around.
sPh
OTOH, there is some speculation that Boeing doesn't care too much about losing JSF, as it is possible the action will switch to unmanned vehicles over the next 10 years. And they are way ahead of Lockheed in that area.
sPh
sPh
sPh
The JSF is really an attack plane, designed to hit ground targets, carry refueling tanks for other planes, and do similar grunt work. It really should be called the A-14, but flying anything with an "A" designation has been the kiss of death to an Air Force career since 1945, so all planes will be "fighters" in the future. JSF will replace the A-6, A-10, AV-8, and to a certain extent the F-18 and F-117.
sPh
"It is true that several nations are deploying such ground radar systems in an attempt to defeat stealthy aircraft."
Good for them. The more money the spend trying to see our planes, the less money they are spending on other defense expenditures. As long as their efforts cost more (in %GNP) than building low observable features into the plane cost us, we come out ahead.
And BTW, it is "low observable" not "unobservable". Even the B-2 isn't invisible; it is just difficult to find. But the media likes to sensationalize stuff, and "invisible airplane" obviously sounds too cool for them to pass up.
sPh
sPh
The EF-111's got phased out after the gulf war, leaving the EA-6B prowler the only dedicated tactical jamming aircraft in the US inventory.
This presents big problems, because these aircraft have been used quite a bit, are wearing out, and really need to be replaced. Even missions with stealth aircraft are planned using jamming support.
I'd find links to everything I just wrote, but I'm too lazy today.
sPh
I don't have that book. Is he really talking about the A-12 or does he mean the YF-12A?
My dad works for Lockheed, so he tells me some funny jokes about the Boeing JSF all the time.
My favorites:
The only reason that thing flies is b/c it is so ugly the earth repels it
Lockheed guys gave the X-32 a nickname: Monica (guess why?)
A wise man once said: "Do not drink the lemonade given to you from a hobo"
It is much more stable and feasible than Boeing's version. In fact the fact that Boeing built it off the Harrier should be a dead give away that there had to be a better way.
A few test planes prove that it's more stable and feasible? The fact that Boeing based it off the Harrier system showed that it was a proven system that people were already familiar with. A big benefit when you need something to work under combat conditions....only time will tell if Lockheed's system is really worth anything...
Actually, I've seen it happen with an F-16. I was on my way to my workcenter in 1984, walking past the hanger, when I saw the crew chief go to duck under the aircraft to get to the other side. He was too far forward, and the intake draft sucked him in by his field jacket, folded him in half, and then the engine chewed him up and blew half-burnt pieces of him all over the inside of the hanger.
I still have nightmares.
Chip H.
This is why the debate is still going on. If it was entirely clear, then there wouldn't be a debate.