PDA

View Full Version : Clearly OT & overmodelled: can this plane get a patch please?



NegativeGee
05-16-2004, 07:57 AM
Snicker http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40158000/jpg/_40158351_fighterjet203.jpg

Defence chiefs have admitted "concerns" over a 5 billion order for fighter jets that are too heavy to take off from warships.
The US Joint Strike Fighters are due to replace Britain's ageing Harrier fleet.

The jets, which cost around 35m each are said to be 3,300lbs (1,500kg) overweight.

The MoD said the plane's engine was heavier than envisaged, but added problems normally occurred in the early stages of complex programmes.

From our perspective, these problems do not undermine the programme or our choice of aircraft

Ministry of Defence spokeswoman
Britain has agreed to buy 150 of the new jets. They are due to come into service by 2012.

The Lockheed Martin planes are 45ft long and 30ft wide.

The fighter jets are said to have greater speed and stealth with which to penetrate the most sophisticated surface-to-air missile defences.

But though the aircraft's engine is widely accepted as the most advanced of its kind, it is far heavier than expected.

If the weight problem is not resolved, the jets will be unable to achieve the vertical take-offs that are the trademark of the Harrier Jump Jet.

'Problem will be solved'

Britain is building two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy - but the runways will be too short for the jets to take off normally, newspapers have reported.

A spokeswoman for the MoD said: "The weight problem is a concern but problems like this occur in the early stages of complex programmes.

"The projects are being carefully co-ordinated and the problem will be solved in time for the jets to come into service in 2012 as planned.

"From our perspective, these problems do not undermine the programme or our choice of aircraft."

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3718567.stm

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

NegativeGee
05-16-2004, 07:57 AM
Snicker http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40158000/jpg/_40158351_fighterjet203.jpg

Defence chiefs have admitted "concerns" over a 5 billion order for fighter jets that are too heavy to take off from warships.
The US Joint Strike Fighters are due to replace Britain's ageing Harrier fleet.

The jets, which cost around 35m each are said to be 3,300lbs (1,500kg) overweight.

The MoD said the plane's engine was heavier than envisaged, but added problems normally occurred in the early stages of complex programmes.

From our perspective, these problems do not undermine the programme or our choice of aircraft

Ministry of Defence spokeswoman
Britain has agreed to buy 150 of the new jets. They are due to come into service by 2012.

The Lockheed Martin planes are 45ft long and 30ft wide.

The fighter jets are said to have greater speed and stealth with which to penetrate the most sophisticated surface-to-air missile defences.

But though the aircraft's engine is widely accepted as the most advanced of its kind, it is far heavier than expected.

If the weight problem is not resolved, the jets will be unable to achieve the vertical take-offs that are the trademark of the Harrier Jump Jet.

'Problem will be solved'

Britain is building two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy - but the runways will be too short for the jets to take off normally, newspapers have reported.

A spokeswoman for the MoD said: "The weight problem is a concern but problems like this occur in the early stages of complex programmes.

"The projects are being carefully co-ordinated and the problem will be solved in time for the jets to come into service in 2012 as planned.

"From our perspective, these problems do not undermine the programme or our choice of aircraft."

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3718567.stm

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Extreme_One
05-16-2004, 08:07 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif MoD

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-Ex_1_sig.jpg

Chuck_Older
05-16-2004, 08:13 AM
If it doesn't work, it's undermodelled, wouldn't you say?

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

NegativeGee
05-16-2004, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
If it doesn't work, it's undermodelled, wouldn't you say?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm.....

Its both!

Engine weight- overmodelled

Performance- undermodelled

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

VW-IceFire
05-16-2004, 08:38 AM
I'm sure they will figure something out. First its Lockheed and they have some talented people working on this stuff (seen some shows on this jet) and second as the story mentions there are plenty of problems that are fixed in the prototypes.

Look at the Corsair, the Mustang, all sorts of aircraft that we are familar with...and their initial version, even the ones in service, were not performing upto expectations till someone got it right. This is probably going to be the most used jet in the 21st century so they have alot of pressure to get it right.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

lil_labbit
05-16-2004, 08:41 AM
Yeah :| the stupid dutch gov ordered them too... Not that we got any of the (promised) work... I would have bought a Saab from our friends in the North http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And don't forget the price-tag will be waaaay overmodelled too - they're still working on that...

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

Chuck_Older
05-16-2004, 08:57 AM
Let's criticise Lockheed after they fail. I have sorta kinda been involved in some stuff for the JSF (and F-22 and Comanche and Superhornet-still am involved with something on the Superhornet now, but with a different company) and it is quite an impressive technical feat to do what this aircraft (JSF)does. I still say it's ugly, but that doesn't really matter...

Let's get out the stake and chant burn the witch if they fail to make it work, but after they fail, not before.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

arcadeace
05-16-2004, 09:02 AM
Agreed Chuck. 2012, wonder why this was posted?

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg

NegativeGee
05-16-2004, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
Agreed Chuck. 2012, wonder why this was posted?

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A: Pre-patch sillyness http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(and not, in case you were wondering, any bias towards a certain nation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

I agree though, the article does carry more than a little negative tone towards the developers of the JSF. Getting a modern warplane design beyond the "drawing board" stage represents a huge techncial effort and achievement in itself.

I guess the media just loves doom-mongering when it comes to things like this......

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

[This message was edited by NegativeGee on Sun May 16 2004 at 08:21 AM.]

JorBR
05-16-2004, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I'm sure they will figure something out. First its Lockheed and they have some talented people working on this stuff (seen some shows on this jet) and second as the story mentions there are plenty of problems that are fixed in the prototypes.

Look at the Corsair, the Mustang, all sorts of aircraft that we are familar with...and their initial version, even the ones in service, were not performing upto expectations till someone got it right. This is probably going to be the most used jet in the 21st century so they have alot of pressure to get it right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a lot of good aircrafts with a troublesome beggining, the problem with the JSF is it´s enourmous cost, they simply can not fail in the first batch and improve things after the production started. But with all those years of development still ahead they probably will solve problems, except the price http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif .

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

p1ngu666
05-16-2004, 09:28 AM
just a thought, but why dont they add a extra pair of wings and jetision them after takeoff?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
mind u, might be to heavy to land aswell http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

diomedes33
05-16-2004, 09:33 AM
http://www.lmaeronautics.com/gallery/products/combat_air/x35/x35_press/x35_01/thumbnails/21_17601_tn.jpg

If they didn't have to on all those useless things like radar, missiles and guidance systems it would work just fine.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.public.asu.edu/~guthriec/ubi_sig.jpg

Zyzbot
05-16-2004, 09:43 AM
I remember seeing similar doom and gloom articles when the Grumman F-14 was being developed. History repeats.

JarheadEd
05-16-2004, 10:06 AM
I'm currently working on the Super Hornet program and was a eye witness to much of the testing/competition for the JSF program at Pax River. Yes Lockheed is behind and over weight, no big deal. They have a lot of time to fix these things. Yes they are over budget, Hey! It's Lockheed, They'll make their money, and foreign partners are "NOT" contractually obligated to pay for cost over runs.

CHUCK OLDER says "I still say it's ugly, but that doesn't really matter..."
Hey did you happen to see the X-32? As a Boeing employee I still think we had a better product, but yes, F-35 is way better looking than what we brought to the table. It is a pretty little plane.

As for price concerns, Having such a big production run and Large initial order does save millions on per unit cost. The more you make the less you will pay.

As for the F-35, IMOHO, The Navy and USAF versions will be fine aircraft. BUT, from a maintenance point of view, the VSTOL version will be a pain in the heinie hanger queen. Too many doors and actuators to rig along with that clutch for the lift fan,..&lt;\sarcasm&gt;OH BOY! Another gear box to take care of. Hey! lets swivel the motor too. Lets make it rotate right over the afterburner. It'll work great and be easy to maintain for lots of flights.
&lt;/sarcasm.&gt;

Just my opinion.

http://img13.photobucket.com/albums/v37/JarheadEd/p40.jpg

WWMaxGunz
05-16-2004, 10:16 AM
There is also the Osprey....

Britain and the Euros can refuse delivery on grounds it doesn't meet spec. Here we just get a bigger deficit plus interest until a president with some nads deals with it (ends up raising taxes) then we vote him out for another bigger spender once things stabilize. Wheeeee!


Neal

Chuck_Older
05-16-2004, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JarheadEd:


CHUCK OLDER says "I still say it's ugly, but that doesn't really matter..."
Hey did you happen to see the X-32? As a Boeing employee I still think we had a better product, but yes, F-35 is way better looking than what we brought to the table. It is a pretty little plane.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really care if it looks like a piano with wings, as long as it does what it needs to do. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm going throught some of your specs right now at work for some structural testing data. I am currently trying to turn that info into English http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Don't you guys like to be called "The Boeing Company" though? All the PS stuff I'm wading through just says, "Boeing"

(I am prohibited by NDA from saying who I work for or what we're making, because of legal mumbo jumbo about your Company not wanting us to say we are working for you on the project, sorry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif)

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

huggy87
05-16-2004, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Let's criticise Lockheed _after_ they fail. I have sorta kinda been involved in some stuff for the JSF (and F-22 and Comanche and Superhornet-still am involved with something on the Superhornet now, but with a different company) and it is quite an impressive technical feat to do what this aircraft (JSF)does. I still say it's ugly, but that doesn't really matter...

Let's get out the stake and chant burn the witch if they fail to make it work, but after they fail, not before.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Chuck, how are you involved with the rhino?

FI-Aflak
05-16-2004, 04:55 PM
I really wanted the Boeing JSF to win.

It was ugly, sure, but more innovative.

AND I live in Saint Louis, which is where Boeing (at the old McD's plant) builds their fighter aircraft.

It would have been cool. Such a shame.

Menthol_moose
05-16-2004, 05:02 PM
Wait till the plane is actually in service before everyone goes into critical evaluation :P

But really.. which fighter program hasnt run into problems and cost blow outs ?

Btw.. the boeing JSF was one of the most ugly aircraft ever to fly ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

NegativeGee
05-17-2004, 06:33 AM
Okay getting a little off the original topic, the compariosns looks wise between the Boeing and Lockheed contenders for JSF put me in mind of the Advanced Tactical Fighter program.

Now, for me the Northrop YF-23 Black Widow II is one of the best (if not best, period) looking jet fighters ever:

http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/b/yf236.jpg

Much more so than the F-22 Raptor:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-lkbed2a.jpg

Which looks okay I guess.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Jasko76
05-17-2004, 06:51 AM
What I really can't understand is why people go for F-16 instead of our SAAB JAS 39 Gripen.

It's newer, lighter, more economic, has way better radar and avionics, turns like a bat and much cheaper. Politics, I guess... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


Regards,

Jasko
http://www.zoro.hr/filipovic/filipovic-slike/sarajevo-16.jpg

Formerly known as Rajvosa

Chuck_Older
05-17-2004, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by huggy87:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Chuck, how are you involved with the rhino?[/QUOTE]

I'm not, anymore. I was layed off from that company last year. This was about 6-7 years ago, but as I recall, we (I) had made some 3/4 scale inlet ducts from a carbon composite using a new material as core for the project(can't say what material but it can't be made in the U.S.). It was manufactured and layed up to shape 2D, and then thermoformed. They came out really good, although the first two cracked in the oven during forming. Lockheed liked them (and put one of them in a SAMPE brochure) but ultimately went with a competeing and more traditional hand layup type of duct construction. Our scale ducts were neat because they used a Z directional carbon fiber pultruded rod, made in-house, to stop edge delamination, as an integral part of the process. We had no formed leading edge, but a Ti leading edge for the duct was supposedly fitted. I never saw them again after we shipped except for the brochure pic, so I don't know if that ever happened.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash