In article , Bill
Clark wrote:
I saw a PBS special on the X-plane competition between Boeing and
Lockheed for the Joint Task Force (JTF) fighter; the jet of the
future. I think the whole thing was a total waste of money, and that
by signing off on this competition the Pentagon has doomed America to
a useless arsenal.
You apparently are talking about the JSF, Joint Strike Fighter.
They are currently in the prototype stage, with the X-32 and
X-35 recently having competed in a fly-off. The Lockheed X-35
won the competition, but in reality, these planes are so complex
that parts come from all over the aviation industry.
Boeing's plane was so heavy they had to remove panels before it could
even hover. Neither aircraft could stay in the air more than half an
hour without refueling (Boeing's Navy style in-flight refueling system
was not operational and so they had to land every half an hour to
refuel). Neither plane had any armaments or weapons during all of
this.
Keep in mind that these were PROTOTYPES, hense the experimental
X- designation. Once a winner is selected, they then go to full
scale development, which are Y- designations. That could take a
number of years, and the final plane might look very different
from the prototypes. Look at how much changed between the YF-22
and the F/A-22 that finally emerged. Dittos for weapons, that
comes in the Y- program.
The problem is that the Pentagon requires the JTF to be vertical take
off/landing capable. By doing so they are requiring 25% of the
aircraft to be devoted to the necessary systems; in the case of the
winning Lockheed aircraft, a huge fan in the middle of the fuselage.
I think you mis-understand what is going on. There are a number
of different versions of the JFS. There is one for the US Air
Force, a variant for the US-Navy, and a 3rd variant for the
Marines. In addition, foriegn powers are starting to sign onto
the program. For example, the UK has agreed to pick up the Air
Force variant.
Each of these variants has a different mission, and a different
internal configuration. The Air Force and Navy versions do not
have the vertical take off mechanism, only the Marine version
does. That version is designed to replace the Harrier. As you
know, the Harrier has rather short legs, too. When you hover,
the ability to hover is not needed for a very long time. If you
stay in one plane, you become a juicy target.
Granted, it's an elegant engineering accomplishment but it has zero
combat effectiveness. Requiring all jets to be built by these
standards is suicidal because it reduces the range and payload of
every attack jet. It's really depressing to me that our military
planners have come up with such an idiotic plan and that neither
Lockheed or Boeing made the slightest objection. Clearly they are not
American companies any longer but multi national corporations whose
sympathies belong to the highest bidder.
I think you misunderstood what the whole program is about. Please
do some reading on the net, or pick up a book or magazine on the
topic. You will learn that this is actually the low cost airplane
of the future for all of our armed forces, and many of our allies.
-john-
--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================