JSF is too heavy for the Royal Navy

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
On 5/22/04 12:00 PM, in article
et, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:


No, I'm not denying that it's overweight. However, I'm questioning
whether the weight issue is as bad as presented. Planes are
*always* overweight at this point in the design process. I think
the reports tend to confuse the current design weight with the final
target weight. If it's 3000 pounds over now, that does not mean it
will be 3000 pounds over at IOC.


I get snippets from folks in the program quite often. It won't
necessarily be 3000lbs over at IOC. That's what they're working on
right now... Trying to trim the excess.

In fact, the 3000 lbs is mostly due to the lift fan machinery on the
B-model. A and C models aren't suffering as much. I think I may have
mis-spoken on that point earlier.

Apropos of this:

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/pr_052404.asp

"WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., May 24, 2004 -- For the first time, Pratt & Whitney'
s (P&W) Short Take-Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) Propulsion System for the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has demonstrated 39,700 pounds of thrust, the
level required for the unique combat aircraft to hover. At the same time,
weight reduction initiatives have brought the F135 engine system below its
contracted target weight."
....
The latest review of the F135 STOVL System revealed that the
achieved-to-date (ATD) weight is below the contracted weight target value.
An on-going weight management plan will result in a STOVL weight at 3% to 6%
below the contracted target. The weight achievements are critical for F-35
performance. The F135 STOVL team continues to investigate additional weight
reduction and performance enhancement opportunities with Lockheed Martin,
Rolls-Royce and the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office."

If I read this correctly, they're under the weight they expected to be at by
this stage of the process, and are projecting that they will be well under
the contracted weight when they go to production. Granted, that's PWs
version, but it certianly seems promising.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Tom,

Granted, that's PWs version, but it certianly seems promising.

That it does. But as another poster stated, "I'll believe it when I see it
in the break." On in this case, in a hover above a working deck. Many
moons will pass before we'll know for sure.

--
Mike Kanze

"A centerpiece for the table should never be anything prepared by a
taxidermist."

- Martha Stewart's TIPS FOR REDNECKS


"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
[rest snipped]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:45:12 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote:


"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message
...
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
due mainly to cost over runs.

A-12 was never a *military* designation for any member of the
Blackbird family. A-12 was a Lockheed and/or CIA name for the CIA
bird that was later build, in modified form, for the USAF as the SR-71.

Think the "-12" thing related to the SR-71 refers to the YF-12 high
level, high speed interceptor. Think it was related to the SR-71 but
never got past the concept phase.

Interesting links :
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ern/Aero16.htm
(first link on Google looking for "yf-12 interceptor")
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/YF-12/

Haven't got a clue about their accuracy there ... One extract
basically says that the A-12 evolved into the YF-12, which evolved
into the SR-71. But they're talking about an A-12 there that's decades
separated from :

Naval A-12 link :
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12.htm
And :
http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm
PS I've been known as SleepyPete but not as SneakyPete ... (read da
link ! :-)

Pete Lilleyman

(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)

In article ,
Alisha's Addict writes:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:45:12 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote:


"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message
.. .
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
due mainly to cost over runs.

A-12 was never a *military* designation for any member of the
Blackbird family. A-12 was a Lockheed and/or CIA name for the CIA
bird that was later build, in modified form, for the USAF as the SR-71.

Think the "-12" thing related to the SR-71 refers to the YF-12 high
level, high speed interceptor. Think it was related to the SR-71 but
never got past the concept phase.

It got well past the concept stage. 3 YF-12As were built. (60-6934,
60-6935, and 60-6936) First flights were in August '63, Nov. '63, adn
March '64, respectively. in late 1966, 60-6934 was converted into teh
2-pilot SR-71C conversion trainer. the other 2 were transferred from
teh Air Force to NASA in late 1969. 6936 was lost due to an inflight
fire in August, 1971, and 6935 was retired to teh Air Force Museum in
1979. These airplanes wer full-up interceptors, with 3 of the bays
openable in flight, and with racks & release gear for the AIM-47
Falcon. The nose and the 4th bay held teh ASG-18 Weapons COntrol
System, which consisted of a pulse doppler "look-down/shoot-down"
radar in the nose, and an IR sensor in the leading edge of each of the
chines, which were cut back so that they didn't interfere with the
radome. The ASG-12/AIM-47 combination was fiarly mature, having been
begun as the weapons fit for the North American F-108 Rapier.
Part of the Phase II program included 12 live firings of AIM-47s,
launched at from Mach 3+/80,000' against low level targets. Maximum
missile range was 120 NM, and the hit rate was something on the order
of 90%.

The F-12 didn't go into service for a number of reasons. It was
expensive to build and run, and like the other Oxcarts, it didn't lend
itself to a spontaneous launch from an Alert Hanger - Blackbird
flights took a lot of before-flight preparation - you couldn't just
kick the tires & light the fires. The most compelling reason is that
the Soviets had stopped developing more advanced Strategic Bombers
than the Tu-95 and M-4, and were concentrating entirely on ballistic
missiles.

The ASG-18/AIM-47 are direct ancestors of the AWG-9/AIM-54 missile
combination used on the F-111B and F-14.


Interesting links :
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ern/Aero16.htm
(first link on Google looking for "yf-12 interceptor")
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/YF-12/

Haven't got a clue about their accuracy there ... One extract
basically says that the A-12 evolved into the YF-12, which evolved
into the SR-71. But they're talking about an A-12 there that's decades
separated from :

Well, a parallel development, really. The main differences were the
bays, the mose, and a retractable ventral fin to counteract what was
expected to be a loss in directional stability due to the cut back
chine. It was found to be unnecessary after it fell off in flight,
and nobody knew it was gone until the airplane was back in the hangar.

Of course, it was no relation to the Flying Dorito, which got its A-12
designation by virtue of being the 12th airplane designated in teh
Post 1962 Attack series.

Naval A-12 link :
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12.htm
And :
http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster