What a shock!!! Lockheed is over budget on the F-35

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:32:36 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:08:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

snip
No strakes huh? Didn't think so.

I can dig you up articles where Lockmart suggests they will be trying
strakes and then another where Lockmart calls strakes the least apealing
solution to their "buffeting" problems, but you could do that yourself.

"Suggesting it" and actually doing it are two entirely different
matters.

You already know Lockmart did use strakes, from your other post.



You shouldn't have any trouble quoting it then. All I've ever said is
that "they were considering them as a last resort."

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:01:23 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

snip
"i am participating in the newsgroup rec.aviation.military where the
discussion centers around the existence or lack thereof of "strakes"
or "air dams" in and around the vertical stabilizers of the F22.

the general consensus is that there were some affixed temporarily
after a problem was discovered,

So, in fact, reguardless of your partisan pratle, there were strakes on the
F-22.



Prove it. As far as partisan goes I wanted the YF-23 to win. I'm
just interested in the facts. If you have actual proof that ANY F-22
has or had strakes then prove it. If not then then admit you have no
proof and are going on heresay.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...


Prove it.

You just did.

You can read, can't you?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:13:08 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


Prove it.

You just did.

You can read, can't you?


I think we all missed it. Be more specific and quote what I said that
"proves" the F-22 has ever had strakes.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:13:08 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


Prove it.

You just did.

You can read, can't you?


I think we all missed it.

I expect it is just you that missed your post, Ferrin.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:00:35 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:13:08 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


Prove it.

You just did.

You can read, can't you?


I think we all missed it.

I expect it is just you that missed your post, Ferrin.



I take it that's a big "N-O" that you can't quote it huh?

On 12 Jan 2004 19:53:24 -0800, (John Cook) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

The overweight issue resurfaced in June when Lockheed Martin finally
completed the full PDR after an extensive nose-to-tail structural
rework to deal with the fact that the airframe was actually going to
be a massive 35 per cent heavier than estimated.

That says to me that the weight issue was identified and corrected. Note
that is says that the airframe "was" going to be overweight.

It goes on to say that the F-35's weight will be reduced a further 700 to 800
pounds.

Not a problem.

Apparently the weight problem still exists, see:-
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/7687756.htm

The Ctol empty weight should be 29000lbs and is currently at approx
31000lbs

Around 7% overweight, and includes the saving from abandoning the
quick mate process (700-800lbs)

Spokesman for LM John Smith said "We don't think we're where we need
to be,"

Pentagon officials decided to budget more money and delay plane orders
because they are concerned that Lockheed will find it even more
difficult to meet weight goals for the Navy and Marine F-35 variants.


Cheers

Cite please.

Al Minyard

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:48:32 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On 12 Jan 2004 19:53:24 -0800, (John Cook) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

The overweight issue resurfaced in June when Lockheed Martin finally
completed the full PDR after an extensive nose-to-tail structural
rework to deal with the fact that the airframe was actually going to
be a massive 35 per cent heavier than estimated.

That says to me that the weight issue was identified and corrected. Note
that is says that the airframe "was" going to be overweight.

It goes on to say that the F-35's weight will be reduced a further 700 to 800
pounds.

Not a problem.

Apparently the weight problem still exists, see:-
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/7687756.htm

The Ctol empty weight should be 29000lbs and is currently at approx
31000lbs

Around 7% overweight, and includes the saving from abandoning the
quick mate process (700-800lbs)

Spokesman for LM John Smith said "We don't think we're where we need
to be,"

Pentagon officials decided to budget more money and delay plane orders
because they are concerned that Lockheed will find it even more
difficult to meet weight goals for the Navy and Marine F-35 variants.


Cheers

Cite please.

Oh ye of little faith....

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/7690301.htm



I don't usually post such a large peice! but as its for you :-)

*****Quote
It was no shock to veteran defense observers when word came out of the
Pentagon last week that the F-35 joint strike fighter is behind
schedule and over budget.

The F-35 program, observers say, is a classic example of the
Pentagon/defense industry practice of starting weapons programs by
promising to do too much, too soon, and at far too low a price.

"I'm not surprised at all," said Philip Coyle, the former head of the
Pentagon's weapons testing office and a consultant with the Center for
Defense Information. "It's too bad these kinds of things keep
happening with these programs."

Defense Department officials were cautioned well ahead of time that
their expectations might be overly optimistic.

"No one should be surprised this has gone the way it has," said
Katherine Schinasi, who heads the GAO's oversight of defense
acquisition. "The risk of [not] meeting the cost and performance goals
was too high when they made the decision" to begin development.

In its December 2000 and October 2001 reports, the GAO noted that the
Pentagon had relaxed the performance standards and increased the
budgets for Lockheed and Boeing as the two companies built the concept
aircraft used to compete for the full-scale development contract.

Schinasi said that in the late 1990s, when the program was in its
infancy, military and civilian officials overseeing the JSF program
pledged to follow private business practices and make sure the needed
technology was mature. Only when the risks had been minimized would
the government begin spending billions to design and build airplanes.

"The problem was, once it got into the acquisition process, those
goals fell by the wayside," she said.

Now, two years into the planned 10-year F-35 development program, the
Defense Department estimates it will cost $40.5 billion, an increase
of $7.5 billion, and take a year longer to complete than expected.

To pay for the added costs, Pentagon officials reallocated $5.1
billion from the 2005 through 2009 development budgets by delaying
purchases of F-35s for the Air Force and Navy. The first production
order for the planes, originally slated for 2005, will be deferred to
2006. The Pentagon says it will buy 90 airplanes through 2009, down
from the 160 it had planned.

Senior Defense Department officials and Lockheed Martin officials
downplayed the significance of the budget decision and the extent of
problems being encountered in the design of the F-35.

The Pentagon's top procurement official said the new time and cost
goals for the F-35 reflect the challenge of designing a family of
planes for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. The design effort "is
taking longer and is more complex than we had originally anticipated,"
said Michael Wynne, acting undersecretary for weapons acquisition.

Lockheed is meeting the contract schedule, spokesman John Smith said.
The company is "on track" for a key milestone, the "critical design
review" of the Air Force version of the F-35 in April, he said.

That is the first of the three planes Lockheed will produce, and it is
the simplest to design and build, but Lockheed and its partners are
having a difficult time getting the empty weight of the plane down to
the desired goal of about 29,000 pounds.

The latest weight review, completed last month, showed there had been
little progress in shaving the needed 1,500 to 2,000 pounds off the
design.

"We don't think we're where we need to be," Smith said.

Pentagon officials decided to budget more money and delay plane orders
because they are concerned that Lockheed will find it even more
difficult to meet weight goals for the Navy and Marine F-35 variants.

The Navy's version of the plane has a larger wing and must have a
stronger structure for carrier landings; the Marines' version requires
heavy equipment, including a 5,000-pound lift fan, to support short
takeoffs and vertical landings, but it is supposed to weigh only a
couple of thousand pounds more than the Air Force version.

Weight is a crucial factor in any aircraft, but it is especially
important in combat jets. A few hundred extra pounds can reduce a
plane's speed, range or weapons payload.

Smith said design and weight have been troublesome because the plane's
systems, weapons and fuel storage must be inside the structure so that
the F-35 remains hard to detect by radar. The dimensions of the planes
were set a year ago.

"The challenge is, we've got a finite amount of space in which to put
a lot of things," Smith said.
******End quote



Ok Al do you admit its overweight now?...

A simple yes or no would do for me....:-)

( I have a sneaky suspicion thats not gonna happen)


Cheers

Al Minyard



John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk