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

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.

And only two years into the program.

Mitch Benjamin wrote:

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.

And only two years into the program.


Ok so if the program is supposed to last 5 years, the increase would be
85 %?
Waouu

Mitch Benjamin wrote:

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.

And only two years into the program.

Maybe the US should be buying its fighters from Wall mart instead
of Lockmart.... Special in isle 3 on AAM's....

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:26:57 GMT, "Mitch Benjamin"
wrote:

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.

And only two years into the program.



I also heard that at the last design review that the STOVL is 350kg
overweight, but still within the "not over this weight" catagory, but
more alarming is the CV which is 35% overweight....

I also heard they were reviewing the quick build method (where large
sections are bolted together with quick mate surfaces) to a more
time consuming and labour intensive conventional method to save a few
hundred kilos the quick build method entails.



Cheers


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

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:51:06 +1100, John Cook wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:26:57 GMT, "Mitch Benjamin"
wrote:

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.

And only two years into the program.



I also heard that at the last design review that the STOVL is 350kg
overweight, but still within the "not over this weight" catagory, but
more alarming is the CV which is 35% overweight....

I also heard they were reviewing the quick build method (where large
sections are bolted together with quick mate surfaces) to a more
time consuming and labour intensive conventional method to save a few
hundred kilos the quick build method entails.



Cheers


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

What you "heard" is bullsh** You are not on the design team, and certainly
are not cleared for such information.

Al Minyard

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:41:12 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:51:06 +1100, John Cook wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:26:57 GMT, "Mitch Benjamin"
wrote:

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.

And only two years into the program.



I also heard that at the last design review that the STOVL is 350kg
overweight, but still within the "not over this weight" catagory, but
more alarming is the CV which is 35% overweight....

I also heard they were reviewing the quick build method (where large
sections are bolted together with quick mate surfaces) to a more
time consuming and labour intensive conventional method to save a few
hundred kilos the quick build method entails.



Cheers


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

What you "heard" is bullsh** You are not on the design team, and certainly
are not cleared for such information.

Hmmm... It maybe bull! but it was published in "Aero Australia" so
you don't need to be so aggressive in your post and while I'm not on
the design team I can gain certain insights into a program from
numerous sources....

I'll post an exerpt from the article below, and you can assess it for
yourself...

Perhaps if you have any real insight you could share it with everyone
here on RAM, I really would like to know if the rumours are
true...


Quote:-

in april 2003 the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) The JSF empty weight
was found to be more than anticipated, it found the STOVL
about 300kg (660lb) heavier than expected and although below the
target initial operational and 'not to exceed' weights, left
insufficient margin to comfortably meet the required' flat deck, hot
day, no wind' takeoff capability.

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.

in September 2003, Pratt & Whitney achieved a major milestone when it
completed assembly of the first production standard F135 engine, while
Rolls-Royce completed testing of the vital clutch, lubrication system
and driveshaft for the lift fan in the F-35B.

The weight issue resurfaced in October when it was revealed that
Lockheed Martin's intention to establish a highly efficient final
assembly line for the F-35 could be compromised. The company was
reportedly planning to abandon the 'quickmate' joints system under
which major sections would be mated using machined planes with
pre-drilled holes that are simply fastened together.

The 'quick-mate' joints will be replaced by an 'integrated joint
procedure that will cut the F?35's weight by 320-360kg (700-800lb) but
at the cost of a more time consuming and expensive assembly period.
This in turn could put further pressure on unit costs.

in late October 2003, Lockheed Martin announced it was reviewing
further options to tackle the weight problem including delivering the
first batch of F-35s overweight so as to maintain schedules while
continuing to develop solutions for subsequent aircraft.

Also in October, it was revealed that Lockheed Martin has been
exploring the possibility of offering some' mix and match options to
F-35 customers. These include combining the standard F-35A fuselage
with the larger F-35C naval wing, giving increased fuel capacity,
endurance and weapons options.

The JSF programme is still only in its very early days, but it is
already proving to be a highly interesting one on which an awful lot
is riding. if successful, the F-35 could prove to be the first and
perhaps only 'universal fighter'.

End Quote

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

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:55:54 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:41:12 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:51:06 +1100, John Cook wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:26:57 GMT, "Mitch Benjamin"
wrote:

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.

And only two years into the program.



I also heard that at the last design review that the STOVL is 350kg
overweight, but still within the "not over this weight" catagory, but
more alarming is the CV which is 35% overweight....

I also heard they were reviewing the quick build method (where large
sections are bolted together with quick mate surfaces) to a more
time consuming and labour intensive conventional method to save a few
hundred kilos the quick build method entails.



Cheers


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

What you "heard" is bullsh** You are not on the design team, and certainly
are not cleared for such information.

Hmmm... It maybe bull! but it was published in "Aero Australia" so
you don't need to be so aggressive in your post and while I'm not on
the design team I can gain certain insights into a program from
numerous sources....

I'll post an exerpt from the article below, and you can assess it for
yourself...

Perhaps if you have any real insight you could share it with everyone
here on RAM, I really would like to know if the rumours are
true...


Quote:-



I've seen the thing about assembly going back to the old way rather
than doing it modular like they did with the F-22 but I've never seen
the 35% increase in weight mentioned anywhere. I'd think 35% would
make headlines EVERYWHERE so I'm somewhat skeptical on that one.
Besides 35%?? I'm not sure what the empty weight of the C is suppose
to be but for sake of arguement let's say 30,000lbs. That would bump
it up to 40,500lbs. If it's true and I were the Navy I'd be looking
for blood.



in april 2003 the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) The JSF empty weight
was found to be more than anticipated, it found the STOVL
about 300kg (660lb) heavier than expected and although below the
target initial operational and 'not to exceed' weights, left
insufficient margin to comfortably meet the required' flat deck, hot
day, no wind' takeoff capability.

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.

in September 2003, Pratt & Whitney achieved a major milestone when it
completed assembly of the first production standard F135 engine, while
Rolls-Royce completed testing of the vital clutch, lubrication system
and driveshaft for the lift fan in the F-35B.

The weight issue resurfaced in October when it was revealed that
Lockheed Martin's intention to establish a highly efficient final
assembly line for the F-35 could be compromised. The company was
reportedly planning to abandon the 'quickmate' joints system under
which major sections would be mated using machined planes with
pre-drilled holes that are simply fastened together.

The 'quick-mate' joints will be replaced by an 'integrated joint
procedure that will cut the F?35's weight by 320-360kg (700-800lb) but
at the cost of a more time consuming and expensive assembly period.
This in turn could put further pressure on unit costs.

in late October 2003, Lockheed Martin announced it was reviewing
further options to tackle the weight problem including delivering the
first batch of F-35s overweight so as to maintain schedules while
continuing to develop solutions for subsequent aircraft.

Also in October, it was revealed that Lockheed Martin has been
exploring the possibility of offering some' mix and match options to
F-35 customers. These include combining the standard F-35A fuselage
with the larger F-35C naval wing, giving increased fuel capacity,
endurance and weapons options.

The JSF programme is still only in its very early days, but it is
already proving to be a highly interesting one on which an awful lot
is riding. if successful, the F-35 could prove to be the first and
perhaps only 'universal fighter'.

End Quote

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

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:55:54 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:41:12 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:51:06 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:26:57 GMT, "Mitch Benjamin"
wrote:

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost
$5.1
billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a
cut in
the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.

And only two years into the program.



I also heard that at the last design review that the STOVL is 350kg
overweight, but still within the "not over this weight" catagory, but
more alarming is the CV which is 35% overweight....

I also heard they were reviewing the quick build method (where large
sections are bolted together with quick mate surfaces) to a more
time consuming and labour intensive conventional method to save a few
hundred kilos the quick build method entails.



Cheers


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

What you "heard" is bullsh** You are not on the design team, and
certainly
are not cleared for such information.

Hmmm... It maybe bull! but it was published in "Aero Australia" so
you don't need to be so aggressive in your post and while I'm not on
the design team I can gain certain insights into a program from
numerous sources....

I'll post an exerpt from the article below, and you can assess it for
yourself...

Perhaps if you have any real insight you could share it with everyone
here on RAM, I really would like to know if the rumours are
true...


Quote:-



I've seen the thing about assembly going back to the old way rather
than doing it modular like they did with the F-22 but I've never seen
the 35% increase in weight mentioned anywhere. I'd think 35% would
make headlines EVERYWHERE

It wouldn't matter what was pubished, Ferrin. You would still make the same
ass of yourself WRT Lockmart products.

I've seen the thing about assembly going back to the old way rather
than doing it modular like they did with the F-22 but I've never seen
the 35% increase in weight mentioned anywhere. I'd think 35% would
make headlines EVERYWHERE

It wouldn't matter what was pubished, Ferrin. You would still make the same
ass of yourself WRT Lockmart products.


Hey splapsy, were's those strake pictures?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...


I've seen the thing about assembly going back to the old way rather
than doing it modular like they did with the F-22 but I've never seen
the 35% increase in weight mentioned anywhere. I'd think 35% would
make headlines EVERYWHERE

It wouldn't matter what was pubished, Ferrin. You would still make the
same
ass of yourself WRT Lockmart products.


Hey splapsy, were's those strake pictures?

If it were not for John Cook and the Brit and Aussie press, Americans would
not have access to what Lockmart's airplane programs are doing. There is a
little in the
WSJ, but lockheed seems pretty good at creating a bad news blackout.

I John Cook for posting truth here.