On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:15:18 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:




This article appeared in the April edition of Australian Aviation :

Lockheed Martin for the first time publicly revealed payload radius
figures for it's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter under development for the
US and UK militaries .

A chart supporting a JSF program breifing by Mac Stevenson, LM's vice
preasident for business and development, showed that the conventional
US Air Force F-35 model will, on current estimates, have a payload
range with internal weapons and fuel of 1300 km (703 nm) , the US navy
carrier version 1480 km (800 nm) , and the US Marines STOVL version
929 km (496 nm) . LM says these figures are not yet reconsiled with
the US Government, and are based on the US services' standard flight
profiles (which differacross the services) roughly equivelent to
hi-lo-hi. Stevenson said these figures were twice those of current
tactical fighters.

Interestingly, Lockheed says it's F-16C Block 60, with its conformal
fuel tanksand external fuel and "heavyweight weapons", will have a
combat radius of 1480 km (800 nm) .
The F/A-18C has an inderdictioncombat radius hi-lo-lo-hi of 537 km
(290 nm) .

Stevenson says Lockheed has "great confidence" in it's modeling of JSF
performance perametersas its projections for its X-35 concept
Demonstrator aircraft very closely matched modeled predictions.
Lockheed is working towards F-35 design line freeze inthe third qurter
of 2002, when it will solidify size, the outer mould lines and basic
internal structure. No major changes are expected over what LM offered
as part of its JSF bid, which differed little from the concept
demonstartor aircraft.
LM says the JSF will have a unit price tag in the low $US40 millions
in 2002 dollars .

Article by Gerard Frawley .

Cheers


Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Wake up, Chad. It doesn't even have to 'miss'. What range is given
: for it? Where? What load conditions? How much fuel? Any tanks?
: What assumptions about flight regime? How much 'draggier' is the 'big
: wing' (apparently enough to not give a range increase, if the
: 'handwaving' numbers are to be believed, since they don't call the C
: out separately (nor the B either, for that matter)).
:
:You know, I already explained the comparison. I explained where I got
:the numbers.

You've claimed several different provenances for your numbers. The
only explicit one was FAS. I posted elsewhere what you get using
their numbers - F-35 with shorter range than F/A-18E/F.

:And all you can manage is arguing against your *own* arguments.

Is English your second language? Are you part of that generation that
never actually learned how to read? Those are the only two excuses I
can find for your preceding statement.

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