F35 cost goes up.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

The contract for 210 more Super Hornets is just for part of the
original plan, not an additional buy.

It is an the second option and a very nice product recomendation for
McDonnell.

It's apparently going to be the *last* option, and represents a
*cutback* from the reduced buy order. It was going to be 1000+, then
538, and now it's going to be a total of less than 450.

I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

No, Chad would rather talk out his ass, like all his other posts.

Wow, Tarver, you can't come up with anything useful and now you're even
insulting me over something someone *else* said.

It's just, well, sad.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

No, most of what I've been calling 'misread' is due to you not reading
what is written to you. Have you answered ANY questions put to you
with regard to your claims? Sources for your 'official' numbers?

Your big complaint was that the F-35's numbers were estimated and would
be horribly wrong, but then you took the same source's estimates for the
F-18 as gospel. You tried to claim that the estimated range for the
F-35 was going to be massively off, with no proof other than your own
suspicions, you suggested that someone in the Navy was covering up some
sort of huge miss on the specs.

Why should I bother?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Trapping at max take off weight is not the usual thing. I would think
that the ability to do so would indicate that either the max take off
weight was held unrealistically low or it's going to be difficult to
trap.

Max takeoff weight for the F-35 is about five tons lower than the
F-18E/F *normal* attack mission takeoff weight. They get huge weight
savings from not having to haul around an extra two or three tons of
fuel (plus tanks).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
:
: "Chad Irby" wrote in message
: om...
:
: The contract for 210 more Super Hornets is just for part of the
: original plan, not an additional buy.
:
: It is an the second option and a very nice product recomendation for
: McDonnell.
:
:It's apparently going to be the *last* option, and represents a
:*cutback* from the reduced buy order. It was going to be 1000+, then
:538, and now it's going to be a total of less than 450.
:
:I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...

So when do they start delivering F-35C aircraft and how much for each?
Oh, and what was the original schedule and cost for same?

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: No, most of what I've been calling 'misread' is due to you not reading
: what is written to you. Have you answered ANY questions put to you
: with regard to your claims? Sources for your 'official' numbers?
:
:Your big complaint was that the F-35's numbers were estimated and would
:be horribly wrong, but then you took the same source's estimates for the
:F-18 as gospel. You tried to claim that the estimated range for the
:F-35 was going to be massively off, with no proof other than your own
:suspicions, you suggested that someone in the Navy was covering up some
:sort of huge miss on the specs.
:
:Why should I bother?

You shouldn't, until you learn to read and actually take part in a
discussion. Until then, you're just wasting everyone's time.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Trapping at max take off weight is not the usual thing. I would think
: that the ability to do so would indicate that either the max take off
: weight was held unrealistically low or it's going to be difficult to
: trap.
:
:Max takeoff weight for the F-35 is about five tons lower than the
:F-18E/F *normal* attack mission takeoff weight. They get huge weight
:savings from not having to haul around an extra two or three tons of
:fuel (plus tanks).

And you obviously miss the point of my original remark. Why am I not
surprised by that?

Total gross takeoff weight of any particular airplane (or even gross
'bring back' weight) are not the issue. The issue is a particular
airframe's gross takeoff weight compared to its maximum 'bring back'
weight, not the trap weight of any particular airframe. I'll try to
explain, just in case you actually read something someone else said
for a change.

Let me put it like this. Generally, max takeoff weight is a function
of low speed lift and power and how hard the catapult can throw you.
You try to make it as large as possible compared to dry weight, since
that way more of your weight is expendables that you aren't going to
bring back.

'Bring back' is a different issue. In an ideal world, you'd like to
be able to take off with max internal fuel plus max weapons up to max
gross takeoff weight and get back down with the same weapons and
something like 25% of max internal fuel. If you size structure to be
able to trap at max gross takeoff weight, your dry structure is far
heavier than it needs to be, which makes you a much less efficient
airplane in actual operational use.

In the case of the F-35C (using weights from FAS), what one gets is
some 24,000 lbs dry weight plus 16,000 lbs max internal fuel plus some
10,000 lbs of ordnance (for a total of 50k lbs max gross takeoff
weight). Your earlier claim is that the F-35C will be able to trap at
this weight. However, what I would expect is that at most it would
only be able to trap at around 38k-40k lbs, some 5 tons lighter than
your claim. If it can actually trap at unnecessarily heavy vehicle
weights (you can always vent fuel if you need to get right back down
after launch), then the dry structure of the vehicle is too heavy and
could be lightened, allowing more ordnance to be carried.

[Actually, I would expect it to be even 'worse' than that, as trapping
with that much ordnance is practically always going to be unnecessary,
since if you're launching with that large an ordnance load you ARE
planning on leaving it somewhere - for 'patrol' flights you'd carry
much less ordnance). I quoted 'worse' above, because it isn't,
really. It just means that the weight of structure has been properly
judged to give the most useful airframe possible. Your position seems
to say that they've made the aircraft structures unnecessarily heavy,
which I find dubious thinking at best.]

Oh, as another small hint, max takeoff weight may be 50k lbs, but if
they launch with max ordnance (17k lbs) and short fuel, the first
thing they'll do is tank up at the rally point outbound. So your
earlier claim really amounts to being able to trap with MORE than max
takeoff weight, which is profoundly silly.

Take your time and think it through for a change.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

:It's apparently going to be the *last* option, and represents a
:*cutback* from the reduced buy order. It was going to be 1000+, then
:538, and now it's going to be a total of less than 450.
:
:I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...

So when do they start delivering F-35C aircraft and how much for each?

Don't know, but if the schedule were slipping (or if the costs were
getting out of hand), they'd be buying more of the F-18 models, instead
of rolling back on production numbers on the E/F version.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

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

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Trapping at max take off weight is not the usual thing. I would think
: that the ability to do so would indicate that either the max take off
: weight was held unrealistically low or it's going to be difficult to
: trap.
:
:Max takeoff weight for the F-35 is about five tons lower than the
:F-18E/F *normal* attack mission takeoff weight. They get huge weight
:savings from not having to haul around an extra two or three tons of
:fuel (plus tanks).

And you obviously miss the point of my original remark.

No, I got it.

You might be right - I've seen "recovery weights" for the F-35 ranging
from 33,000 pounds all the way up to 50,000 pounds, looking around the
Web tonight.

But there's a big difference between "most likely" and "possible." The
big limiter is certainly the landing gear, and the airframe needs more
reinforcement, but it's not an extreme engineering challenge, and it
adds a *lot* to aircraft survivability and life.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.