WT Forums

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.p ... 640736.php

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

yeah we were talkin about this in another thread somewhere. AF has had plans to buy some of the vert variants from as far back as when it was still called JAST. Back then it was to ensure we had SOMETHING to fly if the base runways got cratered, it was during the time that everyone and his brother were devising cratering cruise missles.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

I am still failing to see how Limiting Bomb hauling for the Airforce is going to be a benefit? It doesnt take a 100 Fricken miles to get 3 upped and locked.

The Vtol Varient has absolutely NO Fricken Purpose in a land Based Fixed wing Force. WTF are they thinking? Downtown Baghdad FOLS?

Gimmie a Fricken Break! Lets move Further up to the FLOT and Carry less bombs to the guys that need them raining on Rubble Chucker Heads.<img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle>

I have absolutely no Friggin Idea how or why the Airfroce is trying to take Cas lessons from the Marine Corps when that POS harrier hasnt earned or completed a damn Campaign!


Natural Selection is not working fast enough.....

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I am still failing to see how Limiting Bomb hauling for the Airforce is going to be a benefit? It doesnt take a 100 Fricken miles to get 3 upped and locked.

The Vtol Varient has absolutely NO Fricken Purpose in a land Based Fixed wing Force. WTF are they thinking? Downtown Baghdad FOLS?

Gimmie a Fricken Break! Lets move Further up to the FLOT and Carry less bombs to the guys that need them raining on Rubble Chucker Heads.<img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle>

I have absolutely no Friggin Idea how or why the Airfroce is trying to take Cas lessons from the Marine Corps when that POS harrier hasnt earned or completed a damn Campaign!

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well put, MrMudd (I think?). I concur, and here is some more confusing fuzzy logic and circular reasoning.
<i>
Marines Welcome Interest from USAF in STOVL JSF (Posted: Thursday, February 19, 2004)
[Aerospace Daily, Feb. 19, 2004]

A Marine Corps spokesman said Feb. 18 that the service welcomes the U.S. Air Force's recent expressions of interest in buying the Marines' short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The STOVL variant is "revolutionary, and it only makes sense to look at the technology and see how it fits with future missions and future roles," said Capt. Shawn Turner, a Marine Corps spokesman. Turner said it is too early to tell what impact an Air Force STOVL acquisition would have on the JSF program, including such matters as cost and schedule.

The Air Force indicated Feb. 12 that it would like to buy the STOVL variant to complement the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) version it already is slated to get (DAILY, Feb. 13, Feb. 17). The STOVL aircraft would give the Air Force greater flexibility by allowing it to use shorter runways. Air Force leaders noted that their STOVL idea still has to go through the budget and planning process.

Current plans call for the Air Force to buy 1,763 CTOLs and the Marine Corps and Navy to acquire 680 STOVL and carrier variant (CV) JSFs. The U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are slated to get 150 STOVLs. Additional foreign sales of JSF are expected.

Christopher Bolkcom, an aerospace analyst at the Congressional Research Service, told The DAILY that the Air Force's interest in the STOVL variant seems "kind of casual" at the moment, but it could be "very significant if it were to come to fruition." Bolkcom said an Air Force acquisition of the STOVL JSF raises several questions, including whether it would complement or compete with Marine Corps STOVL jets and whether it would persuade more foreign air forces to purchase the STOVL version.

Richard Aboulafia, an aviation consultant at the Teal Group, said recent military operations have strengthened the case for the Air Force to buy the STOVL variant. Compared with the Cold War, which provided years for the U.S. military to prepare for potential conflicts in Europe and Korea, the global war on terrorism has been less predictable, providing little time to ready the long runways that conventional fighters need.

If the war on terrorism fades, the Air Force's case for buying the STOVL variant could diminish, Aboulafia said.

- Marc Selinger </i>

_________________
????

I think you'd like that, Mr. SH bandwith-stealing flash. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

[quote]


I have absolutely no Friggin Idea how or why the Airfroce is trying to take Cas lessons from the Marine Corps when that POS harrier hasnt earned or completed a damn Campaign!
---------------

ROFL Mudd. It's the disconnect between warriors and Congress. Within the last few months, they had all of the service heads on some briefing. Naturally the Marine Commandant was pushing for the Osprey and how well it would do. Pointing out it's alleged 2,200NM range. I wanted to reach out and grab his neck and ask him what's the furthest an Osprey has ever flown? While wondering about the pressurization and heating in the SOB, ROFL.

Jack

There's a lot of stuff on this today. It must be a slow news day for presidential candidate scandals.


<i>
PRICE TAG JUMPS FOR AIRCRAFT; JSF TO BE DELAYED: The cost of developing the JSF aircraft will reach about $40B, $7B more than estimated, because the Pentagon wants a one-year delay and to refine the design, a senior Navy official said yesterday. About $5B of the increase will cover a one-year delay in the program; an additional $750M will be set aside for anti-tampering technology, said John J. Young Jr., assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition. The military has also changed some of the planes' requirements, adding about $155M to the cost, he said. "It's killing me, to be honest with you, to see this program grow" by this much, Young said. "I think there is a lot of anxiety here [but] it's based on a program that has very big numbers so any adjustment tends to be very big numbers," Young said. "But the reality is it's a well managed program, it's a well planned program." The development of the JSF, also known as the F-35, was budgeted to cost about $33B and is in early development. Last summer, prime contractor Lockheed Martin began building the first test model of the plane, which is to be used by the USAF, USMC, USN and Britain's navy. The JSF will replace several existing fighter planes, including the F-16 and some versions of the F-18. "This is the most complex fighter aircraft ever developed and because of the complexities the maturity of the airframe is not progressing at the rate that we had hoped," said John Smith, a Lockheed spokesman. (Washington Post)



LOCKHEED MARTIN RISKS BONUS FEES ON FIGHTER WEIGHT: Lockheed Martin risks losing as much as $350M in fees over the next three years if it can't reduce the weight of the JSF planes it is building for U.S. and U.K. armed forces, the Navy's top acquisition official said. All three models of the plane, the Pentagon's most expensive program, are estimated to weigh at least 1,300 pounds more than originally specified, John Young, the Navy's assistant secretary for acquisition, said. Although the extra weight probably won't significantly degrade the aircraft's performance, Lockheed Martin may lose performance bonuses on its contract if it doesn't make progress in reducing it, he said. ``During every award fee period, we have the chance to tie fee to events and it's obvious that weight is more of an issue,'' Young told reporters at the Pentagon. The fees constitute Lockheed Martin's main source of profit in the 12-year development phase for what is estimated to be a $199B program to develop and purchase 2,443 aircraft. (Bloomberg)



MARINES' COMMANDANT EXPRESSES SUPPORT FOR AIR FORCE CONSIDERATION OF STOVL JSF: The Air Force's decision to study the acquisition of the F-35B short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) version of Lockheed Martin's JSF has the support of Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee, whose service is one of the original STOVL customers. "Both the Secretary of the Air Force [James Roche] and [Air Force Chief of Staff Gen.] John Jumper talked with me before that occurred; we obviously support that," Hagee said during a meeting of the Defense Writers Group in Washington, D.C., yesterday. Roche and Jumper said last week during the Air Force Association's symposium that the Air Force would consider the STOVL version of JSF. The Air Force was originally slated to only acquire the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant. The Navy is slated to buy the F-35C carrier variant. The Marines' support for STOVL aircraft stems from the service's experience with the Boeing AV-8B Harrier II strike aircraft, which can deploy from either ground bases or big-deck amphibious warfare ships. The Air Force has not made an explicit reference to actually how many F-35Bs it would eventually acquire from Lockheed Martin. The Marines could acquire a few hundred JSFs to replace the Harrier fleet. (Defense Daily)
</i>

_________________
????

The Marine Corps loves the Idea of the Air Force getting involved with VTOL, as they are with any service willing to fund the brunt of a technology investment. It does 2 things for them. Saves unit Cost because the Airforce will foot some of the development funds. Secondly the Airforce will build a Shit load of facilities to house and deal with them, including Phase level and Depot maintainance.


Two things the Marine Corps is Good at. Letting the other services carry the weight of Development and Procurement. Once the Aircraft are ready for fielding, they sign the dotted line for units. Its always a win win situation for them.


My concern with the VTOL Varient is that. In order to utilise the VTOl capability you suffer in less Fuel and Less ordnance. Which simply means. IF you cant drop, for whatever reason, which is very common. You are looking for gas or heading home to hotpit. Which defeats the advantage of the VTOL.

If they could Increase thrust and decrease fuel DRAW to the point it was atleast 85% as capable in VTOL mode as a Fixed platform JSF. Then I could drop my arguments. But the facts are, We have only proven to add more weight and systems to aircraft after procurement.

VTOL works very well for the Over the horizon expeditionary strike group concepts. Where is they are fighting a 100nm Water to Land Battle. I dont see its benefits when a land battle is more dynamic, and essentially 10 times the number of players on it. A Massed land battle requires a great deal more of Loiter time and the targets of opportunity are generally higher. I am afraid it will require 2 times the sortie generation of the VTol varient to accomplish what the fixed wing varient can allready do. Oh yes did i mention that tankers dont hang out over the battlefield. they are way far south of the action..... Which means if you are bingo state in a VTOL which im sure isnt far from Full Fuel load....your looking to hotpit.

When you go to shortfield capability it does several things to your logistics base. Number one it does not benefit the USAF who is allready heavily involved in the Heavy lift of the army. Secondly the Heavy lift and C130s need to resupply these additional bases. which is probably fine if you were operating in a desert enviroment that is suitable to the C130's quite limited approach and takeoff STOL requirements. However if you look into Jungle and mountain regions. Quite simply that is not going to happen. unless of course you want your valuable hardware, maint Spares, Ordnance Air Dropped in. If it requires to be trucked in, well now your chain is even worse as the USAF does not even have a substantial, or a for that matter tractor trailor supply system. Which requires the US Army to supply these units. They are not going to be happy with this and is going to provide them the leverage they need to get the USAF out of the CAS buisness.


VTOL equals Cool Technology and capability at a High Logisitics cost.



"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Hmmmm.

Looks more like a Tomcat D to me Trit....

It's good to be king.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

One thing we have to consider is that the USAF throwing it's hat on the VTOL hook will calm the Brits, who NEED the JSF to work.

If the VTOL JSF is canned they'll have a carrier with nothing to fly off of it.

The Sea Harriers are already retired, and the GR.7s are pretty old airplanes with very limited A2A capability.

This has the smell of a political favor.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

What F-14 pic?

<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

Yeah what Snipe says......................thats borderline heresy, putting a fine fine picture of the 14 up and labeling it that other airplane.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

Mudd, Boomer, Snipe Here's an article with some numbers in it. Now we're getting somewhere. Enjoy.

<i>
Possible JSF 'Re-sequencing' Decision To Come Soon (Posted: Friday, February 20, 2004)
[Defense Daily, Feb. 20, 2004]

By Sharon Weinberger

A possible decision to move the bloated Marine Corps version of the Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to the end of the procurement line is being considered, although the preference is to keep the current order for the aircraft's three versions, according to a senior Navy official.

At recent senior-level meetings with Pentagon officials and representatives of foreign partners to discuss the JSF program, a number of options were put on the table, including the possibility of re-sequencing the current order of the three JSF variants, according to John Young, the assistant secretary of the Navy for acquisition, research an development.

Speaking with reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday, Young said, "I think it is a viable option to keep the current sequence with a slip," but, he added, "It could be [an option], and it requires some discussion with allies, to re-sequence."

At present, the Pentagon plans to produce the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) version for the Air Force first, followed by the Marine Corps short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version, and finally, the Navy's carrier variant (CV). The British Ministry of Defense is planning to buy the STOVL version, although its new carriers could potentially accommodate the Navy's CV variant.

Under the revised option being considered, the STOVL version would become the last version produced, a plan that would significantly impact the Marine Corps and British buys.

"The initial pass was that allies were comfortable with and could manage either option," Young said, but that their preference was to keep the current sequence.

Young said that the U.S. service chiefs are expected soon to meet with Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's acting acquisition chief, to make a final decision on the options.

"That decision is going to be made here shortly," Young said.

While pushing back the STOVL is an option, cancellation is not, he insisted. "I can tell you several allies said they couldn't live with that," Young told reporters. "I don't see that as an option within the Department."

One of the driving forces behind the current debate over the JSF is the Pentagon's acknowledgement that all three versions of the aircraft are overweight--the STOVL version most severely. To address this problem, the Defense Department decided to slip the program a year and added about $5 billion to cover the additional development costs.

Young said that at present the STOVL version is 3,400 pounds over its initial operating capability (IOC) target weight of 30,500. The CTOL is 2,350 pounds over its target IOC weight of 27,100, and the CV is 2,300 over its target of 30,700. Each version of the aircraft has built-in margins that can accommodate extra weight, Young emphasized.

The CTOL could be 1,480 over its target weight, the CV 1,370 over and the STOVL 2,350 over. After that, however, any extra weight could compromise the aircraft's ability to meet key performance parameters. The biggest problem is with the STOVL version, Young acknowledged. The CTOL and CV version could "complete their development today" and not face any significant problems. "STOVL is a slightly different story," he added.

Right now, the STOVL is about 10 nautical miles short of its range target because of the weight problem. Another issue is with vertical landing, which is set at a target height of 550 feet. "Right now, it's approximately 815 feet," Young said.

The STOVL also is falling short on its set parameters for how much ordnance it should be able to bring back from a mission, he said. These are a few of the examples where the STOVL is not meetings its objectives, according to Young.

"It's not that they're not achievable," he said, but "there is more angst there."

Young said there are three options for dealing with the STOVL weight problem: redesign, change the way the aircraft is operated, or change the requirements. "In fact, you can reduce that 815 feet by 75 if you change the horizontal tail settings at takeoff from the amphibious ship," he said. "That's pretty easy."

It's also possible to increase the STOVL's thrust, although he said he'd rather save that option as a reserve for future aircraft growth. Finally, the requirements could be changed. But "I'm not prepared to say right now that we need to change any of the requirements," he said.

In total, the development program has grown by about $7 billion, Young acknowledged. Five billion dollars is for the one-year program slip, which is mostly because of cost growth.

The other funds added--a total of about $2 billion--are $750 million for anti-tamper technology to protect the plane from reverse engineering, $200 million for more operational tests on the Air Force version, $150 million for new or changing requirements, and $1 billion to accommodate commonality requirements among the international versions of the JSF.

The Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and United Kingdom's Royal Air Force are planning to buy more than 2,500 of the F-35 fighters, and additional foreign military sales could potentially double that number.
</i>




The weight numbers are what interest me most. My estimates are about 3000 lbs <u>lighter</u> for the empty weights of every version. This is very bad news for the STOVL but probably tolerable for the other two versions. I don't know what to make of the reference of a "target height of 550 feet". Something is garbled here. Perhaps they are confusing the STOL takeoff run with height? Maybe they are talking about a short landing run with partial wing lift.







Edited by - a10stress on Feb 20 2004 1:07 PM

_________________
????

Stress, how normal is it for an aircraft to be 15% or more overweight at this stage of it's design process?

Thanx.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Stress, how normal is it for an aircraft to be 15% or more overweight at this stage of it's design process?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Educated guess at this point in development.
5% would be doing well
7% would be normal
10% would be painfull
15% catastrophic for STOVL, performance degrading for other versions, most likely cancellation of STOVL, possible CV axed too. The CTOL will probably still look better than an F-16 (or an F-22) at bomb hauling even at that point.

I am talking about empty weight here, not gross weight at constant mission performance, which will look even worse as a percentage.
The number in my head is about 7-9% over the proposed empty weight would be typical after all the fixes from development are factored in. Since they are far away from the flight and ground testing that will define the resulting weight "tax", a double digit percent overweight can not be accepted now. They have to stop, regroup, rethink, redesign, remove equipment (capability), remove commonality and increase vertical mode thrust. Do they have the right stuff (leadership, talent, budget, time, fortitude) to do it?

_________________
????

maybee that's the alt it has to transition from?
Sounds like they are gonna need that big ass version of the engine that Rolls claims to be able to produce.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

I just love this stuff. Here are selected quotes from today's press clippings
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Lockheed Martin Looking At Aircraft Skin For JSF Weight Loss (Posted: Tuesday, February 24, 2004)
(Defense Daily 2/24/04)



Overall, Burbage said he would like to shed about 2,000 pounds off the aircraft, or about 8 percent out of the total weight of about 30,000 pounds. "That's kind of the target we're looking for," he said.
While all three variants of the aircraft are overweight, the Marine Corps' short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) version faces the biggest challenge. The Air Force's conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) version and the Navy's carrier variant (CV) are also overweight, but are still meeting their performance requirements.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Translation: We are in deep do-do but we are standing on our heads in it for the STOVL

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
At a briefing last week at the Pentagon, John Young, the Navy's chief acquisition official, said that the STOVL was about 3,400 pounds over its target weight for initial operating capability.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Translation: The weight projected by the program soothsayers after all the problems are solved by actual hardware might be 3400 lbs, but we won't be sure until 2008, when it's too late.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
While all three versions have substantial margin for extra weight, the STOVL excess weight, as currently projected, would put the aircraft in danger of not meeting specific key performance parameters. The STOVL version, for example, has a target range of 450 nautical miles. "We're about 10 short," Young told reporters last week.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Translation: Try to point out the smallest performance shortfall you have uncovered because it might deflect attention from the fact that the vertical landing "bring back" weight looks like it might be a negative number.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Burbage acknowledged the weight remains an important issue, but cautioned that the numbers being quoted are still just projections. The STOVL aircraft, for example, just recently set up its design team, he said. As part of the program restructuring, the Pentagon asked Lockheed Martin to look at four options for the JSF: stop the program and restart the design; re-sequence production by moving the STOVL aircraft to the back of the line; design STOVL first and start over with the other versions; and retain the same production sequence, but pause between each version.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Burbage is behaving like a good leader. He is keeping the dogs off his people while they get solutions to all the problems. If they decide to move the STOVL to the back, it is equivalent to giving in on commonality with the others. That is looking like the thing to do. If they start over, the project killer hyenas will be licking their chops.



Edited by - a10stress on Feb 24 2004 11:01 AM

_________________
????