London Times
May 17, 2004

Overweight Carrier Fighters Give MoD £10bn Headache

By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

THE Ministry of Defence is facing another procurement disaster after a
minister disclosed that the fighter jet planned for two new large
aircraft carriers is far too heavy. Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces
Minister, has admitted that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also known
as F35, which will replace the Navy’s Sea Harrier from 2012, is
3,300lb overweight, a figure that astonished military aircraft
experts. The JSF, which is being jointly developed by the American
company Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems in Britain, has been designed
for the Royal Navy with the short take-off vertical launch (Stovl)
concept, like the Harriers. However, Lockheed Martin, whose JSF
proposal was chosen in preference to the version offered by Boeing,
has replaced the basic Harrier-style Stovl idea with a new type of
large fan to create the thrust needed for take-off and landing. The
aim was to provide greater power. This has led to the increase in the
engine’s weight. The MoD insisted that although the weight
problem was a concern, the JSF programme was in its early stages and
it was confident that the matter could be resolved. However, some
industrial and Naval experts believe that it is such a challenge that
the MoD may be forced to scrap the Stovl concept and go for a normal
take-off version, even though this would mean extending the carrier
flight deck and adding to the cost of the overall programme, which is
already an estimated £12.9 billion. This might suit the Navy, but the
MoD is committed to the Stovl concept. Rob Hewson, editor of
Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, said he could see no way in which
Lockheed Martin would be able to “shave off” 3,300lb. When
the JSF was originally designed there were fears expressed that the
engine would be too heavy. “But that was more like 1,000lb too
heavy, now it’s suddenly 3,300lb overweight. It looks like
another potential disaster,” Mr Hewson said. If the weight
problem, which would affect the aircraft’s ability to fly
safely, was not resolved without too much extra cost and time, the
Royal Navy might face the calamitous situation of “not having an
aircraft for the carriers”. The other concern for the MoD is
that the Pentagon, its partner in the JSF programme, is planning to
buy the Stovl version of the aircraft for the Marines only — a
few hundred aircraft. The vast bulk of the JSFs for the US will be
bought by the American Air Force and Navy, and they will all be the
standard take-off versions, catapulted off the carriers. Mr Hewson
said: “If Lockheed Martin finds it cannot solve the weight
problem with the Stovl version, I wouldn’t be at all surprised
if the Pentagon doesn’t drop it and cancel the US Marine order
and just go for the normal take-off version. Then Britain really will
be in trouble.” The MoD is planning to buy 150 JSFs, costing £10
billion, for the two large aircraft carriers. The two ships are, on
current estimates, due to cost £2.9 billion, although BAE Systems,
which was appointed prime contractor for the programme, has given
warning for some time that it will actually cost closer to £4 billion
for two 60,000-tonne carriers. If there is any delay in the planned
in-service date of 2012 for the first carrier, this would cause acute
embarrassment for the MoD. The Sea Harriers are being taken out of
service by 2006, partly because of problems they have been having with
operating in hot climates. The Sea Harriers have difficulty taking off
and landing with a full load of weapons and fuel in excessive heat,
such as in the Gulf. The only solution was to fit a bigger engine ino
the Sea Harrier but the MoD decided it would be too expensive. The
first batch of Sea Harriers has already been withdrawn, and when they
are all taken out of service by 2006 there will be a gap in capability
for six years — or more, if the JSF problem is not resolved.

Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting requirements.
Anybody else reminded of the A-12?

--Woody

On 5/17/04 8:19, in article ,
"Mike" > wrote:

> London Times
> May 17, 2004
>
> Overweight Carrier Fighters Give MoD £10bn Headache
>
> By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
>
> THE Ministry of Defence is facing another procurement disaster after a
> minister disclosed that the fighter jet planned for two new large
> aircraft carriers is far too heavy. Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces
> Minister, has admitted that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also known
> as F35, which will replace the Navy’s Sea Harrier from 2012, is
> 3,300lb overweight, a figure that astonished military aircraft
> experts. The JSF, which is being jointly developed by the American
> company Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems in Britain, has been designed
> for the Royal Navy with the short take-off vertical launch (Stovl)
> concept, like the Harriers. However, Lockheed Martin, whose JSF
> proposal was chosen in preference to the version offered by Boeing,
> has replaced the basic Harrier-style Stovl idea with a new type of
> large fan to create the thrust needed for take-off and landing. The
> aim was to provide greater power. This has led to the increase in the
> engine’s weight. The MoD insisted that although the weight
> problem was a concern, the JSF programme was in its early stages and
> it was confident that the matter could be resolved. However, some
> industrial and Naval experts believe that it is such a challenge that
> the MoD may be forced to scrap the Stovl concept and go for a normal
> take-off version, even though this would mean extending the carrier
> flight deck and adding to the cost of the overall programme, which is
> already an estimated £12.9 billion. This might suit the Navy, but the
> MoD is committed to the Stovl concept. Rob Hewson, editor of
> Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, said he could see no way in which
> Lockheed Martin would be able to “shave off” 3,300lb. When
> the JSF was originally designed there were fears expressed that the
> engine would be too heavy. “But that was more like 1,000lb too
> heavy, now it’s suddenly 3,300lb overweight. It looks like
> another potential disaster,” Mr Hewson said. If the weight
> problem, which would affect the aircraft’s ability to fly
> safely, was not resolved without too much extra cost and time, the
> Royal Navy might face the calamitous situation of “not having an
> aircraft for the carriers”. The other concern for the MoD is
> that the Pentagon, its partner in the JSF programme, is planning to
> buy the Stovl version of the aircraft for the Marines only — a
> few hundred aircraft. The vast bulk of the JSFs for the US will be
> bought by the American Air Force and Navy, and they will all be the
> standard take-off versions, catapulted off the carriers. Mr Hewson
> said: “If Lockheed Martin finds it cannot solve the weight
> problem with the Stovl version, I wouldn’t be at all surprised
> if the Pentagon doesn’t drop it and cancel the US Marine order
> and just go for the normal take-off version. Then Britain really will
> be in trouble.” The MoD is planning to buy 150 JSFs, costing £10
> billion, for the two large aircraft carriers. The two ships are, on
> current estimates, due to cost £2.9 billion, although BAE Systems,
> which was appointed prime contractor for the programme, has given
> warning for some time that it will actually cost closer to £4 billion
> for two 60,000-tonne carriers. If there is any delay in the planned
> in-service date of 2012 for the first carrier, this would cause acute
> embarrassment for the MoD. The Sea Harriers are being taken out of
> service by 2006, partly because of problems they have been having with
> operating in hot climates. The Sea Harriers have difficulty taking off
> and landing with a full load of weapons and fuel in excessive heat,
> such as in the Gulf. The only solution was to fit a bigger engine ino
> the Sea Harrier but the MoD decided it would be too expensive. The
> first batch of Sea Harriers has already been withdrawn, and when they
> are all taken out of service by 2006 there will be a gap in capability
> for six years — or more, if the JSF problem is not resolved.

A-12?? Nope. They never built more than a full-scale mock-up and few odds
and ends components of that one...

....and of course, that led to the most successful tanker in the history of
the CV Navy -- the F-18E/F.


"Woody Beal" > wrote in message
...
> Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
requirements.
> Anybody else reminded of the A-12?
>
> --Woody
>
> On 5/17/04 8:19, in article
,
> "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > London Times
> > May 17, 2004
> >
> > Overweight Carrier Fighters Give MoD £10bn Headache
> >
> > By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
> >
> > THE Ministry of Defence is facing another procurement disaster after a
> > minister disclosed that the fighter jet planned for two new large
> > aircraft carriers is far too heavy. Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces
> > Minister, has admitted that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also known
> > as F35, which will replace the Navy’s Sea Harrier from 2012, is
> > 3,300lb overweight, a figure that astonished military aircraft
> > experts. The JSF, which is being jointly developed by the American
> > company Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems in Britain, has been designed
> > for the Royal Navy with the short take-off vertical launch (Stovl)
> > concept, like the Harriers. However, Lockheed Martin, whose JSF
> > proposal was chosen in preference to the version offered by Boeing,
> > has replaced the basic Harrier-style Stovl idea with a new type of
> > large fan to create the thrust needed for take-off and landing. The
> > aim was to provide greater power. This has led to the increase in the
> > engine’s weight. The MoD insisted that although the weight
> > problem was a concern, the JSF programme was in its early stages and
> > it was confident that the matter could be resolved. However, some
> > industrial and Naval experts believe that it is such a challenge that
> > the MoD may be forced to scrap the Stovl concept and go for a normal
> > take-off version, even though this would mean extending the carrier
> > flight deck and adding to the cost of the overall programme, which is
> > already an estimated £12.9 billion. This might suit the Navy, but the
> > MoD is committed to the Stovl concept. Rob Hewson, editor of
> > Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, said he could see no way in which
> > Lockheed Martin would be able to “shave off” 3,300lb. When
> > the JSF was originally designed there were fears expressed that the
> > engine would be too heavy. “But that was more like 1,000lb too
> > heavy, now it’s suddenly 3,300lb overweight. It looks like
> > another potential disaster,” Mr Hewson said. If the weight
> > problem, which would affect the aircraft’s ability to fly
> > safely, was not resolved without too much extra cost and time, the
> > Royal Navy might face the calamitous situation of “not having an
> > aircraft for the carriers”. The other concern for the MoD is
> > that the Pentagon, its partner in the JSF programme, is planning to
> > buy the Stovl version of the aircraft for the Marines only — a
> > few hundred aircraft. The vast bulk of the JSFs for the US will be
> > bought by the American Air Force and Navy, and they will all be the
> > standard take-off versions, catapulted off the carriers. Mr Hewson
> > said: “If Lockheed Martin finds it cannot solve the weight
> > problem with the Stovl version, I wouldn’t be at all surprised
> > if the Pentagon doesn’t drop it and cancel the US Marine order
> > and just go for the normal take-off version. Then Britain really will
> > be in trouble.” The MoD is planning to buy 150 JSFs, costing £10
> > billion, for the two large aircraft carriers. The two ships are, on
> > current estimates, due to cost £2.9 billion, although BAE Systems,
> > which was appointed prime contractor for the programme, has given
> > warning for some time that it will actually cost closer to £4 billion
> > for two 60,000-tonne carriers. If there is any delay in the planned
> > in-service date of 2012 for the first carrier, this would cause acute
> > embarrassment for the MoD. The Sea Harriers are being taken out of
> > service by 2006, partly because of problems they have been having with
> > operating in hot climates. The Sea Harriers have difficulty taking off
> > and landing with a full load of weapons and fuel in excessive heat,
> > such as in the Gulf. The only solution was to fit a bigger engine ino
> > the Sea Harrier but the MoD decided it would be too expensive. The
> > first batch of Sea Harriers has already been withdrawn, and when they
> > are all taken out of service by 2006 there will be a gap in capability
> > for six years — or more, if the JSF problem is not resolved.
>

Woody Beal wrote:
> Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
> requirements. Anybody else reminded of the A-12?

Seems a tad bit to early to be jumping to conclusions here.

All we have as a bunch of people with little or no access to any actual
program data saying that "there's no way" to make up this weight difference.
But none of the pople quoted are actual aerospace engineers, AFAIK. I'm not
going to assume they know better than the engineers designing the plane. Not
at this stage, anyway.

Heck, even if it is overweight and they can't get it all back, there's
actually a pretty simple fix -- revert to the requirement for 2x1000-lb
internal bombs for the STOVL aircraft instead of the 2x2000-lb bombs they
switched to pretty late in the design process. Presto, a 2000-lb weight
savings.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

> Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
requirements.
> Anybody else reminded of the A-12?

If it is only the STOVL variant that is compromised by the conflicting
requirements, then no great loss there ;-) What I fear is that the CTOL and
plain-vanilla may be suffering as well... we'll see...
_____________
José Herculano

On 5/18/04 6:30 PM, in article
. net, "Frijoles"
> wrote:

> A-12?? Nope. They never built more than a full-scale mock-up and few odds
> and ends components of that one...
>

I'm familiar. In fact, I was just showing it to my wife the other day.
Funny, it was overweight just LOOKING at it.

> ...and of course, that led to the most successful tanker in the history of
> the CV Navy -- the F-18E/F.
>

The E/F was on its way ANYWAY. They just dumped the A-12 money into it.
The A-12 was a failure from the start because the requirements were too
ambitious. One of my buddies put it best after hearing them listed off in a
briefing: "I'll believe it when I see it in the break."

He was right. It was a fairy tail.

My A-12 reference was tongue-in-cheek, but there's a serious side to it.

--Woody

On 5/18/04 7:50 PM, in article
t, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

> Woody Beal wrote:
>> Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
>> requirements. Anybody else reminded of the A-12?
>
> Seems a tad bit to early to be jumping to conclusions here.
>
> All we have as a bunch of people with little or no access to any actual
> program data saying that "there's no way" to make up this weight difference.
> But none of the pople quoted are actual aerospace engineers, AFAIK. I'm not
> going to assume they know better than the engineers designing the plane. Not
> at this stage, anyway.
>

If you're denying it's overweight, then I think you're in denial. It is...
That comes from folks working in the program. They're trying to deal with
it, but 2,000 lbs (I hadn't heard 3,300 lbs.) is a lot to lose.

> Heck, even if it is overweight and they can't get it all back, there's
> actually a pretty simple fix -- revert to the requirement for 2x1000-lb
> internal bombs for the STOVL aircraft instead of the 2x2000-lb bombs they
> switched to pretty late in the design process. Presto, a 2000-lb weight
> savings.

Presto! Diminished striking capability for a STOVL aircraft... How novel.

--Woody

On 5/19/04 8:55 AM, in article ,
"José Herculano" > wrote:

>> Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
> requirements.
>> Anybody else reminded of the A-12?
>
> If it is only the STOVL variant that is compromised by the conflicting
> requirements, then no great loss there ;-) What I fear is that the CTOL and
> plain-vanilla may be suffering as well... we'll see...

All three versions are equally overweight. The STOVL is just more effected
by it due to takeoff and landing performance requirements.

--Woody

> _____________
> José Herculano
>
>

OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

--
Jason


"Woody Beal" > wrote in message
...
> Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
requirements.
> Anybody else reminded of the A-12?
>
> --Woody
>
> On 5/17/04 8:19, in article
,
> "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > London Times
> > May 17, 2004
> >
> > Overweight Carrier Fighters Give MoD £10bn Headache
> >
> > By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
> >
> > THE Ministry of Defence is facing another procurement disaster after a
> > minister disclosed that the fighter jet planned for two new large
> > aircraft carriers is far too heavy. Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces
> > Minister, has admitted that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also known
> > as F35, which will replace the Navy’s Sea Harrier from 2012, is
> > 3,300lb overweight, a figure that astonished military aircraft
> > experts. The JSF, which is being jointly developed by the American
> > company Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems in Britain, has been designed
> > for the Royal Navy with the short take-off vertical launch (Stovl)
> > concept, like the Harriers. However, Lockheed Martin, whose JSF
> > proposal was chosen in preference to the version offered by Boeing,
> > has replaced the basic Harrier-style Stovl idea with a new type of
> > large fan to create the thrust needed for take-off and landing. The
> > aim was to provide greater power. This has led to the increase in the
> > engine’s weight. The MoD insisted that although the weight
> > problem was a concern, the JSF programme was in its early stages and
> > it was confident that the matter could be resolved. However, some
> > industrial and Naval experts believe that it is such a challenge that
> > the MoD may be forced to scrap the Stovl concept and go for a normal
> > take-off version, even though this would mean extending the carrier
> > flight deck and adding to the cost of the overall programme, which is
> > already an estimated £12.9 billion. This might suit the Navy, but the
> > MoD is committed to the Stovl concept. Rob Hewson, editor of
> > Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, said he could see no way in which
> > Lockheed Martin would be able to “shave off” 3,300lb. When
> > the JSF was originally designed there were fears expressed that the
> > engine would be too heavy. “But that was more like 1,000lb too
> > heavy, now it’s suddenly 3,300lb overweight. It looks like
> > another potential disaster,” Mr Hewson said. If the weight
> > problem, which would affect the aircraft’s ability to fly
> > safely, was not resolved without too much extra cost and time, the
> > Royal Navy might face the calamitous situation of “not having an
> > aircraft for the carriers”. The other concern for the MoD is
> > that the Pentagon, its partner in the JSF programme, is planning to
> > buy the Stovl version of the aircraft for the Marines only — a
> > few hundred aircraft. The vast bulk of the JSFs for the US will be
> > bought by the American Air Force and Navy, and they will all be the
> > standard take-off versions, catapulted off the carriers. Mr Hewson
> > said: “If Lockheed Martin finds it cannot solve the weight
> > problem with the Stovl version, I wouldn’t be at all surprised
> > if the Pentagon doesn’t drop it and cancel the US Marine order
> > and just go for the normal take-off version. Then Britain really will
> > be in trouble.” The MoD is planning to buy 150 JSFs, costing £10
> > billion, for the two large aircraft carriers. The two ships are, on
> > current estimates, due to cost £2.9 billion, although BAE Systems,
> > which was appointed prime contractor for the programme, has given
> > warning for some time that it will actually cost closer to £4 billion
> > for two 60,000-tonne carriers. If there is any delay in the planned
> > in-service date of 2012 for the first carrier, this would cause acute
> > embarrassment for the MoD. The Sea Harriers are being taken out of
> > service by 2006, partly because of problems they have been having with
> > operating in hot climates. The Sea Harriers have difficulty taking off
> > and landing with a full load of weapons and fuel in excessive heat,
> > such as in the Gulf. The only solution was to fit a bigger engine ino
> > the Sea Harrier but the MoD decided it would be too expensive. The
> > first batch of Sea Harriers has already been withdrawn, and when they
> > are all taken out of service by 2006 there will be a gap in capability
> > for six years — or more, if the JSF problem is not resolved.
>

"JASON BOWMAN" > wrote in message
...
> OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
> version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
> mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
> tested firing missiles. What am I missing???
>
> --
> Jason


You're confusting the CIA designator for the aircraft which was of the SR-71
family with the DoD designated naval attack aircraft of a much later period
which was abruptly canceled. The FA-18E/F was the stop-gap measure
employed.

Regards,

Tex Houston

"JASON BOWMAN" > wrote in message
...
> OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
> version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
> mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
> tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
due mainly to cost over runs.

A-12 was never a *military* designation for any member of the
Blackbird family. A-12 was a Lockheed and/or CIA name for the CIA
bird that was later build, in modified form, for the USAF as the SR-71.

> The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
> two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
> due mainly to cost over runs.

AKA The flying dorito.

Due mainly to being led down the primrose path by NAVAIR. The aircraft was
hugely overweight, GD was having serious problems with major composite
structures. The prototype was in final assembly and in big trouble.

A friend who worked the MacAir side of the program thought it was fixable,
but not on the cheap or on the schedule. I think it's very possible the PMA
didn't know the truth, less possible his deputy didn't. When the real word
finally came out, heads rolled and the A/C was cnx'd.

R / John

Oh ok. That makes sense then. Thanks for clarifying.

--
Jason
"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JASON BOWMAN" > wrote in message
> ...
> > OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
> > version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
> full-scale
> > mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
> > tested firing missiles. What am I missing???
> >
> > --
> > Jason
>
>
> You're confusting the CIA designator for the aircraft which was of the
SR-71
> family with the DoD designated naval attack aircraft of a much later
period
> which was abruptly canceled. The FA-18E/F was the stop-gap measure
> employed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tex Houston
>
>

jason-<< OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the
attack
version of the SR-71. >><BR><BR>

The 'Dorito'....A-12
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
> On 5/18/04 7:50 PM, in article
> t, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:
>
> If you're denying it's overweight, then I think you're in denial. It
> is... That comes from folks working in the program. They're trying
> to deal with it, but 2,000 lbs (I hadn't heard 3,300 lbs.) is a lot
> to lose.

No, I'm not denying that it's overweight. However, I'm questioning whether
the weight issue is as bad as presented. Planes are *always* overweight at
this point in the design process. I think the reports tend to confuse the
current design weight with the final target weight. If it's 3000 pounds
over now, that does not mean it will be 3000 pounds over at IOC.


>> Presto, a 2000-lb weight savings.
>
> Presto! Diminished striking capability for a STOVL aircraft... How
> novel.

Shrug. That's why STOVL isn't suitable for all users. The Marines don't
necessarily need big bombs; smaller ones are actually more appropriate for
most CAS missions. As long as it can haul the 8 x 250-lb small-diameter
bombs they're talking about, the plane is well-armed for CAS.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

The original post had a lot of 'maybes' and 'mights' in it. Sounds to
me like a bunch of quibblers who want to canx out and help out the
budget. As for 2x2000 pound bombs, the only thing where bigger is
better is in cluster munitions. Note that USAF wants smaller LGBs -
250 pound size. Since just as in nukes HE bomb damage radius is a cube
root function of the explosive yield - laser guidance lets a smaller
bomb do the same job. Now if you can hit the target dead on - smack in
the middle - a 100 pounder would work just fine. 50 pounds of HE is
more than a field artillery shell carries. And what's wrong with a
pair of steam cats? The RN carriers weren't supposed to have cats?
That would be really dumb! A properly designed steam cat could launch
STOVLs with the ship lying to.
Walt BJ

"JASON BOWMAN" > wrote in message >...
> OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
> version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a full-scale
> mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
> tested firing missiles. What am I missing???
>
> --
> Jason
>
>

A-12 Stood for "Archangel" not "Attack" Theres was a fighter version
designated the YF-12 and a proposed nuclear strike variant the "R-12"
though

Prowlus wrote:
> "JASON BOWMAN" > wrote in message
> >...
>> OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the
>> attack
>> version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
>> full-scale
>> mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and
>> was
>> tested firing missiles. What am I missing???
>>
>> --
>> Jason
>>
>>
>
> A-12 Stood for "Archangel" not "Attack" Theres was a fighter version
> designated the YF-12 and a proposed nuclear strike variant the "R-12"
> though.

No, the bomber variant was designated B-71, a contemporary of the YF-12.
That number was in the correct bomber sequece after the B-70 Valkyrie.
Apparently that's how the Air Force Blackbird came to be designated SR-71,
as a recce variant of the B-71 bomber. Similarly, there was briefly a
proposed RS-70 recce version of the B-70 bomber. (But Curtis LeMay prefered
SR to RS, so he swapped the letters for the SR-71.)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

On 5/22/04 12:00 PM, in article
et, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>
> No, I'm not denying that it's overweight. However, I'm questioning whether
> the weight issue is as bad as presented. Planes are *always* overweight at
> this point in the design process. I think the reports tend to confuse the
> current design weight with the final target weight. If it's 3000 pounds
> over now, that does not mean it will be 3000 pounds over at IOC.
>

I get snippets from folks in the program quite often. It won't necessarily
be 3000lbs over at IOC. That's what they're working on right now... Trying
to trim the excess.

In fact, the 3000 lbs is mostly due to the lift fan machinery on the
B-model. A and C models aren't suffering as much. I think I may have
mis-spoken on that point earlier.

>
>>> Presto, a 2000-lb weight savings.
>>
>> Presto! Diminished striking capability for a STOVL aircraft... How
>> novel.
>
> Shrug. That's why STOVL isn't suitable for all users. The Marines don't
> necessarily need big bombs; smaller ones are actually more appropriate for
> most CAS missions. As long as it can haul the 8 x 250-lb small-diameter
> bombs they're talking about, the plane is well-armed for CAS.

Talked to some Brits that were in town last week. They made the same case.
It's an obvious solution.

Frankly, what might work better though would be to (here goes the crazy
rant...)

BRING BACK THE INTRUDER!!!

Imagine being able to carry 22 x 500 lb JDAM on smart 1760-compatible MER's
in your very own SWIP Block 1A jet... Doing the work of 5 F-35's with one
airframe (at least in the last conflict).

Sorry about the insanity. Couldn't help it.

--Woody

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

> BRING BACK THE INTRUDER!!!
>
> Imagine being able to carry 22 x 500 lb JDAM on smart 1760-compatible MER's
> in your very own SWIP Block 1A jet... Doing the work of 5 F-35's with one
> airframe (at least in the last conflict).

Might as well rig up a C-2A as a bomb truck. Just roll'em off the back
of the ramp. As long as we are fighting enemies who only have RPGs...

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
> On 5/22/04 12:00 PM, in article
> et, "Thomas Schoene"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> No, I'm not denying that it's overweight. However, I'm questioning
>> whether the weight issue is as bad as presented. Planes are
>> *always* overweight at this point in the design process. I think
>> the reports tend to confuse the current design weight with the final
>> target weight. If it's 3000 pounds over now, that does not mean it
>> will be 3000 pounds over at IOC.
>>
>
> I get snippets from folks in the program quite often. It won't
> necessarily be 3000lbs over at IOC. That's what they're working on
> right now... Trying to trim the excess.
>
> In fact, the 3000 lbs is mostly due to the lift fan machinery on the
> B-model. A and C models aren't suffering as much. I think I may have
> mis-spoken on that point earlier.

Apropos of this:

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/pr_052404.asp

"WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., May 24, 2004 -- For the first time, Pratt & Whitney'
s (P&W) Short Take-Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) Propulsion System for the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has demonstrated 39,700 pounds of thrust, the
level required for the unique combat aircraft to hover. At the same time,
weight reduction initiatives have brought the F135 engine system below its
contracted target weight."
....
The latest review of the F135 STOVL System revealed that the
achieved-to-date (ATD) weight is below the contracted weight target value.
An on-going weight management plan will result in a STOVL weight at 3% to 6%
below the contracted target. The weight achievements are critical for F-35
performance. The F135 STOVL team continues to investigate additional weight
reduction and performance enhancement opportunities with Lockheed Martin,
Rolls-Royce and the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office."

If I read this correctly, they're under the weight they expected to be at by
this stage of the process, and are projecting that they will be well under
the contracted weight when they go to production. Granted, that's PWs
version, but it certianly seems promising.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Tom,

>Granted, that's PWs version, but it certianly seems promising.

That it does. But as another poster stated, "I'll believe it when I see it
in the break." On in this case, in a hover above a working deck. Many
moons will pass before we'll know for sure.

--
Mike Kanze

"A centerpiece for the table should never be anything prepared by a
taxidermist."

- Martha Stewart's TIPS FOR REDNECKS


"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> [rest snipped]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:45:12 -0400, "John Keeney" >
wrote:

>
>"JASON BOWMAN" > wrote in message
...
>> OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
>> version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
>full-scale
>> mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
>> tested firing missiles. What am I missing???
>
>The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
>two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
>due mainly to cost over runs.
>
>A-12 was never a *military* designation for any member of the
>Blackbird family. A-12 was a Lockheed and/or CIA name for the CIA
>bird that was later build, in modified form, for the USAF as the SR-71.

Think the "-12" thing related to the SR-71 refers to the YF-12 high
level, high speed interceptor. Think it was related to the SR-71 but
never got past the concept phase.

Interesting links :
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/lockheed-modern/Aero16.htm
(first link on Google looking for "yf-12 interceptor")
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/YF-12/

Haven't got a clue about their accuracy there ... One extract
basically says that the A-12 evolved into the YF-12, which evolved
into the SR-71. But they're talking about an A-12 there that's decades
separated from :

Naval A-12 link :
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12.htm
And :
http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm
PS I've been known as SleepyPete but not as SneakyPete ... (read da
link ! :-)

Pete Lilleyman

(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)

In article >,
Alisha's Addict > writes:
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:45:12 -0400, "John Keeney" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"JASON BOWMAN" > wrote in message
...
>>> OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
>>> version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
>>full-scale
>>> mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
>>> tested firing missiles. What am I missing???
>>
>>The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
>>two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
>>due mainly to cost over runs.
>>
>>A-12 was never a *military* designation for any member of the
>>Blackbird family. A-12 was a Lockheed and/or CIA name for the CIA
>>bird that was later build, in modified form, for the USAF as the SR-71.
>
> Think the "-12" thing related to the SR-71 refers to the YF-12 high
> level, high speed interceptor. Think it was related to the SR-71 but
> never got past the concept phase.

It got well past the concept stage. 3 YF-12As were built. (60-6934,
60-6935, and 60-6936) First flights were in August '63, Nov. '63, adn
March '64, respectively. in late 1966, 60-6934 was converted into teh
2-pilot SR-71C conversion trainer. the other 2 were transferred from
teh Air Force to NASA in late 1969. 6936 was lost due to an inflight
fire in August, 1971, and 6935 was retired to teh Air Force Museum in
1979. These airplanes wer full-up interceptors, with 3 of the bays
openable in flight, and with racks & release gear for the AIM-47
Falcon. The nose and the 4th bay held teh ASG-18 Weapons COntrol
System, which consisted of a pulse doppler "look-down/shoot-down"
radar in the nose, and an IR sensor in the leading edge of each of the
chines, which were cut back so that they didn't interfere with the
radome. The ASG-12/AIM-47 combination was fiarly mature, having been
begun as the weapons fit for the North American F-108 Rapier.
Part of the Phase II program included 12 live firings of AIM-47s,
launched at from Mach 3+/80,000' against low level targets. Maximum
missile range was 120 NM, and the hit rate was something on the order
of 90%.

The F-12 didn't go into service for a number of reasons. It was
expensive to build and run, and like the other Oxcarts, it didn't lend
itself to a spontaneous launch from an Alert Hanger - Blackbird
flights took a lot of before-flight preparation - you couldn't just
kick the tires & light the fires. The most compelling reason is that
the Soviets had stopped developing more advanced Strategic Bombers
than the Tu-95 and M-4, and were concentrating entirely on ballistic
missiles.

The ASG-18/AIM-47 are direct ancestors of the AWG-9/AIM-54 missile
combination used on the F-111B and F-14.

>
> Interesting links :
> http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/lockheed-modern/Aero16.htm
> (first link on Google looking for "yf-12 interceptor")
> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/YF-12/
>
> Haven't got a clue about their accuracy there ... One extract
> basically says that the A-12 evolved into the YF-12, which evolved
> into the SR-71. But they're talking about an A-12 there that's decades
> separated from :

Well, a parallel development, really. The main differences were the
bays, the mose, and a retractable ventral fin to counteract what was
expected to be a loss in directional stability due to the cut back
chine. It was found to be unnecessary after it fell off in flight,
and nobody knew it was gone until the airplane was back in the hangar.

Of course, it was no relation to the Flying Dorito, which got its A-12
designation by virtue of being the 12th airplane designated in teh
Post 1962 Attack series.

> Naval A-12 link :
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12.htm
> And :
> http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster