X-Plane Competition

[Bill Clark]

I saw a PBS special on the X-plane competition between Boeing and
Lockheed for the Joint Task Force (JTF) fighter; the jet of the
future. I think the whole thing was a total waste of money, and that
by signing off on this competition the Pentagon has doomed America to
a useless arsenal.

Boeing's plane was so heavy they had to remove panels before it could
even hover. Neither aircraft could stay in the air more than half an
hour without refueling (Boeing's Navy style in-flight refueling system
was not operational and so they had to land every half an hour to
refuel). Neither plane had any armaments or weapons during all of
this.

The problem is that the Pentagon requires the JTF to be vertical take
off/landing capable. By doing so they are requiring 25% of the
aircraft to be devoted to the necessary systems; in the case of the
winning Lockheed aircraft, a huge fan in the middle of the fuselage.

Granted, it's an elegant engineering accomplishment but it has zero
combat effectiveness. Requiring all jets to be built by these
standards is suicidal because it reduces the range and payload of
every attack jet. It's really depressing to me that our military
planners have come up with such an idiotic plan and that neither
Lockheed or Boeing made the slightest objection. Clearly they are not
American companies any longer but multi national corporations whose
sympathies belong to the highest bidder.

Bill Clark, P.E.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Bill Clark" > wrote in message
om...
> I saw a PBS special on the X-plane competition between Boeing and
> Lockheed for the Joint Task Force (JTF) fighter; the jet of the
> future. I think the whole thing was a total waste of money, and that
> by signing off on this competition the Pentagon has doomed America to
> a useless arsenal.
>
> Boeing's plane was so heavy they had to remove panels before it could
> even hover. Neither aircraft could stay in the air more than half an
> hour without refueling (Boeing's Navy style in-flight refueling system
> was not operational and so they had to land every half an hour to
> refuel). Neither plane had any armaments or weapons during all of
> this.
>

******** , the lockmart plane demonstrated better range than the F-18


> The problem is that the Pentagon requires the JTF to be vertical take
> off/landing capable. By doing so they are requiring 25% of the
> aircraft to be devoted to the necessary systems; in the case of the
> winning Lockheed aircraft, a huge fan in the middle of the fuselage.
>

Incorrect only ONE variant of the 3 offered has VSTOL
and only that variant has the fan.


> Granted, it's an elegant engineering accomplishment but it has zero
> combat effectiveness. Requiring all jets to be built by these
> standards is suicidal because it reduces the range and payload of
> every attack jet. It's really depressing to me that our military
> planners have come up with such an idiotic plan and that neither
> Lockheed or Boeing made the slightest objection. Clearly they are not
> American companies any longer but multi national corporations whose
> sympathies belong to the highest bidder.
>

What depresses me is that someone who describes himself
as a PE got so little right.

Keith

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Bill
Clark > wrote:

> I saw a PBS special on the X-plane competition between Boeing and
> Lockheed for the Joint Task Force (JTF) fighter; the jet of the
> future. I think the whole thing was a total waste of money, and that
> by signing off on this competition the Pentagon has doomed America to
> a useless arsenal.

You apparently are talking about the JSF, Joint Strike Fighter.
They are currently in the prototype stage, with the X-32 and
X-35 recently having competed in a fly-off. The Lockheed X-35
won the competition, but in reality, these planes are so complex
that parts come from all over the aviation industry.

> Boeing's plane was so heavy they had to remove panels before it could
> even hover. Neither aircraft could stay in the air more than half an
> hour without refueling (Boeing's Navy style in-flight refueling system
> was not operational and so they had to land every half an hour to
> refuel). Neither plane had any armaments or weapons during all of
> this.

Keep in mind that these were PROTOTYPES, hense the experimental
X- designation. Once a winner is selected, they then go to full
scale development, which are Y- designations. That could take a
number of years, and the final plane might look very different
from the prototypes. Look at how much changed between the YF-22
and the F/A-22 that finally emerged. Dittos for weapons, that
comes in the Y- program.

> The problem is that the Pentagon requires the JTF to be vertical take
> off/landing capable. By doing so they are requiring 25% of the
> aircraft to be devoted to the necessary systems; in the case of the
> winning Lockheed aircraft, a huge fan in the middle of the fuselage.

I think you mis-understand what is going on. There are a number
of different versions of the JFS. There is one for the US Air
Force, a variant for the US-Navy, and a 3rd variant for the
Marines. In addition, foriegn powers are starting to sign onto
the program. For example, the UK has agreed to pick up the Air
Force variant.

Each of these variants has a different mission, and a different
internal configuration. The Air Force and Navy versions do not
have the vertical take off mechanism, only the Marine version
does. That version is designed to replace the Harrier. As you
know, the Harrier has rather short legs, too. When you hover,
the ability to hover is not needed for a very long time. If you
stay in one plane, you become a juicy target.

> Granted, it's an elegant engineering accomplishment but it has zero
> combat effectiveness. Requiring all jets to be built by these
> standards is suicidal because it reduces the range and payload of
> every attack jet. It's really depressing to me that our military
> planners have come up with such an idiotic plan and that neither
> Lockheed or Boeing made the slightest objection. Clearly they are not
> American companies any longer but multi national corporations whose
> sympathies belong to the highest bidder.

I think you misunderstood what the whole program is about. Please
do some reading on the net, or pick up a book or magazine on the
topic. You will learn that this is actually the low cost airplane
of the future for all of our armed forces, and many of our allies.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[BUFF]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Bill
> Clark > wrote:
>
>snip

> I think you mis-understand what is going on. There are a number
> of different versions of the JFS. There is one for the US Air
> Force, a variant for the US-Navy, and a 3rd variant for the
> Marines. In addition, foriegn powers are starting to sign onto
> the program. For example, the UK has agreed to pick up the Air
> Force variant.


Just a little clarification - the UK is actually a development partner
having funded something like 25% of the programme so far as well as having
design input (both RR & BAE have a lot of experience in the field).
My understanding was that we had announced selection of the STOVL (similar
to Marine) verion as our Harrier replacement.

Additional countries such as the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Canada,
Norway, Australia and Turkey are all signing up to the programme.

[Tarver Engineering]

"BUFF" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Bill
> > Clark > wrote:
> >
> >snip
>
> > I think you mis-understand what is going on. There are a number
> > of different versions of the JFS. There is one for the US Air
> > Force, a variant for the US-Navy, and a 3rd variant for the
> > Marines. In addition, foriegn powers are starting to sign onto
> > the program. For example, the UK has agreed to pick up the Air
> > Force variant.
>
>
> Just a little clarification - the UK is actually a development partner
> having funded something like 25% of the programme so far as well as having
> design input (both RR & BAE have a lot of experience in the field).
> My understanding was that we had announced selection of the STOVL (similar
> to Marine) verion as our Harrier replacement.

BAE Systems has a 20% offset for JSF production.

> Additional countries such as the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Canada,
> Norway, Australia and Turkey are all signing up to the programme.

Italy wants a production line for the JSF in Italy.

[Bob Martin]

> > Boeing's plane was so heavy they had to remove panels before it could
> > even hover. Neither aircraft could stay in the air more than half an
> > hour without refueling (Boeing's Navy style in-flight refueling system
> > was not operational and so they had to land every half an hour to
> > refuel). Neither plane had any armaments or weapons during all of
> > this.
>
> Keep in mind that these were PROTOTYPES, hense the experimental
> X- designation. Once a winner is selected, they then go to full
> scale development, which are Y- designations. That could take a
> number of years, and the final plane might look very different
> from the prototypes. Look at how much changed between the YF-22
> and the F/A-22 that finally emerged. Dittos for weapons, that
> comes in the Y- program.

Adding a bit here... they X- prototypes were not intended to be
representative of the final production versions. Aerodynamically, maybe
(and not even that in the case of the Boeing design), but their fuel
capacities were far below what an operational aircraft would carry. Also,
the weapons are pretty much standardized (most everything that's in the
inventory now), and testing them with a pre-development aircraft is pretty
much useless. The big issue will not be whether the aircraft can talk to or
emply the weapons so much as separation and clearance and such... and that
wouldn't be too much of a problem. Avionics interface testing can be flown
on other testbeds or on the preproduction aircraft.

As stated above, the two ATF prototype aircraft were only somewhat similar
to production aircraft. Neither of them carried radar or an operational
amount of fuel, and neither were equipped to use weapons (though a dummy
round was test-launched from the YF-22).

[Cub Driver]

>neither
>Lockheed or Boeing made the slightest objection. Clearly they are not
>American companies any longer but multi national corporations whose
>sympathies belong to the highest bidder.

Companies build what customers want. I haven't heard NBC and CBS
complaining that Americans want to watch "Friends" (whatever) when
it's complete dreck.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[phil hunt]

On 21 Aug 2003 05:43:49 -0700, Bill Clark > wrote:
>I saw a PBS special on the X-plane competition between Boeing and
>Lockheed for the Joint Task Force (JTF) fighter;

ITYM the JSF ("Joint Strike Fighter").

>The problem is that the Pentagon requires the JTF to be vertical take
>off/landing capable. By doing so they are requiring 25% of the
>aircraft to be devoted to the necessary systems; in the case of the
>winning Lockheed aircraft, a huge fan in the middle of the fuselage.
>
>Granted, it's an elegant engineering accomplishment but it has zero
>combat effectiveness.

Hmmm. I suspect a few FAA[1] pilots might have disagreed regarding the
combat effectiveness of the VSTOL Harrier.

>Requiring all jets to be built by these
>standards is suicidal because it reduces the range and payload of
>every attack jet.

Most F-35s won't be built with the VTOL fan. I expect in the
others, the space will be used for extra fuel.

> It's really depressing to me that our military
>planners have come up with such an idiotic plan and that neither
>Lockheed or Boeing made the slightest objection.

****ing off one's largest customer isn't usually good business
sense.


[1]: this acronym is deliberately ambiguous.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Jeb Hoge]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Bill Clark" > wrote in message
> om...
> > It's really depressing to me that our military
> > planners have come up with such an idiotic plan and that neither
> > Lockheed or Boeing made the slightest objection. Clearly they are not
> > American companies any longer but multi national corporations whose
> > sympathies belong to the highest bidder.
> >
>
> What depresses me is that someone who describes himself
> as a PE got so little right.

Apparently this Bill Clark is a known-by-name troll nutcase from a few
space sciences newsgroups anyway. If he follows form, he won't post
in this thread again.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jeb Hoge" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...


> Apparently this Bill Clark is a known-by-name troll nutcase from a few
> space sciences newsgroups anyway. If he follows form, he won't post
> in this thread again.

We've heard from him before, he pops up every now and then.
usually its to tell us how some group or other has done him
wrong, so this is new experience :)

Keith