Re: F35 cost goes up.

[Pat Carpenter]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:36:13 GMT, "Shchelkunchik"
> wrote:

>
>"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Scott Ferrin wrote:
>> > Heh, heh. Guess that means there' no way in hell Russia will be able
>> > to afford an equivalent LOL
>>
>> But Scott,
>> Conspicuous consumption, is not what it's all about.
>> Perhaps an equivalent or better, doesn't need to cost
>> so much ??
>> What is the problem that needs this gadget to be built?
>> Perhaps there is/are other solutions!
>> --
>> Rostyk
>>
>
>Surrender? Running away? Those are European solutions.
>
Hope you aren't including Great Britain in that statement! If so
please apologize forthwith.

>When war is suddenly thrust upon you, there is no time to decide about
>manufacturing war materials to defend yourself. Perhaps Poland and France,
>etc learned something about this earlier?
>
>The US did learn from Pearl Harbor.
>
>The US is always evaluating how to spend its defense dollars. This is one of
>the reasons why UAVs and UCAVs are being developed at a feverish pace.
>Lots of new things on the horizon like smart bombs that can loister over a
>battlefield and return to base if not needed.
>
>UCAVs will be a part of a strike package with many UCAVs flying in the
>formation and controlled from a master aircraft. UCAVs will also have A/A
>capabilities as well as recon, ecm and ground attack.
>

[Jeb Hoge]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin > wrote:

> >JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
> >solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
> >that is more expensive than building three separate
> >designs.
> >
> >I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
> >go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
> >least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
> >for the USMC and the RN.
>
> I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.

If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model. The
Navy version's extended wings and sturdier structure wouldn't be a
huge detriment to AF operations, but it's a must-have for carrier use,
and the STOVL version isn't going anywhere since it's the most needed
layout of the program.

[Alan Minyard]

On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:

>In rec.aviation.military Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
>
>: I am shocked! What a surprise! A military program going over budget
>: and running behind schedule? :-)
>
>JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
>solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
>that is more expensive than building three separate
>designs.
>
>I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
>go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
>least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
>for the USMC and the RN. With the programme (inevitably)
>going over budget, and government budgets firmly in the
>red anyway, it will be too tempting.

You really have no idea how US politics/defense spending
operate, do you? The F-35 will be built in all three configurations,
and it will be the best strike fighter in the world. I realize that you
hate the US, but at least try to be rational.

Al Minyard

[Charles Gray]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:25:42 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:
>
>>In rec.aviation.military Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
>>
>>: I am shocked! What a surprise! A military program going over budget
>>: and running behind schedule? :-)
>>
>>JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
>>solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
>>that is more expensive than building three separate
>>designs.
>>
>>I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
>>go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
>>least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
>>for the USMC and the RN. With the programme (inevitably)
>>going over budget, and government budgets firmly in the
>>red anyway, it will be too tempting.
>
>You really have no idea how US politics/defense spending
>operate, do you? The F-35 will be built in all three configurations,
>and it will be the best strike fighter in the world. I realize that you
>hate the US, but at least try to be rational.
>
>Al Minyard

I'm not certain-- remember the A-12, or the A, B and C V/stol
programs of the 1970's? (Of course the fact that we have a flyable JSF
helps in this case :) )

On the other hand, I don't see a delation of any version-- perhaps a
reduction in production numbers (which never makes any sense-- you're
going to try to save money by reducing production and increasing per
hunit cost? But this is congress).
The fact of the matter is, given what the JSF is trying to do, and
hte traditional absolute failure of multi-service fighter aircraft, I
think the program is actually doing quite well, given the technical
challanges.

[phil hunt]

On 26 Dec 2003 09:41:18 -0800, Jeb Hoge > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>> On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin > wrote:
>
>> >JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
>> >solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
>> >that is more expensive than building three separate
>> >designs.
>> >
>> >I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
>> >go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
>> >least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
>> >for the USMC and the RN.
>>
>> I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.
>
>If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model.

Maybe, but ditching one would be done for cost purposes, and that's
the cheapest one.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Sat, 27 Dec 2003 04:49:47 +0000,
(phil hunt) allegedly uttered:

>On 26 Dec 2003 09:41:18 -0800, Jeb Hoge > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>>> On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin > wrote:
>>
>>> >JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
>>> >solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
>>> >that is more expensive than building three separate
>>> >designs.
>>> >
>>> >I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
>>> >go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
>>> >least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
>>> >for the USMC and the RN.
>>>
>>> I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.
>>
>>If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model.
>
>Maybe, but ditching one would be done for cost purposes, and that's
>the cheapest one.

But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Sat, 27 Dec 2003 04:49:47 +0000,
> (phil hunt) allegedly uttered:
>
> >On 26 Dec 2003 09:41:18 -0800, Jeb Hoge > wrote:
> (phil hunt) wrote in message
>...
> >>> On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin >
wrote:
> >>
> >>> >JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
> >>> >solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
> >>> >that is more expensive than building three separate
> >>> >designs.
> >>> >
> >>> >I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
> >>> >go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
> >>> >least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
> >>> >for the USMC and the RN.
> >>>
> >>> I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.
> >>
> >>If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model.
> >
> >Maybe, but ditching one would be done for cost purposes, and that's
> >the cheapest one.
>
> But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
> without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
> too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!

The Navy doesn't want the F-35, they want a robot to replace the "a" model
F-18s.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> I am being rational. The US federal government will have
> to make large budget cuts over the next years, as it cannot
> indefinitely sustain a 300 billion-a-year deficit.

You *do* know that a lot of that deficit came from the trashed economy
in the wake of 9/11, right? A year or so of increased revenues from
economic growth will make up for most of that, and a lot of the rest is
from one-time expenditures.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Henry J. Cobb]

Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message >...
> But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
> without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
> too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!

Nope, the most cost effective measure would be to cut the airframe
that will have the fewest built.

Can the F-35C and replace them 1-1 with F-35Bs.

Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

-HJC

[Jim McLaughlin]

"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote :

SNIPS

>
> Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
> didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.
>


Do you mean the F-4 Phantom?

-- Jim McLaughlin

Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.

************************************************** *************************

[Peter Kemp]

On or about 27 Dec 2003 11:23:02 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb)
allegedly uttered:

>Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message >...
>> But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
>> without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
>> too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!
>
>Nope, the most cost effective measure would be to cut the airframe
>that will have the fewest built.
>
>Can the F-35C and replace them 1-1 with F-35Bs.
>
>Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
>didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

Err, the F-4 (which I assume you're referring to) is one of the more
successful aircraft ever fielded by the USAF - hell they only got rid
of the last ones a decade ago.

If the -C gets canned, then the Marines have to rely on the USN for
all their airpower (e.g. the CAG may reserve a deck for defending the
battlegroup, meaning the Grunts can't get off their CAS missions -
currently not a problem with the LHDs), leaving them little point in
having their own fixed wing at all.

Of course, then the UK would have to have proper
carriers.........forget what I said - scrap the F-35C, it's obviously
a waste of money :-)
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Henry J.
Cobb > writes

>Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
>didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

Yes, it was _embarrassing_ when the Navy was so much more able to turn
"met MiG" into "killed MiG" than the Air Force, even when the Air Force
put guns in their F-4s and the Navy was only using those ineffective,
useless, can't-hit-a-thing "missile" gizmos.

It's a large and extremely complicated subject, but your analysis is
badly off the mark: the F-4 was a very competent aircraft and very few
forces who flew it, regretted doing so: with or without gun fit.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about 27 Dec 2003 11:23:02 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb)
> allegedly uttered:
>
> >Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
>...
> >> But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
> >> without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
> >> too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!
> >
> >Nope, the most cost effective measure would be to cut the airframe
> >that will have the fewest built.
> >
> >Can the F-35C and replace them 1-1 with F-35Bs.
> >
> >Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
> >didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.
>
> Err, the F-4 (which I assume you're referring to) is one of the more
> successful aircraft ever fielded by the USAF - hell they only got rid
> of the last ones a decade ago.

Thanks to Tel Aviv retrofits, the F-4 still rules certain parts of the sky.

> If the -C gets canned, then the Marines have to rely on the USN for
> all their airpower (e.g. the CAG may reserve a deck for defending the
> battlegroup, meaning the Grunts can't get off their CAS missions -
> currently not a problem with the LHDs), leaving them little point in
> having their own fixed wing at all.

Except that the Brits want a Harrier replacement. What you are suggesting
obsoletes America's closest ally's carriers.

> Of course, then the UK would have to have proper
> carriers.........forget what I said - scrap the F-35C, it's obviously
> a waste of money :-)

The USAF version would be lighter and cheaper, so I'd expect the Navy F-35
to be the most at risk. That taken together with the Navy's desire to use
some RPV for the F/A-18A mission, puts perhaps even more pressure on the
program to produce.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Peter Kemp
> writes
>Of course, then the UK would have to have proper
>carriers.........forget what I said - scrap the F-35C, it's obviously
>a waste of money :-)

And then Gordon Brown cancels CVF to fund the much more vital military
capability of more schoolsandhospitals.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> And then Gordon Brown cancels CVF to fund the much more vital military
> capability of more schoolsandhospitals.

Then all they have to do is build a few thousand more doctors and
nurses...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Scott Ferrin]

>Cutting back the overall number of aircraft? Something could
>be done, but JSF is needed too much to replace other types,
>and the result would be a reduction in overall strength.
>Cancelling the USAF JSF and make the USAF use the naval
>version instead? The naval version is 25% more expensive
>than the land-based model, so that would hardly be a cost-
>saving measure. Cancelling the naval version? That would
>make the USN a second-rate airforce. The STOVL version
>is the least needed one, with the lowest warload/range
>performance. A clear candidate for cancellation, IMHO.


The thing is, there are 12 amphibous warships in the inventory that
operate Harriers. If attack aircraft were eliminated from those ships
it would have a significant impact.

[Steven James Forsberg]

: And then Gordon Brown cancels CVF to fund the much more vital military
: capability of more schoolsandhospitals.

And commissaries! Don't forget the vital commissaries.... ;-)

regards,
------------------------------------------------------

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:37:25 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> allegedly uttered:

>In message >, Peter Kemp
> writes
>>Of course, then the UK would have to have proper
>>carriers.........forget what I said - scrap the F-35C, it's obviously
>>a waste of money :-)
>
>And then Gordon Brown cancels CVF to fund the much more vital military
>capability of more schoolsandhospitals.

IF those moreschoolsandhospitals actually emerged from that, then I
might think it's a good deal, but I think ut's more likely the CVF
would be canceled in favour of.....getting Labour reelected by
lowering taxes at the next budget.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Brian Sharrock]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Peter Kemp
> > writes
> >Of course, then the UK would have to have proper
> >carriers.........forget what I said - scrap the F-35C, it's obviously
> >a waste of money :-)
>
> And then Gordon Brown cancels CVF to fund the much more vital military
> capability of more schoolsandhospitals.
>

Shouldn't that read;-

And then prudent Gordon Brown prudently cancels CVF to
prudently fund the much more prudently vital military capability
of more prudent schoolsandhospitals.

--

Brian

[Magnus Redin]

Hi!

"Emmanuel Gustin" > writes:
> Cutting back the overall number of aircraft? Something could be
> done, but JSF is needed too much to replace other types, and the
> result would be a reduction in overall strength. Cancelling the USAF
> JSF and make the USAF use the naval version instead? The naval
> version is 25% more expensive than the land-based model, so that
> would hardly be a cost- saving measure. Cancelling the naval
> version? That would make the USN a second-rate airforce. The STOVL
> version is the least needed one, with the lowest warload/range
> performance. A clear candidate for cancellation, IMHO.

Canceling a major version saves development money. This works
regardless of wich version is canceled. The easiest to live withouth
version is probably the USAF one. The naval one is more expensive to
build but a larger series means lower per unit cost. The extra cost
will be lower then todays extra cost for a USN version and the goal of
commonality is easier with two major versions instead of three. Any
unique USAF requirements can probably be met by a few more wings of
F-22:s for zero development cost.

Canceling the USAF JSF version forcing the USAF to buy the USN version
and perhaps some more F-22:s saves money now and will perhaps make the
procurement more expensive when the aeroplanes are in production. But
perhaps not much more expensive since the production runs will be
longer.

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

[Tarver Engineering]

"Magnus Redin" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Canceling the USAF JSF version forcing the USAF to buy the USN version
> and perhaps some more F-22:s saves money now and will perhaps make the
> procurement more expensive when the aeroplanes are in production. But
> perhaps not much more expensive since the production runs will be
> longer.

Except that USN does not wish to participate in the F-35 procurement, in
favor of replacing the F/A-18As with robots. The USAF, however needs the
F-35 to hedge their bet that the F-22 will ever be produced in any numbers.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Except that USN does not wish to participate in the F-35 procurement, in
> favor of replacing the F/A-18As with robots. The USAF, however needs the
> F-35 to hedge their bet that the F-22 will ever be produced in any numbers.

Oddly enough, the only person who seems to believe that the Navy wants
to give up on piloted planes in the near future is... well, Tarver.

Sure, you can find one or two odd folks who think robots are the way to
go in the short term (in the long run it's not so chancy, but the tech
is nowhere *near* what we need right now), but most folks agree that we
need a near-future manned Navy attack plane to replace the ones we have
right now.

The new carriers in the pipeline - the CVN-21 series - are planned to be
primarily F-35 equipped (with F-18 and E-2 for the near term), with UCAV
to supplement on high-risk missions - once they figure out how to use
UCAVs on a crowded flight deck with manned planes (not a trivial feat).

As far as the F-22, we're buying them, they're working fine, and we all
know Tarver's delusions on that particular airframe...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Except that USN does not wish to participate in the F-35 procurement, in
> > favor of replacing the F/A-18As with robots. The USAF, however needs
the
> > F-35 to hedge their bet that the F-22 will ever be produced in any
numbers.
>
> Oddly enough, the only person who seems to believe that the Navy wants
> to give up on piloted planes in the near future is... well, Tarver.

Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for several
years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at production. The reason the
Navy stays is for the USMC version, to support fixed wing Marine air.

As to the Navy giving up piloted aircraft, I have already posted to this
thread the 526 F/A-18 Super Bugs in the Navy pipeline; as well as noting how
very successful the Navy's integration of COTS for reliability has been.
The Super Bug is already battle tested.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for several
> years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at production.

Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly
contradicts everything they've said to the public, right?

Oh, wait. You can't. As usual.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for several
> > years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at production.
>
> Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly
> contradicts everything they've said to the public, right?

In what way do you feel I have contradicted myself, Chad? What I wrote
there is identical to what I have written before. It it some lack of data,
or a reading and comprehension problem, you have?

[Chad Irby]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for
> > > several years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at
> > > production.
> >
> > Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly
> > contradicts everything they've said to the public, right?
>
> In what way do you feel I have contradicted myself, Chad?

Okay, here's a reading comprehension tip:

When I mentioned "the Navy" and how *you* contradicted *them*, you
weren't contradicting *yourself*, you were contradicting "the Navy."

> What I wrote there is identical to what I have written before.

Yes, and it's still wrong.

> It it some lack of data,
> or a reading and comprehension problem, you have?

No, it's the same old one you've been demonstrating here and in other
newsgroups since about the first day you discovered Usenet.

Once again, "the Navy" is not "you."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
> :The "Super" Hornet isn't a stealth aircraft
>
> For some definition of 'stealth'. It is billed as 'affordable
> stealth'.

They did some airframe reshaping and added some radar absorbing
material, which takes the F-18 E/F out of the "barn door" category and
into something like the Eurofighter's RCS category.

Still an order of magnitude or so to go to get to the F-35 RCS range.

> :and if they want stealth the F-35 is pretty much their only choice.
> :Not only that the F-35 is suppose to have a significantly longer
> :range than the Hornet.
>
> But not longer range than the Super Hornet. Don't confuse the two
> aircraft.

Um... the F-35 is going to have about a 50% better combat radius than
the F-18E/F, according to the Navy.

600 nm for the F-35 versus 410 nm for the Super Hornet versus about 290
nm for the older Hornets.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Fred J. McCall]

(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

:Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message >...
:> But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
:> without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
:> too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!
:
:Nope, the most cost effective measure would be to cut the airframe
:that will have the fewest built.
:
:Can the F-35C and replace them 1-1 with F-35Bs.

Not acceptable to the Navy, so they take their cash and go buy their
own airplane. Your costs for the remaining airframes go up.

:Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
:didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

Do you have ANY clue how long the F-4 was in Air Force service? Let's
just say that having the Navy design and build an airplane and making
the Air Force use it has historically been a lot more successful than
attempts to do it the other way around.

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:Um... the F-35 is going to have about a 50% better combat radius than
:the F-18E/F, according to the Navy.

Sources?

:600 nm for the F-35 versus 410 nm for the Super Hornet versus about 290
:nm for the older Hornets.

Paper airplanes always look good. I'll wait until they actually have
the thing designed completely and are bending metal. Any bets that
it's heavier and has shorter legs than the current paper says?

Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then,
wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy
lift strike' and 'tanker' roles.

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

[Scott Ferrin]

>Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then,
>wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy
>lift strike' and 'tanker' roles.


The Super Hornet is in production right now which means the airframe
have low flight hours or no flight hours on them. Tankers really
don't require anything ground breaking and the Super Hornets wouldn't
be used in a "first day of combat" role as an attack aircraft against
a competent adversary. Once the F-35 is in service the Super Hornet
will be pretty much second-string.

[Fred J. McCall]

Scott Ferrin > wrote:

:>Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then,
:>wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy
:>lift strike' and 'tanker' roles.
:
:The Super Hornet is in production right now which means the airframe
:have low flight hours or no flight hours on them. Tankers really
:don't require anything ground breaking and the Super Hornets wouldn't
:be used in a "first day of combat" role as an attack aircraft against
:a competent adversary. Once the F-35 is in service the Super Hornet
:will be pretty much second-string.

Frankly, I'm not holding my breath on this one.

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

[Charles Gray]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:05:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>

>:Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
>:didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.
>
>Do you have ANY clue how long the F-4 was in Air Force service? Let's
>just say that having the Navy design and build an airplane and making
>the Air Force use it has historically been a lot more successful than
>attempts to do it the other way around.

Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
still had the arresting hook.).

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> :Um... the F-35 is going to have about a 50% better combat radius than
> :the F-18E/F, according to the Navy.
>
> Sources?

The fas.org website.

> :600 nm for the F-35 versus 410 nm for the Super Hornet versus about 290
> :nm for the older Hornets.
>
> Paper airplanes always look good. I'll wait until they actually have
> the thing designed completely and are bending metal. Any bets that
> it's heavier and has shorter legs than the current paper says?

Not really, but it's certainly not going to miss the target by enough to
lose 1/3 of its range. Things have changed a bit for aircraft design
over the last thirty or forty years - it's not that hard to get a close
estimate of weight and performance for new aircraft now.

> Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then,
> wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy
> lift strike' and 'tanker' roles.

It's a case of "well, we have these older strike planes with a lot of
hardpoints on them, and we're not going to obsolete a five year old
aircraft while it stil works in a lot of places."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tex Houston]

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
> it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
> other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
> leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
> still had the arresting hook.).

Are you sure the hook you saw wasn't the emergency hook for runway barrier
engagement? USAF F-4C,D,E also had those as do most/all USAF fighters
Perhaps not as substantial as on the USN models but still a heavy duty piece
of gear.

Tex

[TJ]

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:05:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
>
> (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
> >
>
> >:Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
> >:didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.
> >
> >Do you have ANY clue how long the F-4 was in Air Force service? Let's
> >just say that having the Navy design and build an airplane and making
> >the Air Force use it has historically been a lot more successful than
> >attempts to do it the other way around.
>
> Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
> it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
> other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
> leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
> still had the arresting hook.).
>

The hook is used for runway arrestor landings. The same way as
Luftwaffe/Marineflieger F-104s, Tornados had/are fitted with hooks.

TJ

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for
> > > > several years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at
> > > > production.
> > >
> > > Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly
> > > contradicts everything they've said to the public, right?
> >
> > In what way do you feel I have contradicted myself, Chad?
>
> Okay, here's a reading comprehension tip:
>
> When I mentioned "the Navy" and how *you* contradicted *them*, you
> weren't contradicting *yourself*, you were contradicting "the Navy."

I am not contradicting the Navy, I am quoting them. The philosophy inside
the Navy WRT long range interdiction has been toward missiles and away from
airplanes, for many years.

If you mean that something like you are writing happened in one of your
video games, I couldn't comment. Here on an Earth where the sky is blue,
may be different from what you are experiancing in some cyber existance.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:11:43 -0700, "Tex Houston"
> wrote:

>
>"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
>> Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
>> it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
>> other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
>> leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
>> still had the arresting hook.).
>
>Are you sure the hook you saw wasn't the emergency hook for runway barrier
>engagement? USAF F-4C,D,E also had those as do most/all USAF fighters
>Perhaps not as substantial as on the USN models but still a heavy duty piece
>of gear.

The USAF (and Luftwaffe) F-4 tail hook is the same as the hook on USN
Phantoms. It was standard practice for a number of emergencies as well
as for heavy-weight recovery (such as with retained ordinance) to take
an approach end barrier. While BAK-12/13 and similar barriers run out
about three to four times as far as a carrier landing, the hook was
capable of doing a carrier arrestment as well.

Tail hooks on other USAF fighters are for departure end engagement
such as high speed aborts, blown tire on landing, long landing, low
RCR, etc. They aren't capable of surviving the stress of approach end
engagement. It should be noted, however, that current fighters don't
have the high take-off and landing speeds that the old Century series
had.

The USAF F-4 had different tires and didn't have the bridle assembly
on the nose gear for cat launches.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tex Houston]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:11:43 -0700, "Tex Houston"
>
> The USAF (and Luftwaffe) F-4 tail hook is the same as the hook on USN
> Phantoms. It was standard practice for a number of emergencies as well
> as for heavy-weight recovery (such as with retained ordinance) to take
> an approach end barrier. While BAK-12/13 and similar barriers run out
> about three to four times as far as a carrier landing, the hook was
> capable of doing a carrier arrestment as well.
>
> Tail hooks on other USAF fighters are for departure end engagement
> such as high speed aborts, blown tire on landing, long landing, low
> RCR, etc. They aren't capable of surviving the stress of approach end
> engagement. It should be noted, however, that current fighters don't
> have the high take-off and landing speeds that the old Century series
> had.
>
> The USAF F-4 had different tires and didn't have the bridle assembly
> on the nose gear for cat launches.
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus


Ed, thanks.

I knew about the tires but did not realize the hook was the same but was
never in an F-4 outfit, just F-104 and F-105. Did a fighter drag of an F-4C
squadron once but was with the tankers.

Regards,

Tex Houston

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> I am not contradicting the Navy, I am quoting them.

No, you're claiming that they said something they didn't, then going off
on an incorrect rant about a post of mine that you didn't read
correctly.

Which is very much par for the Tarver course...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> If you mean that something like you are writing happened in one of your
> video games, I couldn't comment.

For the third or fourth time, *not* a video game designer. I've
corrected you enough times on this, and you can't seem to remember it,
for some reason. It was a feeble insult the first time, and it's gone
*way* downhill since the first correction...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Charles Gray]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:22:11 -0000, "TJ" >
wrote:

>
>"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...

>>
>> Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
>> it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
>> other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
>> leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
>> still had the arresting hook.).
>>
>
>The hook is used for runway arrestor landings. The same way as
>Luftwaffe/Marineflieger F-104s, Tornados had/are fitted with hooks.
>
>TJ
>
Ah. Thank you. So, what than are the major structural differences
between a navy F-4 and an airforce design?

[Fred J. McCall]

Charles Gray > wrote:

: Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
:it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
:other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
:leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
:still had the arresting hook.).

Are you sure it was an arresting hook and not a 'short field' hook,
which is much lighter in structure?

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:>
:> Paper airplanes always look good. I'll wait until they actually have
:> the thing designed completely and are bending metal. Any bets that
:> it's heavier and has shorter legs than the current paper says?
:
:Not really, but it's certainly not going to miss the target by enough to
:lose 1/3 of its range. Things have changed a bit for aircraft design
:over the last thirty or forty years - it's not that hard to get a close
:estimate of weight and performance for new aircraft now.

Want to bet? And what is that "over 600 nautical miles" combat range
(for ALL F-35, apparently) predicated on? The only range statements I
see on FAS for this aircraft are pretty much 'hand waving' sorts of
answers.

:> Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then,
:> wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy
:> lift strike' and 'tanker' roles.
:
:It's a case of "well, we have these older strike planes with a lot of
:hardpoints on them, and we're not going to obsolete a five year old
:aircraft while it stil works in a lot of places."

I would not be surprised to see the F-35C fail to meet original design
targets for range and payload in a carrier environment.

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Charles Gray > wrote:
>
> : Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
> :it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
> :other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
> :leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
> :still had the arresting hook.).
>
> Are you sure it was an arresting hook and not a 'short field' hook,
> which is much lighter in structure?

All of the F-4s at George AFB back in the 1980s (F-4E and -G models) had
the same arrestor hooks I see in photos of Navy and Marine F-4s. Pretty
serious piece of metal, too... here's a photo that shows the general
size of it:

<http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Phantom/1333.html>

I don't know if I ever saw a Phantom with anything other than the
standard hook at George.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> :In article >,
> : Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> :>
> :> Paper airplanes always look good. I'll wait until they actually have
> :> the thing designed completely and are bending metal. Any bets that
> :> it's heavier and has shorter legs than the current paper says?
> :
> :Not really, but it's certainly not going to miss the target by enough to
> :lose 1/3 of its range. Things have changed a bit for aircraft design
> :over the last thirty or forty years - it's not that hard to get a close
> :estimate of weight and performance for new aircraft now.
>
> Want to bet? And what is that "over 600 nautical miles" combat range
> (for ALL F-35, apparently) predicated on? The only range statements I
> see on FAS for this aircraft are pretty much 'hand waving' sorts of
> answers.

Figuring out range estimates are fairly straightforward, since drag and
engine fuel flow are reasonably well defined. If they stuck better
engines into the F-18, they'd probably get better fuel efficiency, too
(the modified versions they're using are nice, but not *that* nice).

The F-18 also has to deal with the increased drag of all of those
external stores and fuel tanks. That makes a *huge* difference in range.

I'm just wondering why you think it's so outrageous to expect a much
newer fighter to have much better fuel efficiency...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:I'm just wondering why you think it's so outrageous to expect a much
:newer fighter to have much better fuel efficiency...

I don't think that. I also don't have a diseased faith in simulation,
since I used to write them. You can predict lots of things, but you
don't really know what's going to happen until you put a few thousand
hours on an airframe under operational stresses.

We'll see what the real operational range is with the bays full of
weapons and no external tanks. So far, all the numbers I've seen
amount to hand waving.

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> :I'm just wondering why you think it's so outrageous to expect a much
> :newer fighter to have much better fuel efficiency...
>
> I don't think that. I also don't have a diseased faith in simulation,
> since I used to write them.

But you should have a fairly concrete faith in aerodynamics, especially
with an airframe that's already *flying*.

> You can predict lots of things, but you
> don't really know what's going to happen until you put a few thousand
> hours on an airframe under operational stresses.

You don't need a few thousand hours on an airframe to figure out the
fuel usage. It's a fairly simple thing called "math."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
>
> We'll see what the real operational range is with the bays full of
> weapons and no external tanks. So far, all the numbers I've seen
> amount to hand waving.

The Navy just bought another 210 F/A-18s, so they may agree with you, Fred.
(EW)

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> >
> > We'll see what the real operational range is with the bays full of
> > weapons and no external tanks. So far, all the numbers I've seen
> > amount to hand waving.
>
> The Navy just bought another 210 F/A-18s, so they may agree with you, Fred.
> (EW)

The contract for 210 more Super Hornets is just for part of the original
plan, not an additional buy. The first contract was for 222, this one
is for 210 - less than the 538 they were going to buy for a while, and a
lot less than the 1000 or so they were originally going to purchase.

The F-18 is still going to be pretty useful as a bomb truck, and can be
modified (EA-18G) into the followon Prowler replacements we're starting
to need. The new models also have enough total fuel capacity (when
kitted out) to allow them to be used as a tanker with self-defense
capability.

The FA-18E/F isn't an F-35 replacement, it's a replacement for just
about everything *else* except COD planes and helicopters... and it
costs $57 million a pop, more than the F-35's Navy variant.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> Chad Irby > wrote:
:>
:> :I'm just wondering why you think it's so outrageous to expect a much
:> :newer fighter to have much better fuel efficiency...
:>
:> I don't think that. I also don't have a diseased faith in simulation,
:> since I used to write them.
:
:But you should have a fairly concrete faith in aerodynamics, especially
:with an airframe that's already *flying*.

Final F-35C aircraft are already flying? Since when?

:> You can predict lots of things, but you
:> don't really know what's going to happen until you put a few thousand
:> hours on an airframe under operational stresses.
:
:You don't need a few thousand hours on an airframe to figure out the
:fuel usage. It's a fairly simple thing called "math."

Yes, but what you CAN'T predict is what you're going to have to change
to make the thing actually work in real service. Those changes will
impact many things, including range, payload, fuel load, etc. It's a
fairly simple thing called "reality".

To listen to you, test flight programs are totally unnecessary.
Sorry, but our present reality seems to strongly indicate otherwise.

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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Charles Gray > writes:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:22:11 -0000, "TJ" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>
>>> Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
>>> it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
>>> other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
>>> leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
>>> still had the arresting hook.).
>>>
>>
>>The hook is used for runway arrestor landings. The same way as
>>Luftwaffe/Marineflieger F-104s, Tornados had/are fitted with hooks.
>>
>>TJ
>>
> Ah. Thank you. So, what than are the major structural differences
> between a navy F-4 and an airforce design?

Wider main wheels and tires, a bulge at teh wing root to allow same to
be retracted, and a boom refuelling socket rather than a refuelling
probe.

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

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:21:26 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

> You don't need a few thousand hours on an airframe to figure out the
> fuel usage. It's a fairly simple thing called "math."

Once you know what the drag is, sure. But predicting the drag is
fraught with error, as previous aircraft have shown. The usual
failure in prediction is trim angle of attack. It's wrong, which
means that the horizontal is set at the wrong angle, so the trim drag
is higher than predicted and the fuel usage is, too.

I'm trying to remember which airplane it was that was sweating out
something like 250 drag counts between predicted and as-flown a while
back. They were moving antennas, fidgeting with the cg to change the
trim angle, smoothing the skin--all kinds of stuff. It must have been
the F-16, I guess.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> :But you should have a fairly concrete faith in aerodynamics, especially
> :with an airframe that's already *flying*.
>
> Final F-35C aircraft are already flying? Since when?

Early F-35 aircraft are already flying, and there's no way in hell
there's going to be enough change in the next year or so to knock 1/3
off of their range. If there was anything lke that sort of defect in
the aircraft, the more annoying Proxmire-types in Congress would be
soiling themselves in delight.

> Yes, but what you CAN'T predict is what you're going to have to change
> to make the thing actually work in real service. Those changes will
> impact many things, including range, payload, fuel load, etc. It's a
> fairly simple thing called "reality".

And, once again, you still haven't managed to mention any aircraft in
the last twenty years or so that's been off by even 20% in combat
radius, never mind the 33% you're claiming it's going to be for the
F-35. Hell, a 10% miss on any of the performance targets would be
getting headlines in Aviation Week...

> To listen to you, test flight programs are totally unnecessary.
> Sorry, but our present reality seems to strongly indicate otherwise.

Well, not that you've bothered to listen in the first place...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:21:26 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > You don't need a few thousand hours on an airframe to figure out the
> > fuel usage. It's a fairly simple thing called "math."
>
> Once you know what the drag is, sure. But predicting the drag is
> fraught with error, as previous aircraft have shown. The usual
> failure in prediction is trim angle of attack. It's wrong, which
> means that the horizontal is set at the wrong angle, so the trim drag
> is higher than predicted and the fuel usage is, too.
>
> I'm trying to remember which airplane it was that was sweating out
> something like 250 drag counts between predicted and as-flown a while
> back. They were moving antennas, fidgeting with the cg to change the
> trim angle, smoothing the skin--all kinds of stuff. It must have been
> the F-16, I guess.

That difference is between the theory of a plane on the drawing board
and one in the air. They're *flying* F-35 airframes.

Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
airframe and the production model.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> Chad Irby > wrote:
:>
:> :But you should have a fairly concrete faith in aerodynamics, especially
:> :with an airframe that's already *flying*.
:>
:> Final F-35C aircraft are already flying? Since when?
:
:Early F-35 aircraft are already flying, and there's no way in hell
:there's going to be enough change in the next year or so to knock 1/3
:off of their range.

F-35C aircraft? What's their ACTUAL range? Have you seen it
published anywhere? What load and what profile?

:If there was anything lke that sort of defect in
:the aircraft, the more annoying Proxmire-types in Congress would be
:soiling themselves in delight.

If they were told.

:> Yes, but what you CAN'T predict is what you're going to have to change
:> to make the thing actually work in real service. Those changes will
:> impact many things, including range, payload, fuel load, etc. It's a
:> fairly simple thing called "reality".
:
:And, once again, you still haven't managed to mention any aircraft in
:the last twenty years or so that's been off by even 20% in combat
:radius, never mind the 33% you're claiming it's going to be for the
:F-35.

Pardon me, but where the hell did I claim that? What ARE you smoking?
So far, all you've put forward is a comparison between apples and
aardvarks. Handwaving predictions of ranges for the F-35C. What's
the actual range, since the data is so solid and all?

:Hell, a 10% miss on any of the performance targets would be
:getting headlines in Aviation Week...

So, what tactical radius is the F-35C demonstrating? What loads?
What flight profiles?

What? You don't have that data? Me either, which is sort of my
point. There's marketing and then there's what you can actually do
with the airplane. I'm more interested in the latter. You appear to
want to insist that the former is gospel.

:> To listen to you, test flight programs are totally unnecessary.
:> Sorry, but our present reality seems to strongly indicate otherwise.
:
:Well, not that you've bothered to listen in the first place...

Given your demonstrated inability to read, above, I think you've just
committed some sort of metal. Say, ironic.

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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:55:08 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>In article >,
> Charles Gray > writes:
>> Ah. Thank you. So, what than are the major structural differences
>> between a navy F-4 and an airforce design?
>
>Wider main wheels and tires, a bulge at teh wing root to allow same to
>be retracted, and a boom refuelling socket rather than a refuelling
>probe.

There's more. Depending on the model, you might have two section or
three section leading edge flaps. Withe E and G you get a smaller
radar antenna and the underslung gun. With J and S you get blistered
ECM pods on the top outer corners of the intakes. There are different
radars on all versions and no stick in the R/C/P of USN airplanes.
With RF and G-eazels you get different noses. Some have slotted slabs
and some (both USAF and USN) have LES. Then there's TISEO as well.

And, more and more.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:33:44 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

> In article >,
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:21:26 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> > > You don't need a few thousand hours on an airframe to figure out the
> > > fuel usage. It's a fairly simple thing called "math."
> >
> > Once you know what the drag is, sure. But predicting the drag is
> > fraught with error, as previous aircraft have shown. The usual
> > failure in prediction is trim angle of attack. It's wrong, which
> > means that the horizontal is set at the wrong angle, so the trim drag
> > is higher than predicted and the fuel usage is, too.
> >
> > I'm trying to remember which airplane it was that was sweating out
> > something like 250 drag counts between predicted and as-flown a while
> > back. They were moving antennas, fidgeting with the cg to change the
> > trim angle, smoothing the skin--all kinds of stuff. It must have been
> > the F-16, I guess.
>
> That difference is between the theory of a plane on the drawing board
> and one in the air. They're *flying* F-35 airframes.

Well, big whoop. They're flying instrumented pre-production
airframes, not "real" F-35s, by the way. The production F-35 may
differ a fair amount from the pre-production models.

Have they done the performance points yet? They're not usually done
very early in a program. As I recall, the performance airframe is
often the fourth or fifth to go into test, because the early airframes
are dedicated to more urgent issues, like buffet and S&C and HQ.

As for the predictions, they're not from the drawing board. Rather,
they're from models, either wind tunnel or CFD. The predictions are
pretty good in general, but it is possible to miss now and then.
There are certain parameters that are disportionately sensitive to
small perturbations. Trim angle, for example.

> Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
> problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
> the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
> airframe and the production model.

I beg your pardon? Can you point to any place where I said that there
would be a 33% change or a difference between the pre-production model
(that's what we call "the early flying airframe") and the production
model?

The problem with 250 drag counts is that it's a hideously big amount
of drag. Really, really big. No, not enough to steal a third of the
range, but too much to meet the specs. And this was between the
predictions and the pre-production airframes, but the data from the
prototype YF-16 had been used too.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:55:08 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

> In article >,
> Charles Gray > writes:
>
> > Ah. Thank you. So, what than are the major structural differences
> > between a navy F-4 and an airforce design?
>
> Wider main wheels and tires, a bulge at teh wing root to allow same to
> be retracted, and a boom refuelling socket rather than a refuelling
> probe.

Controls in the aft cockpit, too.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> F-35C aircraft? What's their ACTUAL range? Have you seen it
> published anywhere? What load and what profile?

You know, you keep harping on this, but you never seem to have any
justification for the extreme miss in range that you're assuming is
going to happen.

And I'm still waiting for *any* example of an aircraft that's missed by
as much as you're assuming the F-35 will.

> :And, once again, you still haven't managed to mention any aircraft in
> :the last twenty years or so that's been off by even 20% in combat
> :radius, never mind the 33% you're claiming it's going to be for the
> :F-35.
>
> Pardon me, but where the hell did I claim that?

In every single post that you've made on this subject, by assuming that
the F-35 will miss its range target by enough to have a shorter range
than the F-18.

You've had several chances to back off and agree that you're wrong, but
you keep babbling about the "F-35C," while not admitting that the range
difference isn't going to be more than a few percent.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Scott Ferrin]

>> Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
>> problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
>> the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
>> airframe and the production model.
>
>I beg your pardon? Can you point to any place where I said that there
>would be a 33% change or a difference between the pre-production model
>(that's what we call "the early flying airframe") and the production
>model?

I think he's referring to the comment *way* back up the thread that
suggested the F-35C wouldn't have the range of a Super Hornet and that
it's range would have to be cut by 33% to be as low as the Hornet's.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:33:44 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
> > problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
> > the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
> > airframe and the production model.
>
> I beg your pardon? Can you point to any place where I said that there
> would be a 33% change or a difference between the pre-production model
> (that's what we call "the early flying airframe") and the production
> model?

My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.

If it misses its range by as much as five or ten percent, it will still
have a *much* higher unrefueled range than the F-18.

Since I've already *agreed* that it could miss by a small amount, and
since you keep *arguing* about it, that means you must disagree with
those numbers.

So pick a number. What's the *worst* you think it could be?

If it's not more than about five or ten percent, then you're arguing
with Fred on this one, not me...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Scott Ferrin > wrote:

:
:>> Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
:>> problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
:>> the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
:>> airframe and the production model.
:>
:>I beg your pardon? Can you point to any place where I said that there
:>would be a 33% change or a difference between the pre-production model
:>(that's what we call "the early flying airframe") and the production
:>model?
:
:I think he's referring to the comment *way* back up the thread that
:suggested the F-35C wouldn't have the range of a Super Hornet and that
:it's range would have to be cut by 33% to be as low as the Hornet's.

I'm sure he is, but that's simply wrong. First normalize the numbers.
Equal percentage of load, fuel, same flight profiles, etc. Next, get
some REAL numbers for the combat range of an F-35C with those sorts of
constraints, rather than all this hand waving. Then we'll talk about
how far off it has to be.

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
> :I think he's referring to the comment *way* back up the thread that
> :suggested the F-35C wouldn't have the range of a Super Hornet and that
> :it's range would have to be cut by 33% to be as low as the Hornet's.
>
> I'm sure he is, but that's simply wrong.

No, that's basically what they've been using at the Navy.

> First normalize the numbers.
> Equal percentage of load, fuel, same flight profiles, etc.

The Navy uses a standard mission profile. It's a "high-low-high" attack
mission with a standard armament load (two 1000 pound bombs) that can
recover on the same ship it launches from (the FA-18E/F supposedly can't
recover from an abort with a max load, and has to dump some weapons or
fuel to manage a landing). The standard mission profile is what I've
been going by.

If you go with nonstandard profiles, the FA-18 E/F could have a higher
range (as much as 500 miles, with extreme fuel loads and no chance of
recovery in a short abort), but so would the F-35 (more internal fuel).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:03:15 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
>:
>:>> Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
>:>> problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
>:>> the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
>:>> airframe and the production model.
>:>
>:>I beg your pardon? Can you point to any place where I said that there
>:>would be a 33% change or a difference between the pre-production model
>:>(that's what we call "the early flying airframe") and the production
>:>model?
>:
>:I think he's referring to the comment *way* back up the thread that
>:suggested the F-35C wouldn't have the range of a Super Hornet and that
>:it's range would have to be cut by 33% to be as low as the Hornet's.
>
>I'm sure he is, but that's simply wrong. First normalize the numbers.
>Equal percentage of load, fuel, same flight profiles, etc. Next, get
>some REAL numbers for the combat range of an F-35C with those sorts of
>constraints, rather than all this hand waving. Then we'll talk about
>how far off it has to be.


You'd think though that they'd at least have an inkling from the
prototypes on the range so they could do something about it in the
production model if it was that far off. If they haven't something is
seriously wrong with the process.

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:48:31 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

> In article >,
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:33:44 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> > > Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
> > > problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
> > > the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
> > > airframe and the production model.
> >
> > I beg your pardon? Can you point to any place where I said that there
> > would be a 33% change or a difference between the pre-production model
> > (that's what we call "the early flying airframe") and the production
> > model?
>
> My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
> about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.
>
> If it misses its range by as much as five or ten percent, it will still
> have a *much* higher unrefueled range than the F-18.
>
> Since I've already *agreed* that it could miss by a small amount, and
> since you keep *arguing* about it, that means you must disagree with
> those numbers.

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining the most common problems in
predicting drag, and, hence, range. The prediction can range from
small to large and no one has provided any meaningful information
about what the situation is. It's all speculation. You're the one
who is arguing, with what appears to be very little information but a
great deal of emotion.

I do think it's a little dishonest to compare aircraft with internal
stores to aircraft with external stores, as some of the comparisons
I've seen elsewhere do, but that's not an issue here. That's about
the only thing I'd argue about.

What's to argue about, anyway? If you know the drag, you know the
thrust you need. If you know the required thrust and you know the
engine, you know the fuel consumption. If you know that, you know the
range. What you do in flight test is find the drag and refine the
engine model. Then you hope the difference isn't so great between
what was predicted, which was enough to meet the specs, and what you
got that you can't come close enough to get a waiver. It's pretty
simple, really.

The F-35 is a nice, if odd-looking, little airplane. I have no reason
to believe it has any major problems. I hope it doesn't. If it does,
I hope they're easily fixable.

Mary


--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Scott Ferrin]

>I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining the most common problems in
>predicting drag, and, hence, range. The prediction can range from
>small to large and no one has provided any meaningful information
>about what the situation is. It's all speculation. You're the one
>who is arguing, with what appears to be very little information but a
>great deal of emotion.
>
>I do think it's a little dishonest to compare aircraft with internal
>stores to aircraft with external stores, as some of the comparisons
>I've seen elsewhere do, but that's not an issue here. That's about
>the only thing I'd argue about.
>
>What's to argue about, anyway? If you know the drag, you know the
>thrust you need. If you know the required thrust and you know the
>engine, you know the fuel consumption. If you know that, you know the
>range. What you do in flight test is find the drag and refine the
>engine model. Then you hope the difference isn't so great between
>what was predicted, which was enough to meet the specs, and what you
>got that you can't come close enough to get a waiver. It's pretty
>simple, really.
>
>The F-35 is a nice, if odd-looking, little airplane. I have no reason
>to believe it has any major problems. I hope it doesn't. If it does,
>I hope they're easily fixable.
>
>Mary


Do they EVER get a *pleasant* surprise? As in "wow this sucker has
300 miles more range than we thought"? It always seems like it's
heavier than they thought or less range or lower speed or weird
aerodynamics. Seems like nothing positive ever pops up.

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:56:07 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

> >What's to argue about, anyway? If you know the drag, you know the
> >thrust you need. If you know the required thrust and you know the
> >engine, you know the fuel consumption. If you know that, you know the
> >range. What you do in flight test is find the drag and refine the
> >engine model. Then you hope the difference isn't so great between
> >what was predicted, which was enough to meet the specs, and what you
> >got that you can't come close enough to get a waiver. It's pretty
> >simple, really.

> Do they EVER get a *pleasant* surprise? As in "wow this sucker has
> 300 miles more range than we thought"? It always seems like it's
> heavier than they thought or less range or lower speed or weird
> aerodynamics. Seems like nothing positive ever pops up.

Yes, they occasionally do. Not usually on weight or range, though.
Aircraft always end up heavier and draggier than designed. More lift,
better HQ, more thrust is more likely, but very uncommon. Maybe
better structural dynamics, like flutter, too.

The reason it seems that only bad stuff shows up in flight test has to
do with the purchasing process. The military gives the contractor the
contract based on the contractor's promise to build an airplane that
can do at least as well as specified in the contract. There's rarely
a reward for doing better.

So, things that don't meet the specs are a problem and have to be
fixed. They get the publicity. Things that exceed the specs are not
a problem in terms of the contract, so no one hears about them. (They
could be a problem in terms of design, that the contractor made
something too good, wasting money, since the idea on the contractor's
side is to produce an airplane that's just good enough.)

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Magnus Redin]

Hi!

Scott Ferrin > writes:
> Do they EVER get a *pleasant* surprise? As in "wow this sucker has
> 300 miles more range than we thought"? It always seems like it's
> heavier than they thought or less range or lower speed or weird
> aerodynamics. Seems like nothing positive ever pops up.

A few years ago it was reported in swedish aviation magazines that
Gripen has a little less drag then predicted during development.

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> F-35C aircraft? What's their ACTUAL range? Have you seen it
:> published anywhere? What load and what profile?
:
:You know, you keep harping on this, but you never seem to have any
:justification for the extreme miss in range that you're assuming is
:going to happen.

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)).

:And I'm still waiting for *any* example of an aircraft that's missed by
:as much as you're assuming the F-35 will.

Your failure to understand what I'm 'assuming' is not my problem. It
is yours. Slam the thing into a carrier deck several hundred times
and put a few thousand hours on it. How much additional 'beefing up'
of structure is going to be required? What effects will it have on
fuel load, drag, etc?

Simulation is wonderful. It didn't predict the tailplane problems and
wing problems on F/A-18s of various types.

:> :And, once again, you still haven't managed to mention any aircraft in
:> :the last twenty years or so that's been off by even 20% in combat
:> :radius, never mind the 33% you're claiming it's going to be for the
:> :F-35.
:>
:> Pardon me, but where the hell did I claim that?
:
:In every single post that you've made on this subject, by assuming that
:the F-35 will miss its range target by enough to have a shorter range
:than the F-18.

Nonsense. So far, you're comparing apples and aardvarks. What load
is the F/A-18E/F (not just the vanilla Hornet) carrying for the range
number you're using? Any external fuel? Loaded to capacity? Same
weapon load as the F-35C and the remainder of the allowable load taken
up with fuel? What's the F-35C carrying for your example? Any
external load?

Do you get the point yet? Go find numbers that compare apples to
apples and come back and make your claims again.

:You've had several chances to back off and agree that you're wrong, but
:you keep babbling about the "F-35C," while not admitting that the range
:difference isn't going to be more than a few percent.

And you persist in ignoring reality in favour of marketing. You've
had several chances to actually read what I'm saying and admit you
don't know enough to know if either of us is wrong, but you keep
babbling about "missing by 33%" while not admitting that you haven't a
clue what load conditions and fuel fractions go with your marketing
numbers for the F-35(generic).

Get back to me when you have real numbers with real loads on real
airplanes in real FRP trim. Those numbers exist for Hornets (of all
types). They do not exist for F-35s (of any type).

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

[Chad Irby]

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.

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
:about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.

Even the source you gave (FAS) doesn't claim that. What they say is
combat range about 50% higher than the F/A-18C/D (not Super Hornet) ON
INTERNAL FUEL. Note that the Super Hornet has about 40% more range
than the Hornet. Now, would you like to rethink that remark?

So let's go with FAS as a source. Combat radius for the F-35 is given
as "600+ nautical miles". Combat radius for the F/A-18C/D is given
with the statement of "Depending on the mission and loading, combat
radius is greater than 500 nautical miles". Combat radius of the
Super Hornet is given as "up to 40% greater than the C/D", which when
you work the math out gives 700+ nautical miles.

You figure it out.

:If it misses its range by as much as five or ten percent, it will still
:have a *much* higher unrefueled range than the F-18.

There hasn't been an airplane designated as "F-18" since 1987. Using
FAS for numbers, it appears that the Super Hornet already has more
range than the F-35 by a good margin, even if the F-35 meets spec.

:Since I've already *agreed* that it could miss by a small amount, and
:since you keep *arguing* about it, that means you must disagree with
:those numbers.
:
:So pick a number. What's the *worst* you think it could be?
:
:If it's not more than about five or ten percent, then you're arguing
:with Fred on this one, not me...

Well, no, because you persist in misunderstanding what I'm saying. Do
you believe the numbers I give above? I don't, for typical combat
missions. The range for F/A-18 is grossly overstated in that case
(for both variants). SO IS THAT OF THE F-35! And I expect that games
are going to have to be played to meet the spec (no load, most
favourable flight regime, etc) once all the issues with the airplane
(in everything but the baseline version) get shaken out in real
flights of real articles crashing onto real aircraft carriers and/or
taking off from real parking lots.

You get it now?

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
:>
:> :I think he's referring to the comment *way* back up the thread that
:> :suggested the F-35C wouldn't have the range of a Super Hornet and that
:> :it's range would have to be cut by 33% to be as low as the Hornet's.
:>
:> I'm sure he is, but that's simply wrong.
:
:No, that's basically what they've been using at the Navy.

So why did you point to FAS for numbers? Where are these Navy
numbers?

:> First normalize the numbers.
:> Equal percentage of load, fuel, same flight profiles, etc.
:
:The Navy uses a standard mission profile. It's a "high-low-high" attack
:mission with a standard armament load (two 1000 pound bombs) that can
:recover on the same ship it launches from (the FA-18E/F supposedly can't
:recover from an abort with a max load, and has to dump some weapons or
:fuel to manage a landing). The standard mission profile is what I've
:been going by.

You couldn't prove it by what you've said so far. Oh, just as a 'by
the way', *NO* Navy combat aircraft can recover from an abort with max
load without dumping. F-35C will not be any different in this regard.
One of the advantages of the Super Hornet over the Hornet is the MUCH
larger 'bring back' it is capable of.

You tell me. You're taking off with a pair of JSOW (1000 lb-class
weapons), a pair of AAMRAM, and full internal fuel in an F/A-18C/D.
Stuff breaks on takeoff. Can you land in that configuration?

Now try the same thing in a Super Hornet. Can you land in that
configuration?

Ok, now let's talk about the F-35C.

:If you go with nonstandard profiles, the FA-18 E/F could have a higher
:range (as much as 500 miles, with extreme fuel loads and no chance of
:recovery in a short abort), but so would the F-35 (more internal fuel).

Horse manure! Trot out your tables for 'bring back' of the F-35C and
we'll talk. Until then, you're just blowing smoke and hoping it will
obscure the man behind the curtain.

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

[[email protected]]

Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:21:26 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> > You don't need a few thousand hours on an airframe to figure out the
>> > fuel usage. It's a fairly simple thing called "math."
>>
>> Once you know what the drag is, sure. But predicting the drag is
>> fraught with error, as previous aircraft have shown. The usual
>> failure in prediction is trim angle of attack. It's wrong, which
>> means that the horizontal is set at the wrong angle, so the trim drag
>> is higher than predicted and the fuel usage is, too.
>>
>> I'm trying to remember which airplane it was that was sweating out
>> something like 250 drag counts between predicted and as-flown a while
>> back. They were moving antennas, fidgeting with the cg to change the
>> trim angle, smoothing the skin--all kinds of stuff. It must have been
>> the F-16, I guess.
>
>That difference is between the theory of a plane on the drawing board
>and one in the air. They're *flying* F-35 airframes.
>
>Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
>problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
>the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
>airframe and the production model.

This sounds much more reasonable. While I'm certainly no expert
in these matters I'd be pretty surprised if these highly paid
engineers and designers made such a horrendous error as to result
in a one third higher than expected drag figure.
--

-Gord.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:38:22 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>:My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
>:about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.
>
>Even the source you gave (FAS) doesn't claim that. What they say is
>combat range about 50% higher than the F/A-18C/D (not Super Hornet) ON
>INTERNAL FUEL. Note that the Super Hornet has about 40% more range
>than the Hornet. Now, would you like to rethink that remark?
>
>So let's go with FAS as a source. Combat radius for the F-35 is given
>as "600+ nautical miles". Combat radius for the F/A-18C/D is given
>with the statement of "Depending on the mission and loading, combat
>radius is greater than 500 nautical miles". Combat radius of the
>Super Hornet is given as "up to 40% greater than the C/D", which when
>you work the math out gives 700+ nautical miles.
>
>You figure it out.

As much as I like that site and globalsecurity.org, you have to take
some of what they say with a huge grain of salt. According to them
the F-15 can do 1,875 mph on the deck. :-)

[Fred J. McCall]

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.

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Scott Ferrin > wrote:

:On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:38:22 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Chad Irby > wrote:
:>
:>:My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
:>:about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.
:>
:>Even the source you gave (FAS) doesn't claim that. What they say is
:>combat range about 50% higher than the F/A-18C/D (not Super Hornet) ON
:>INTERNAL FUEL. Note that the Super Hornet has about 40% more range
:>than the Hornet. Now, would you like to rethink that remark?
:>
:>So let's go with FAS as a source. Combat radius for the F-35 is given
:>as "600+ nautical miles". Combat radius for the F/A-18C/D is given
:>with the statement of "Depending on the mission and loading, combat
:>radius is greater than 500 nautical miles". Combat radius of the
:>Super Hornet is given as "up to 40% greater than the C/D", which when
:>you work the math out gives 700+ nautical miles.
:>
:>You figure it out.
:
:As much as I like that site and globalsecurity.org, you have to take
:some of what they say with a huge grain of salt. According to them
:the F-15 can do 1,875 mph on the deck. :-)

I quite agree. In fact, I made that very point in the part of my
article you clipped. See the statement that began with "Do you
believe the numbers...."

--
"Adrenaline is like exercise, but without the excessive gym fees."
-- Professor Walsh, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> :My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
> :about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.
>
> Even the source you gave (FAS) doesn't claim that. What they say is
> combat range about 50% higher than the F/A-18C/D (not Super Hornet) ON
> INTERNAL FUEL.

What they say is that is has *twice* the range of the F-18C on internal
fuel, not 50% higher. And that's also fairly obviously referring *only*
to the F-35's internal fuel load, since the F-18C has a much smaller
fuel load without external tanks (the F-35 has a 7200 kilogram internal
fuel load, versus less than 5000 kilograms for the F-18), you're going
to have to explain that magical fuel economy for the F-18C, with much
older engines and all of that external armament and tankage hanging off
of the wings.

That's the other thing you're ignoring... when you're talking about a
useful mission, it's a clean but loaded F-35 versus an F-18 with several
tons of fuel and bombs and missiles hanging out there in the airflow.

And you were complaining about possible practical problems with the F-35
airframe causing huge changes in air friction, but blindly denying the
plain fact that the other planes have *huge* issues in this area.

> Note that the Super Hornet has about 40% more range than the Hornet.

....on internal fuel, plus two drop tanks, plus weapons. And 40% more
range than 290 nm for an interdiction mission doesn't put it anywhere
near a 500 nm range.

See, you *can* (as I've said two or three times so far) make longer
missions, by carrying less weapons, or loading the plane to to point it
can't recover on the launching carrier without dropping stuff into the
water, but you can also do the same "extreme" missions with the F-35.

For a more normal mission, the F-35 is going to have that same huge
advantage over the F-18 that I've been talking about.

> Now, would you like to rethink that remark?

Would you like to rethink yours?

Especially since the same sort of rationale for the long F-35 range is
the *same* rationale for the long F-18E/F range, but I don't see you
commenting on that...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Oh, just as a 'by the way', *NO* Navy combat aircraft can recover
> from an abort with max load without dumping. F-35C will not be any
> different in this regard.

Actually, that's one of the design parameters for the aircraft.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
> >problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
> >the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
> >airframe and the production model.
>
> This sounds much more reasonable. While I'm certainly no expert
> in these matters I'd be pretty surprised if these highly paid
> engineers and designers made such a horrendous error as to result
> in a one third higher than expected drag figure.

Tell it to Fred. He's magically sure that the F-35 is going to be a
disaster of Biblical proportions...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> You've claimed several different provenances for your numbers. The
> only explicit one was FAS.

> 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.

Funny you should mention this.

In what part of English is "twice" the same as "50% higher?"

That's what *you* claimed to have read off of that FAS site.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> Oh, just as a 'by the way', *NO* Navy combat aircraft can recover
:> from an abort with max load without dumping. F-35C will not be any
:> different in this regard.
:
:Actually, that's one of the design parameters for the aircraft.

They'll never make it. If that's one of the design parameters (trap
with full fuel and weapons load (16,000 pounds of fuel and 17,000
pounds of ordnance on an airframe with a 24,000 pound dry weight), it
must also be one of their design parameters that you routinely snap
gear off the airplane. I also find it interesting that they
apparently think it takes only three quarters of a ton of extra
structure to go from an Air Force 'light fighter' to doing arrested
landings.

Citation, please?

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> You've claimed several different provenances for your numbers. The
:> only explicit one was FAS.
:
:> 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.
:
:Funny you should mention this.
:
:In what part of English is "twice" the same as "50% higher?"
:
:That's what *you* claimed to have read off of that FAS site.

Ah, my apologies. I did misread that one. Now, funny how you still
avoid any self-commentary on all YOUR misread (and, apparently,
outright made up) numbers.

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> :In article >,
> : Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> :
> :> Oh, just as a 'by the way', *NO* Navy combat aircraft can recover
> :> from an abort with max load without dumping. F-35C will not be any
> :> different in this regard.
> :
> :Actually, that's one of the design parameters for the aircraft.
>
> They'll never make it. If that's one of the design parameters (trap
> with full fuel and weapons load (16,000 pounds of fuel and 17,000
> pounds of ordnance on an airframe with a 24,000 pound dry weight),

It's not, since a full fuel load precludes a full weapons load. The
plane tops out at about 50,000 pounds.

With partial weapons and full fuel, it's quite doable.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Ah, my apologies. I did misread that one. Now, funny how you still
> avoid any self-commentary on all YOUR misread (and, apparently,
> outright made up) numbers.

Because most of what you've been calling "misread" is due to very
selective reading on your part, or a refusal to actually look at the
numbers.

What it comes down to is that you think the F-35 will miss its
performance targets by a huge amount, and that you haven't got a reason
for it other than pure paranoia.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > I am not contradicting the Navy, I am quoting them.
>
> No, you're claiming that they said something they didn't, then going off
> on an incorrect rant about a post of mine that you didn't read
> correctly.

No, I am quoting the real Navy, from their statementsto the WSJ.

I'm sorry the facts don't agree with your cyber reality, Chad.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > We'll see what the real operational range is with the bays full of
> > > weapons and no external tanks. So far, all the numbers I've seen
> > > amount to hand waving.
> >
> > The Navy just bought another 210 F/A-18s, so they may agree with you,
Fred.
> > (EW)
>
> 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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> :My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
> :about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.
>
> Even the source you gave (FAS) doesn't claim that. What they say is
> combat range about 50% higher than the F/A-18C/D (not Super Hornet) ON
> INTERNAL FUEL. Note that the Super Hornet has about 40% more range
> than the Hornet. Now, would you like to rethink that remark?

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> Ah, my apologies. I did misread that one. Now, funny how you still
:> avoid any self-commentary on all YOUR misread (and, apparently,
:> outright made up) numbers.
:
:Because most of what you've been calling "misread" is due to very
:selective reading on your part, or a refusal to actually look at the
:numbers.

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?
Source for claimed 'bring back' of the F-35C? Of course not. That
would require actually being responsive rather than just flaming over
this imaginary strawman you keep attributing to me.

:What it comes down to is that you think the F-35 will miss its
:performance targets by a huge amount, and that you haven't got a reason
:for it other than pure paranoia.

No, what it comes down to is you've selected your strawman argument to
get impassioned about and are simply disregarding anything that is
said to you.

I'm sure you'll understand if I return the favour. So, which part of
LockMart marketing do you work for, by the way?

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> Chad Irby > wrote:
:>
:> :In article >,
:> : Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:> :
:> :> Oh, just as a 'by the way', *NO* Navy combat aircraft can recover
:> :> from an abort with max load without dumping. F-35C will not be any
:> :> different in this regard.
:> :
:> :Actually, that's one of the design parameters for the aircraft.
:>
:> They'll never make it. If that's one of the design parameters (trap
:> with full fuel and weapons load (16,000 pounds of fuel and 17,000
:> pounds of ordnance on an airframe with a 24,000 pound dry weight),
:
:It's not, since a full fuel load precludes a full weapons load. The
:plane tops out at about 50,000 pounds.
:
:With partial weapons and full fuel, it's quite doable.

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.

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> No, I am quoting the real Navy, from their statementsto the WSJ.

Nowhere close.

Again.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Fred J. McCall]

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

[Fred J. McCall]

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

[Fred J. McCall]

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

[Chad Irby]

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.

[John Cook]

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

[Chad Irby]

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.

[noname]

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...
>

USA has already scaled back planned F-35 orders.

"The cutbacks in future buys most heavily affect the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter program, which will lose 409 aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet program will have 88 fewer airplanes."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1047

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

: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.

Want to bet? You don't know much about what gets involved in all
these decisions, do you? It's not like the Navy can just decide these
things on its own hook, you know. There is still, after all, a fairly
strong lobby to kill the program outright (so the Air Force can buy
more F-22s - guess where that lobby originates?).

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

: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.

But doing that without making the airframe unnecessarily heavy
(impacting range, payload, and energy maneuverability) is a quite
large engineering challenge. It assumes that structure weighs little
or nothing, no matter how much of it you have. With only a 1500 lb
difference between the base aircraft (which USAF is going to want to
be as 'lively' as possible) and the Navy version, I think getting a
GTW trap weight is a HUGE engineering challenge.

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> :> 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.
>
> Want to bet? You don't know much about what gets involved in all
> these decisions, do you?

Yes, I *do* know what gets involved. And if there were something going
wrong with the F-35, they'd be hedging their bets on a much wider basis.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
noname > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...
>
> USA has already scaled back planned F-35 orders.
>
> "The cutbacks in future buys most heavily affect the F-35 Joint Strike
> Fighter program, which will lose 409 aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super
> Hornet program will have 88 fewer airplanes."
>
> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1047

When you're cutting back from 2,800 to 2,400 (F-35), it's not quite as
bad as cutting back from 1000+ to 538 to 400 or so (F-18)...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> Chad Irby > wrote:
:>
:> :> 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.
:>
:> Want to bet? You don't know much about what gets involved in all
:> these decisions, do you?
:
:Yes, I *do* know what gets involved. And if there were something going
:wrong with the F-35, they'd be hedging their bets on a much wider basis.

Or everyone would be being directed to move money into it to save it,
since it's a 'must have' program. This would lead to downsizing buys
of other aircraft (See F/A-18E/F and F-22 buy sizes now and then),
since there's only a finite amount of money available.

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: noname > wrote:
:
:> Chad Irby wrote:
:>
:> > I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...
:>
:> USA has already scaled back planned F-35 orders.
:>
:> "The cutbacks in future buys most heavily affect the F-35 Joint Strike
:> Fighter program, which will lose 409 aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super
:> Hornet program will have 88 fewer airplanes."
:>
:> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1047
:
:When you're cutting back from 2,800 to 2,400 (F-35), it's not quite as
:bad as cutting back from 1000+ to 538 to 400 or so (F-18)...

Let's wait and see what numbers are being talked when the F-35 program
is where the Super Hornet program is now (IOW, several fielded
squadrons), shall we?

I still want to know which part of LockMart marketing you work for, by
the way.

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

[Scott Ferrin]

>Or everyone would be being directed to move money into it to save it,
>since it's a 'must have' program. This would lead to downsizing buys
>of other aircraft (See F/A-18E/F and F-22 buy sizes now and then),
>since there's only a finite amount of money available.


The F-22 buy size is damn depressing. First it was 750 and now it's
down to 224. Of course then some dumbass will say "look how much they
cost compared to five years ago". I guess they've never figured out
that the fewer you buy the more they cost.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> I still want to know which part of LockMart marketing you work for,
> by the way.

Funny - I was wondering which F-18 system subcontractor you worked for.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[John Cook]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:32:23 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> noname > wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> > I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...
>>
>> USA has already scaled back planned F-35 orders.
>>
>> "The cutbacks in future buys most heavily affect the F-35 Joint Strike
>> Fighter program, which will lose 409 aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super
>> Hornet program will have 88 fewer airplanes."
>>
>> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1047
>
>When you're cutting back from 2,800 to 2,400 (F-35), it's not quite as
>bad as cutting back from 1000+ to 538 to 400 or so (F-18)...


IIRC the unit but price of the JSF will not be affected until the
number purchase goes below 1800, the economies of scale for military
aircraft become virtually flat after this 'magic' figure..

ie 2000 x JSF's may cost $50m each, but increasing the buy to 5000,
won't drop the price by much.
but drop the total to 1200 will push the price up considerably..

Cheers
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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> I still want to know which part of LockMart marketing you work for,
:> by the way.
:
:Funny - I was wondering which F-18 system subcontractor you worked for.

None of them. I do strike weapons for a living (although another part
of my company does radars, which do end up on various airplanes,
including both the F/A-18 and the F-35). Obviously, I speak only for
me and not for the company. Any time you want to talk about
shortcomings of the F/A-18, feel free. I have no doubt you'll be
surprised when I agree with the many valid critiques of THAT aircraft.

Now, would you care to answer the question about YOUR affiliations,
since you seem to be a 'one trick pony' with regard to the F-35?

--
"Nekubi o kaite was ikenai"
["It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man."]
-- Admiral Yamamoto

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> Now, would you care to answer the question about YOUR affiliations,
> since you seem to be a 'one trick pony' with regard to the F-35?

I don't work for any defense contractor, I have no financial interest in
the F-35 or any other military aircraft, and if you think I'm only
interested in the F-35, you need to get out of sci.military.naval for a
while, since the only reason you're seeing my posts seems to be the
crossposting on this and other threads.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> Now, would you care to answer the question about YOUR affiliations,
:> since you seem to be a 'one trick pony' with regard to the F-35?
:
:I don't work for any defense contractor, I have no financial interest in
:the F-35 or any other military aircraft, and if you think I'm only
:interested in the F-35, you need to get out of sci.military.naval for a
:while, since the only reason you're seeing my posts seems to be the
:crossposting on this and other threads.

It wasn't your 'interest' in the F-35 that makes you look like a 'one
trick pony'; it's your impassioned "all is wonderful" approach to it.
And I'm not the first to remark on that, either.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:

> It wasn't your 'interest' in the F-35 that makes you look like a 'one
> trick pony'; it's your impassioned "all is wonderful" approach to it.
> And I'm not the first to remark on that, either.

Yes, you have agreement from *Tarver*.

And if you don't know what that means...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Chad Irby > wrote:

:In article >,
: Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:> It wasn't your 'interest' in the F-35 that makes you look like a 'one
:> trick pony'; it's your impassioned "all is wonderful" approach to it.
:> And I'm not the first to remark on that, either.
:
:Yes, you have agreement from *Tarver*.
:
:And if you don't know what that means...

I'm sure Mary appreciates that, since you also seem to have gotten
somewhat nasty in disagreement with her.

And if YOU don't know what THAT means....

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

[[email protected]]

"Schelkunchik" > wrote:

>But Belgian military guys are usually high on LSD, Crack or weed. And since
>they are all gay, the rest of their time is spent bending over in the shower
>to pick up the soap or dressing up in women's clothes. If you are expecting
>a Belgian to fight for anything, you are making a mistake.
>

Certainly a ****-poor attempt at trolling son, this your first
attempt?. Much better to make little digs at people's use of
English or their spelling, or better still at their ability in
their chosen field. So please get some practice on other ng's, We
don't encourage beginner trolls on our military ng's
--

-Gord.

[Larry Dighera]

The total cost of LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.'s Joint Strike Fighter
program to develop a new tactical fighter will rise by $45
billion, or 22.6%, to $245 billion, the Pentagon said. In a
regular report to Congress on major weapons programs, the U.S.
Defense Department said the sharp rise in costs for the new
jet, also known as the F-35, was due mainly to revised
contractor labor and overhead costs, design delays, and a
postponement in the start of procurement from 2006 to 2007.
(Reuters 04:58 PM ET 04/05/2004)

More:
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=944050&m=100624071dfb000025568a&s=rb040405

================================================== ==============