What a shock!!! Lockheed is over budget on the F-35

[Mitch Benjamin]

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.

And only two years into the program.

[nemo l'ancien]

Mitch Benjamin wrote:

> Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
> billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
> the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.
>
> And only two years into the program.
>
>
Ok so if the program is supposed to last 5 years, the increase would be
85 %?
Waouu

[BOB URZ]

Mitch Benjamin wrote:

> Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
> billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
> the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.
>
> And only two years into the program.

Maybe the US should be buying its fighters from Wall mart instead
of Lockmart.... Special in isle 3 on AAM's....

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[John Cook]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:26:57 GMT, "Mitch Benjamin"
> wrote:

>Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
>billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
>the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.
>
>And only two years into the program.
>


I also heard that at the last design review that the STOVL is 350kg
overweight, but still within the "not over this weight" catagory, but
more alarming is the CV which is 35% overweight....

I also heard they were reviewing the quick build method (where large
sections are bolted together with quick mate surfaces) to a more
time consuming and labour intensive conventional method to save a few
hundred kilos the quick build method entails.



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

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:51:06 +1100, John Cook > wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:26:57 GMT, "Mitch Benjamin"
> wrote:
>
>>Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
>>billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
>>the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.
>>
>>And only two years into the program.
>>
>
>
>I also heard that at the last design review that the STOVL is 350kg
>overweight, but still within the "not over this weight" catagory, but
>more alarming is the CV which is 35% overweight....
>
>I also heard they were reviewing the quick build method (where large
>sections are bolted together with quick mate surfaces) to a more
>time consuming and labour intensive conventional method to save a few
>hundred kilos the quick build method entails.
>
>
>
>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

What you "heard" is bullsh** You are not on the design team, and certainly
are not cleared for such information.

Al Minyard

[John Cook]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:41:12 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:51:06 +1100, John Cook > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:26:57 GMT, "Mitch Benjamin"
> wrote:
>>
>>>Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
>>>billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
>>>the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.
>>>
>>>And only two years into the program.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I also heard that at the last design review that the STOVL is 350kg
>>overweight, but still within the "not over this weight" catagory, but
>>more alarming is the CV which is 35% overweight....
>>
>>I also heard they were reviewing the quick build method (where large
>>sections are bolted together with quick mate surfaces) to a more
>>time consuming and labour intensive conventional method to save a few
>>hundred kilos the quick build method entails.
>>
>>
>>
>>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
>
>What you "heard" is bullsh** You are not on the design team, and certainly
>are not cleared for such information.

Hmmm... It maybe bull! but it was published in "Aero Australia" so
you don't need to be so aggressive in your post and while I'm not on
the design team I can gain certain insights into a program from
numerous sources....

I'll post an exerpt from the article below, and you can assess it for
yourself...

Perhaps if you have any real insight you could share it with everyone
here on RAM, I really would like to know if the rumours are
true...


Quote:-

in april 2003 the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) The JSF empty weight
was found to be more than anticipated, it found the STOVL
about 300kg (660lb) heavier than expected and although below the
target initial operational and 'not to exceed' weights, left
insufficient margin to comfortably meet the required' flat deck, hot
day, no wind' takeoff capability.

The overweight issue resurfaced in June when Lockheed Martin finally
completed the full PDR after an extensive nose-to-tail structural
rework to deal with the fact that the airframe was actually going to
be a massive 35 per cent heavier than estimated.

in September 2003, Pratt & Whitney achieved a major milestone when it
completed assembly of the first production standard F135 engine, while
Rolls-Royce completed testing of the vital clutch, lubrication system
and driveshaft for the lift fan in the F-35B.

The weight issue resurfaced in October when it was revealed that
Lockheed Martin's intention to establish a highly efficient final
assembly line for the F-35 could be compromised. The company was
reportedly planning to abandon the 'quickmate' joints system under
which major sections would be mated using machined planes with
pre-drilled holes that are simply fastened together.

The 'quick-mate' joints will be replaced by an 'integrated joint
procedure that will cut the F?35's weight by 320-360kg (700-800lb) but
at the cost of a more time consuming and expensive assembly period.
This in turn could put further pressure on unit costs.

in late October 2003, Lockheed Martin announced it was reviewing
further options to tackle the weight problem including delivering the
first batch of F-35s overweight so as to maintain schedules while
continuing to develop solutions for subsequent aircraft.

Also in October, it was revealed that Lockheed Martin has been
exploring the possibility of offering some' mix and match options to
F-35 customers. These include combining the standard F-35A fuselage
with the larger F-35C naval wing, giving increased fuel capacity,
endurance and weapons options.

The JSF programme is still only in its very early days, but it is
already proving to be a highly interesting one on which an awful lot
is riding. if successful, the F-35 could prove to be the first and
perhaps only 'universal fighter'.

End Quote

Cheers
>
>Al Minyard

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

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:55:54 +1100, John Cook >
wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:41:12 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:51:06 +1100, John Cook > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:26:57 GMT, "Mitch Benjamin"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost $5.1
>>>>billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a cut in
>>>>the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.
>>>>
>>>>And only two years into the program.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I also heard that at the last design review that the STOVL is 350kg
>>>overweight, but still within the "not over this weight" catagory, but
>>>more alarming is the CV which is 35% overweight....
>>>
>>>I also heard they were reviewing the quick build method (where large
>>>sections are bolted together with quick mate surfaces) to a more
>>>time consuming and labour intensive conventional method to save a few
>>>hundred kilos the quick build method entails.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>>
>>What you "heard" is bullsh** You are not on the design team, and certainly
>>are not cleared for such information.
>
>Hmmm... It maybe bull! but it was published in "Aero Australia" so
>you don't need to be so aggressive in your post and while I'm not on
>the design team I can gain certain insights into a program from
>numerous sources....
>
>I'll post an exerpt from the article below, and you can assess it for
>yourself...
>
>Perhaps if you have any real insight you could share it with everyone
>here on RAM, I really would like to know if the rumours are
>true...
>
>
>Quote:-



I've seen the thing about assembly going back to the old way rather
than doing it modular like they did with the F-22 but I've never seen
the 35% increase in weight mentioned anywhere. I'd think 35% would
make headlines EVERYWHERE so I'm somewhat skeptical on that one.
Besides 35%?? I'm not sure what the empty weight of the C is suppose
to be but for sake of arguement let's say 30,000lbs. That would bump
it up to 40,500lbs. If it's true and I were the Navy I'd be looking
for blood.


>
>in april 2003 the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) The JSF empty weight
>was found to be more than anticipated, it found the STOVL
>about 300kg (660lb) heavier than expected and although below the
>target initial operational and 'not to exceed' weights, left
>insufficient margin to comfortably meet the required' flat deck, hot
>day, no wind' takeoff capability.
>
>The overweight issue resurfaced in June when Lockheed Martin finally
>completed the full PDR after an extensive nose-to-tail structural
>rework to deal with the fact that the airframe was actually going to
>be a massive 35 per cent heavier than estimated.
>
>in September 2003, Pratt & Whitney achieved a major milestone when it
>completed assembly of the first production standard F135 engine, while
>Rolls-Royce completed testing of the vital clutch, lubrication system
>and driveshaft for the lift fan in the F-35B.
>
>The weight issue resurfaced in October when it was revealed that
>Lockheed Martin's intention to establish a highly efficient final
>assembly line for the F-35 could be compromised. The company was
>reportedly planning to abandon the 'quickmate' joints system under
>which major sections would be mated using machined planes with
>pre-drilled holes that are simply fastened together.
>
>The 'quick-mate' joints will be replaced by an 'integrated joint
>procedure that will cut the F?35's weight by 320-360kg (700-800lb) but
>at the cost of a more time consuming and expensive assembly period.
>This in turn could put further pressure on unit costs.
>
>in late October 2003, Lockheed Martin announced it was reviewing
>further options to tackle the weight problem including delivering the
>first batch of F-35s overweight so as to maintain schedules while
>continuing to develop solutions for subsequent aircraft.
>
>Also in October, it was revealed that Lockheed Martin has been
>exploring the possibility of offering some' mix and match options to
>F-35 customers. These include combining the standard F-35A fuselage
>with the larger F-35C naval wing, giving increased fuel capacity,
>endurance and weapons options.
>
>The JSF programme is still only in its very early days, but it is
>already proving to be a highly interesting one on which an awful lot
>is riding. if successful, the F-35 could prove to be the first and
>perhaps only 'universal fighter'.
>
>End Quote
>
>Cheers
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:55:54 +1100, John Cook >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:41:12 -0600, Alan Minyard
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:51:06 +1100, John Cook >
wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:26:57 GMT, "Mitch Benjamin"
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost
$5.1
> >>>>billion, or 17%, more than budgeted, forcing a one-year delay and a
cut in
> >>>>the number of planes produced, according to Pentagon documents.
> >>>>
> >>>>And only two years into the program.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I also heard that at the last design review that the STOVL is 350kg
> >>>overweight, but still within the "not over this weight" catagory, but
> >>>more alarming is the CV which is 35% overweight....
> >>>
> >>>I also heard they were reviewing the quick build method (where large
> >>>sections are bolted together with quick mate surfaces) to a more
> >>>time consuming and labour intensive conventional method to save a few
> >>>hundred kilos the quick build method entails.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>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
> >>
> >>What you "heard" is bullsh** You are not on the design team, and
certainly
> >>are not cleared for such information.
> >
> >Hmmm... It maybe bull! but it was published in "Aero Australia" so
> >you don't need to be so aggressive in your post and while I'm not on
> >the design team I can gain certain insights into a program from
> >numerous sources....
> >
> >I'll post an exerpt from the article below, and you can assess it for
> >yourself...
> >
> >Perhaps if you have any real insight you could share it with everyone
> >here on RAM, I really would like to know if the rumours are
> >true...
> >
> >
> >Quote:-
>
>
>
> I've seen the thing about assembly going back to the old way rather
> than doing it modular like they did with the F-22 but I've never seen
> the 35% increase in weight mentioned anywhere. I'd think 35% would
> make headlines EVERYWHERE

It wouldn't matter what was pubished, Ferrin. You would still make the same
ass of yourself WRT Lockmart products.

[Scott Ferrin]

>>
>> I've seen the thing about assembly going back to the old way rather
>> than doing it modular like they did with the F-22 but I've never seen
>> the 35% increase in weight mentioned anywhere. I'd think 35% would
>> make headlines EVERYWHERE
>
>It wouldn't matter what was pubished, Ferrin. You would still make the same
>ass of yourself WRT Lockmart products.
>

Hey splapsy, were's those strake pictures?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>
> >> I've seen the thing about assembly going back to the old way rather
> >> than doing it modular like they did with the F-22 but I've never seen
> >> the 35% increase in weight mentioned anywhere. I'd think 35% would
> >> make headlines EVERYWHERE
> >
> >It wouldn't matter what was pubished, Ferrin. You would still make the
same
> >ass of yourself WRT Lockmart products.
> >
>
> Hey splapsy, were's those strake pictures?

If it were not for John Cook and the Brit and Aussie press, Americans would
not have access to what Lockmart's airplane programs are doing. There is a
little in the
WSJ, but lockheed seems pretty good at creating a bad news blackout.

I John Cook for posting truth here.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:32:20 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >>
>> >> I've seen the thing about assembly going back to the old way rather
>> >> than doing it modular like they did with the F-22 but I've never seen
>> >> the 35% increase in weight mentioned anywhere. I'd think 35% would
>> >> make headlines EVERYWHERE
>> >
>> >It wouldn't matter what was pubished, Ferrin. You would still make the
>same
>> >ass of yourself WRT Lockmart products.
>> >
>>
>> Hey splapsy, were's those strake pictures?
>
>If it were not for John Cook and the Brit and Aussie press, Americans would
>not have access to what Lockmart's airplane programs are doing. There is a
>little in the
>WSJ, but lockheed seems pretty good at creating a bad news blackout.
>
>I John Cook for posting truth here.
>


No strakes huh? Didn't think so.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >

> > Hey splapsy, were's those strake pictures?
>
> If it were not for John Cook and the Brit and Aussie press, Americans
> would not have access to what Lockmart's airplane programs are doing.
> There is a little in the WSJ, but lockheed seems pretty good at
> creating a bad news blackout.

Translation: "The Eeeevil Lockheed Anti-Tarver Conspiracy is keeping the
F-22 strake photos from the world."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> No strakes huh? Didn't think so.

I can dig you up articles where Lockmart suggests they will be trying
strakes and then another where Lockmart calls strakes the least apealing
solution to their "buffeting" problems, but you could do that yourself.

Anyway, thanks John Cook, keep up the honest work.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
>
> > > Hey splapsy, were's those strake pictures?
> >
> > If it were not for John Cook and the Brit and Aussie press, Americans
> > would not have access to what Lockmart's airplane programs are doing.
> > There is a little in the WSJ, but lockheed seems pretty good at
> > creating a bad news blackout.
>
> Translation: "The Eeeevil Lockheed Anti-Tarver Conspiracy is keeping the
> F-22 strake photos from the world."

Lockmart is a customer.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
> > No strakes huh? Didn't think so.
>
> I can dig you up articles where Lockmart suggests they will be trying
> strakes and then another where Lockmart calls strakes the least apealing
> solution to their "buffeting" problems, but you could do that yourself.

If those articles actually existed.

There aren't any on the Web, aside from a few hits on the bombs carried
by the F-22 (they attach strakes to the sides of the JDAM).

So, since you *can* dig them up, you should.

--
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:

> > Translation: "The Eeeevil Lockheed Anti-Tarver Conspiracy is
> > keeping the F-22 strake photos from the world."
>
> Lockmart is a customer.

Sure they are. Which is why they put up with the false comments you, as
a vendor, keep making on a regular basis.

Yeah, they're famous for being so understanding about that sort of thing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>
> > > Translation: "The Eeeevil Lockheed Anti-Tarver Conspiracy is
> > > keeping the F-22 strake photos from the world."
> >
> > Lockmart is a customer.
>
> Sure they are. Which is why they put up with the false comments you, as
> a vendor, keep making on a regular basis.

I only quote public sector published information on the F-22. Except for
the departure from controlled flight attempted cover up, but that was common
knowledge on eddies. It may take a Super Eagle to replace the F-15, much
like the bug.

As to the F-35, I have been a consistent supporter.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> I only quote public sector published information on the F-22.

Except for the stuff you can't quote, like the strakes thing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > I only quote public sector published information on the F-22.
>
> Except for the stuff you can't quote, like the strakes thing.

Even the Lockmart email posted here assuring us that the titanium tail spar
is the fix for the F-22's tail problems mentions the strakes, Chad.

this thread is about problems with the F-35, please focus.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > I only quote public sector published information on the F-22.
> >
> > Except for the stuff you can't quote, like the strakes thing.
>
> Even the Lockmart email posted here assuring us that the titanium tail spar
> is the fix for the F-22's tail problems mentions the strakes, Chad.

Funny, I can't seem to find that in Google. Refresh our memory on that
one (or are you imagining it again?).

> this thread is about problems with the F-35, please focus.

But *this* part of the thread is about your tenuous connection with
reality. And funny how it wasn't about the F-35 when you posted this:

> I can dig you up articles where Lockmart suggests they will be trying
> strakes and then another where Lockmart calls strakes the least apealing
> solution to their "buffeting" problems, but you could do that yourself.

Still waiting for that "digging," Tarver.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I only quote public sector published information on the F-22.
> > >
> > > Except for the stuff you can't quote, like the strakes thing.
> >
> > Even the Lockmart email posted here assuring us that the titanium tail
spar
> > is the fix for the F-22's tail problems mentions the strakes, Chad.
>
> Funny, I can't seem to find that in Google. Refresh our memory on that
> one (or are you imagining it again?).

It was posted here for all to see, Chad.

Your cognitive abilities are not my problem.

Now, get back to discussing the F-35's problems.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > Even the Lockmart email posted here assuring us that the titanium
> > > tail spar is the fix for the F-22's tail problems mentions the
> > > strakes, Chad.
> >
> > Funny, I can't seem to find that in Google. Refresh our memory on that
> > one (or are you imagining it again?).
>
> It was posted here for all to see, Chad.

Suuure it was, Tarver. Except that you should know by now that not all
posts make it to all servers, and it might not have made it past your
host.

So since it was "here for all to see," you should be able to find it in
mere moments, and repost it "for all to see," since nobody else seems to
have seen it. Don't forget to include the original article ID. Or give
us a groups.google.com link to the original.

So if that post actually *did* exist, it should be child's play for you
to find it, and settle the matter once and for all. Unless it didn't
exist, in which case you're going to tell us that it's my problem for
not trusting your word that it exists.

> Your cognitive abilities are not my problem.

Ah, there we go. Pass that buck...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:26:40 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.. .
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> > I only quote public sector published information on the F-22.
>>
>> Except for the stuff you can't quote, like the strakes thing.
>
>Even the Lockmart email posted here assuring us that the titanium tail spar
>is the fix for the F-22's tail problems mentions the strakes, Chad.

Glad you brought that up. Show us where it says they where the
mention strakes other than to say the F-22 has never had them?

"i am participating in the newsgroup rec.aviation.military where the
discussion centers around the existence or lack thereof of "strakes"
or "air dams" in and around the vertical stabilizers of the F22.

the general consensus is that there were some affixed temporarily
after a problem was discovered, but that an engineering fix has made
them unnecessary, and for obvious reasons relating to stealth
characteristics, they have not been retained.

the quote in question is:
"The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
occurring for the "entire flight envelope". Unless Lockmart has
addressed the tail crack issue in a different manner, the 8 inch
wing "reflectors" have to be there."

so, does the F-22 have such an attachment?
(assuming, of course, that this information is not classified.)

thanks in advance for your organization's time in this small matter.

<reply portion follows>

The discussion you've included is a bit mixed. There were two issues
that I think have become confused.

The first was a "tail crack" issue with the HORIZONTAL stabilators.
The composite skins were delaminating (pulling off the internal
structure). We redesigned the stabilator to include more titanium and
its working.

The fin buffet or tail flutter issue involved the VERTICAL
stabilizers,
which was fixed by stiffening the internal structure with additional
titanium.

There are no air dams or strakes or anything else. Here is a recent
photo -- you should be able to see how smooth the jets external mold
lines are.

Thanks for asking,

Greg"

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:08:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
><snip>
>> No strakes huh? Didn't think so.
>
>I can dig you up articles where Lockmart suggests they will be trying
>strakes and then another where Lockmart calls strakes the least apealing
>solution to their "buffeting" problems, but you could do that yourself.

"Suggesting it" and actually doing it are two entirely different
matters. That they mentioned the possibility of strakes isn't the
issue here ( I read a long time ago that they were *considering* them
as a last resort). You've stated repeatedly that they have them.
First you claimed that the production models had them until you were
called on it and photos showed that they didn't have them. Then you
said only some of them had them but when we asked for vehicle numbers
you couldn't give them and when we looked at photos none of them had
them. Now you are backpeddling further by saying essentially "well
Lockheed said they might try them". Is it any wonder you've taken so
much **** over it? I realize the concept of you being wrong about
anything is completely alien to you but if you'd admit you're wrong
when it obvious (and I suspect you know when you're wrong) you'd gain
a measure of respect here rather than the constant ridecule. That's
just some friendly advise, take it or leave it.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> "i am participating in the newsgroup rec.aviation.military where the
> discussion centers around the existence or lack thereof of "strakes"
> or "air dams" in and around the vertical stabilizers of the F22.
>
> the general consensus is that there were some affixed temporarily
> after a problem was discovered,

So, in fact, reguardless of your partisan pratle, there were strakes on the
F-22.

[Alan Minyard]

>
>The overweight issue resurfaced in June when Lockheed Martin finally
>completed the full PDR after an extensive nose-to-tail structural
>rework to deal with the fact that the airframe was actually going to
>be a massive 35 per cent heavier than estimated.
>
That says to me that the weight issue was identified and corrected. Note
that is says that the airframe "was" going to be overweight.

It goes on to say that the F-35's weight will be reduced a further 700 to 800
pounds.

Not a problem.

Al Minyard

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:08:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> ><snip>
> >> No strakes huh? Didn't think so.
> >
> >I can dig you up articles where Lockmart suggests they will be trying
> >strakes and then another where Lockmart calls strakes the least apealing
> >solution to their "buffeting" problems, but you could do that yourself.
>
> "Suggesting it" and actually doing it are two entirely different
> matters.

You already know Lockmart did use strakes, from your other post.

[John Cook]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> >
> >The overweight issue resurfaced in June when Lockheed Martin finally
> >completed the full PDR after an extensive nose-to-tail structural
> >rework to deal with the fact that the airframe was actually going to
> >be a massive 35 per cent heavier than estimated.
> >
> That says to me that the weight issue was identified and corrected. Note
> that is says that the airframe "was" going to be overweight.
>
> It goes on to say that the F-35's weight will be reduced a further 700 to 800
> pounds.
>
> Not a problem.

Apparently the weight problem still exists, see:-
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/7687756.htm

The Ctol empty weight should be 29000lbs and is currently at approx
31000lbs

Around 7% overweight, and includes the saving from abandoning the
quick mate process (700-800lbs)

Spokesman for LM John Smith said "We don't think we're where we need
to be,"

Pentagon officials decided to budget more money and delay plane orders
because they are concerned that Lockheed will find it even more
difficult to meet weight goals for the Navy and Marine F-35 variants.


Cheers

>
> Al Minyard

[John Cook]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:32:20 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>I John Cook for posting truth here.

No your not I'm John Cook, I'm bloody sure i am... Unless you can
provide pictures of course....;-)


and I have to admit that my first thought that Mr Tarver was not only
agreeing with me, but praising me was:-

OH no nonono

I'm off to sulk in a courner...

seeya



>

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:32:20 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:

> I'm off to sulk in a courner...

You should be, being the largest poster of bad news for Lockmart on these
newsgroups.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:32:36 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:08:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >> No strakes huh? Didn't think so.
>> >
>> >I can dig you up articles where Lockmart suggests they will be trying
>> >strakes and then another where Lockmart calls strakes the least apealing
>> >solution to their "buffeting" problems, but you could do that yourself.
>>
>> "Suggesting it" and actually doing it are two entirely different
>> matters.
>
>You already know Lockmart did use strakes, from your other post.
>


You shouldn't have any trouble quoting it then. All I've ever said is
that "they were considering them as a last resort."

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:01:23 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
><snip>
>> "i am participating in the newsgroup rec.aviation.military where the
>> discussion centers around the existence or lack thereof of "strakes"
>> or "air dams" in and around the vertical stabilizers of the F22.
>>
>> the general consensus is that there were some affixed temporarily
>> after a problem was discovered,
>
>So, in fact, reguardless of your partisan pratle, there were strakes on the
>F-22.
>


Prove it. As far as partisan goes I wanted the YF-23 to win. I'm
just interested in the facts. If you have actual proof that ANY F-22
has or had strakes then prove it. If not then then admit you have no
proof and are going on heresay.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...

>
> Prove it.

You just did.

You can read, can't you?

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:13:08 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>You just did.
>
>You can read, can't you?


I think we all missed it. Be more specific and quote what I said that
"proves" the F-22 has ever had strakes.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:13:08 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>
> >> Prove it.
> >
> >You just did.
> >
> >You can read, can't you?
>
>
> I think we all missed it.

I expect it is just you that missed your post, Ferrin.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:00:35 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:13:08 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Prove it.
>> >
>> >You just did.
>> >
>> >You can read, can't you?
>>
>>
>> I think we all missed it.
>
>I expect it is just you that missed your post, Ferrin.
>


I take it that's a big "N-O" that you can't quote it huh?

[Alan Minyard]

On 12 Jan 2004 19:53:24 -0800, (John Cook) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> >
>> >The overweight issue resurfaced in June when Lockheed Martin finally
>> >completed the full PDR after an extensive nose-to-tail structural
>> >rework to deal with the fact that the airframe was actually going to
>> >be a massive 35 per cent heavier than estimated.
>> >
>> That says to me that the weight issue was identified and corrected. Note
>> that is says that the airframe "was" going to be overweight.
>>
>> It goes on to say that the F-35's weight will be reduced a further 700 to 800
>> pounds.
>>
>> Not a problem.
>
>Apparently the weight problem still exists, see:-
>http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/7687756.htm
>
>The Ctol empty weight should be 29000lbs and is currently at approx
>31000lbs
>
>Around 7% overweight, and includes the saving from abandoning the
>quick mate process (700-800lbs)
>
>Spokesman for LM John Smith said "We don't think we're where we need
>to be,"
>
>Pentagon officials decided to budget more money and delay plane orders
>because they are concerned that Lockheed will find it even more
>difficult to meet weight goals for the Navy and Marine F-35 variants.
>
>
>Cheers

Cite please.

Al Minyard

[John Cook]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:48:32 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On 12 Jan 2004 19:53:24 -0800, (John Cook) wrote:
>
>>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>>> >
>>> >The overweight issue resurfaced in June when Lockheed Martin finally
>>> >completed the full PDR after an extensive nose-to-tail structural
>>> >rework to deal with the fact that the airframe was actually going to
>>> >be a massive 35 per cent heavier than estimated.
>>> >
>>> That says to me that the weight issue was identified and corrected. Note
>>> that is says that the airframe "was" going to be overweight.
>>>
>>> It goes on to say that the F-35's weight will be reduced a further 700 to 800
>>> pounds.
>>>
>>> Not a problem.
>>
>>Apparently the weight problem still exists, see:-
>>http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/7687756.htm
>>
>>The Ctol empty weight should be 29000lbs and is currently at approx
>>31000lbs
>>
>>Around 7% overweight, and includes the saving from abandoning the
>>quick mate process (700-800lbs)
>>
>>Spokesman for LM John Smith said "We don't think we're where we need
>>to be,"
>>
>>Pentagon officials decided to budget more money and delay plane orders
>>because they are concerned that Lockheed will find it even more
>>difficult to meet weight goals for the Navy and Marine F-35 variants.
>>
>>
>>Cheers
>
>Cite please.

Oh ye of little faith....

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/7690301.htm



I don't usually post such a large peice! but as its for you :-)

*****Quote
It was no shock to veteran defense observers when word came out of the
Pentagon last week that the F-35 joint strike fighter is behind
schedule and over budget.

The F-35 program, observers say, is a classic example of the
Pentagon/defense industry practice of starting weapons programs by
promising to do too much, too soon, and at far too low a price.

"I'm not surprised at all," said Philip Coyle, the former head of the
Pentagon's weapons testing office and a consultant with the Center for
Defense Information. "It's too bad these kinds of things keep
happening with these programs."

Defense Department officials were cautioned well ahead of time that
their expectations might be overly optimistic.

"No one should be surprised this has gone the way it has," said
Katherine Schinasi, who heads the GAO's oversight of defense
acquisition. "The risk of [not] meeting the cost and performance goals
was too high when they made the decision" to begin development.

In its December 2000 and October 2001 reports, the GAO noted that the
Pentagon had relaxed the performance standards and increased the
budgets for Lockheed and Boeing as the two companies built the concept
aircraft used to compete for the full-scale development contract.

Schinasi said that in the late 1990s, when the program was in its
infancy, military and civilian officials overseeing the JSF program
pledged to follow private business practices and make sure the needed
technology was mature. Only when the risks had been minimized would
the government begin spending billions to design and build airplanes.

"The problem was, once it got into the acquisition process, those
goals fell by the wayside," she said.

Now, two years into the planned 10-year F-35 development program, the
Defense Department estimates it will cost $40.5 billion, an increase
of $7.5 billion, and take a year longer to complete than expected.

To pay for the added costs, Pentagon officials reallocated $5.1
billion from the 2005 through 2009 development budgets by delaying
purchases of F-35s for the Air Force and Navy. The first production
order for the planes, originally slated for 2005, will be deferred to
2006. The Pentagon says it will buy 90 airplanes through 2009, down
from the 160 it had planned.

Senior Defense Department officials and Lockheed Martin officials
downplayed the significance of the budget decision and the extent of
problems being encountered in the design of the F-35.

The Pentagon's top procurement official said the new time and cost
goals for the F-35 reflect the challenge of designing a family of
planes for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. The design effort "is
taking longer and is more complex than we had originally anticipated,"
said Michael Wynne, acting undersecretary for weapons acquisition.

Lockheed is meeting the contract schedule, spokesman John Smith said.
The company is "on track" for a key milestone, the "critical design
review" of the Air Force version of the F-35 in April, he said.

That is the first of the three planes Lockheed will produce, and it is
the simplest to design and build, but Lockheed and its partners are
having a difficult time getting the empty weight of the plane down to
the desired goal of about 29,000 pounds.

The latest weight review, completed last month, showed there had been
little progress in shaving the needed 1,500 to 2,000 pounds off the
design.

"We don't think we're where we need to be," Smith said.

Pentagon officials decided to budget more money and delay plane orders
because they are concerned that Lockheed will find it even more
difficult to meet weight goals for the Navy and Marine F-35 variants.

The Navy's version of the plane has a larger wing and must have a
stronger structure for carrier landings; the Marines' version requires
heavy equipment, including a 5,000-pound lift fan, to support short
takeoffs and vertical landings, but it is supposed to weigh only a
couple of thousand pounds more than the Air Force version.

Weight is a crucial factor in any aircraft, but it is especially
important in combat jets. A few hundred extra pounds can reduce a
plane's speed, range or weapons payload.

Smith said design and weight have been troublesome because the plane's
systems, weapons and fuel storage must be inside the structure so that
the F-35 remains hard to detect by radar. The dimensions of the planes
were set a year ago.

"The challenge is, we've got a finite amount of space in which to put
a lot of things," Smith said.
******End quote



Ok Al do you admit its overweight now?...

A simple yes or no would do for me....:-)

( I have a sneaky suspicion thats not gonna happen)


Cheers
>
> Al Minyard
>
>

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