![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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! =----- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shock Chord Rings | smjmitchell | Home Built | 1 | September 9th 04 07:41 AM |
Lockheed Lancer? | Brendan Grace | Military Aviation | 13 | January 5th 04 03:42 AM |
6 reported slain at Lockheed Martin facility in Mississippi | Bertie the Bunyip | Military Aviation | 60 | July 15th 03 10:23 AM |
USA Defence Budget Realities | Stop SPAM! | Military Aviation | 17 | July 9th 03 02:11 AM |
Shooting at a Lockheed Martin plant | Quant | Military Aviation | 0 | July 8th 03 05:02 PM |