Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Inside the Joint Strike Fighter Competition 375

Posted by chrisd from the complex-work-for-complex-tools dept.
jonerik writes "The June issue of the Atlantic Monthly has this account of the history of the Joint Strike Fighter competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin (which the latter company ended up winning this past fall, with Boeing now touting its expanding line of unmanned aircraft as the true future of tactical aviation). The article does a fine job of showing how the competitors dealt with the challenge of producing an aircraft (now dubbed the F-35) that the Air Force, Navy, Marines, RAF, and Royal Navy could all live with. Funniest part: Boeing's X-32 entry, with its enormous pelican-like jet intake, had some questioning whether the plane's bizarre appearance didn't hurt its chances more than its performance. 'Helpful as my contacts at Boeing were, no one was eager to claim credit for the design of the plane,' says the article's writer James Fallows." Fascinating article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inside the Joint Strike Fighter Competition More

Inside the Joint Strike Fighter Competition

Comments Filter:
  • For people interested, Wired had also an article about it last year called The X Wars [wired.com]

    "Boeing and Lockheed are battling head-to-head to build the strike fighter of the future, a sleek, smart aircraft that will carry tomorrow's Air Force, Navy, and Marines - if it can fight its way out of the Pentagon."

    • H'm no one mentions the Russian imput. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DABANSHEE ( 154661 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @06:57PM (#3690459)
      1st a little background. When LM 1st decided to tender for the JSF they put forward plans for a smaller cunard foreplane aircraft (a la the Israeli Lavi, the Eurofighter, the Dassault Rafale etc). They even developed a Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) to demonstrate their JAST concept. A number of Small Scale Powered Models (SSPMs) were also tested to develop a basic understanding of the hover and transition regions. But pretty quicky they realised they could not get the design sorted out within the timeframe, so they went & knocked on the door of the Yakovlev OKB in Russia. In 1992, Lockheed Martin signed an agreement with the Russian Yakovlev Design Bureau & Pratt & Whitney signed one with the Soyuz Aero Engine Company for information on the supersonic Yak-141 STOVL fighter and its three bearing swivel duct nozzle, etc. Yakovlev was paid 'several dozen million dollars', P&W also spent some small change on a license from the Soyuz Aero Engine Company . Its no big secret outside of the US.

      Now lets see what AeroWorld Net has to say: [slashdot.org]

      ..In 1992/93 Lockheed contracted Yakovlev on some work pertaining to short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft studies in reference to the JAST (JSF) project. Yakovlev shared its STOVL technologies with the US company for several dozen million dollars.

      Former Yakovlev employees accuse Yakovlev heads of taking personal interest out of the deal with Lockheed, because the official sum of the contract did not correspond with the value of the information presented to the US company. The data was on the Yak-141 test program, aerodynamics and design features, including the design of the R-79 engine nozzles.

      After a careful study of those materials, Lockheed - without much noise - changed its initial JSF proposal, including a design of the engine nozzles that is now very similar to those of the Yak-141      ...

      H'mm I wonder what the Russian Aerospace guide has to say, more specifically the archived July/August 95 issue of Cosmonautics [slashdot.org]

      ...Lockheed Martin is also cooperating with the Yakovlev Design Bureau to build an advanced fighter/attack jet for Air Force and Navy use. The deal is still pending Russian government approval, but plans call for a prototype to be ready by 2000 and operational plane by 2010. The plane could end up replacing the F-14, 15E, 16, 111, 117, and AV-8B. Yakovlev's contribution will be based on its
      recent experience with the Yak-141 VTOL fighter.
      ...

      Now that website may have a Russian slant so lets see what Jane's has to say: [janes.com]

      ... Lockheed Martin also turned to Russia for technical expertise, purchasing design data from Yakovlev...

      I wonder what is says in Aviation Week & Space Technology 1995, v142n25, Jun 19, p. 74-77 [lucia.it]

      Lockheed Martin is turning to Russia's Yakovlev Design Bureau for help in designing short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) competition.

      Maybe even The Hindu [hinduonnet.com], 'India's National Newspaper' has something to say on the subject.

      ...The rise and rise of western dominance since the end of the cold war has given many in countries like India the impression that the former ``eastern bloc'', and particularly Russia, has nothing left of any scientific or technological value. It will therefore surprise many that Lockheed Martin went ahead with development of its successful JSF bid only after getting the design cleared by Russia's Yakovlev aeronautical bureau because they were so impressed by the latter's short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) prototype, the Yak 41. This naval fighter was flying a dozen years ago (!) and only an explosion on board the aircraft carrier `Sergei Gorshkov' (which the Indian Navy is in the process of purchasing) and the economic travails of the disintegrating Soviet Union stopped further development.

      Now I wonder what the Google cached pages of the Airforce Magazine have on the subject

      ...In a postCold War irony, Lockheed Martin consulted with the Yakovlev design bureau of Russia early in the JSF design process because the Yak-141 used a similar approach, though that airplane never made it to series production... [google.com]

      ...The swiveling rear exhaust is a licensed design from the Yakovlev design bureau in Russia, which triedit out on the Yak-141 STOVL fighter... [google.com]

      I wonder what they say on the actual JSF page: [jast.mil]

      ...The exhaust from the engine flows through the 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN). The 3BSN nozzle, developed by Rolls-Royce, was patterned along the lines of the exhaust system on the Yakovlev Yak-141 STOVL prototype that flew at the 1992 Farnborough air show....

      I'd suggest you also check out the French Prototypes.com website [wanadoo.fr]. In partuclar their (Googlised into English) pages that explain the whole process on & the evolution from the Yak-36 to the Yak-38 to the Yak-141 & finally the Yak-41 [google.com] & the stillborn Yak-43, which so heavily influenced the winning JSF design [google.com] that LM terminated their double diamond canard foreplane CALF/JAST program to & started all over again using the Yak-43 design they got in their technolgy tranfer agreement with Yakovlev as their new starting point.

      & Too finish off, whats say we look at some profile pics

      The Yak-141 [optushome.com.au]

      The stillborn Yak-43 circa 1993 [optushome.com.au]

      The LM X-35 [optushome.com.au]

      It seems the LM X-35 looks a lot more like the Yak-43 than the LM's canard foreplane CALF/JAST prototype. Basically the differances are a more stealthy body, uncanted wings & a lift fan rather than a lift jet. Funny thing is back then in the early 90's the Soyuz Engine Company was right in the process of designing a shafted lift fan to replace the old Rybinsk lift jet setup. I won't even start on the vectored rear nozzle setup on the P$W 135 engine which appears to be an exact copy of the Soyuz R79 (ie I'll save the nozzle pics for another day).
      • Based on the wide range of quotes and links you cite, I'd say it appears that plenty of people have talked about the Russian contribution to the design. A lot more than most subcontractors can expect, other than engine mfg.
      • I would imagine no one mentions the Russian input because the Yak didn't turn out to be "all that." AFAIK none of the Sov/Russian V/STOL aircraft were "all that." Don't see a lot of utilization, or catch them on the export market.
        • The Yak-141 never made it into service. If it had, it would have been the first supersonic VTOL airplane in service. The JSF will take that crown now. The -141 would have revolutionized the capability of the Kiev VTOL carriers, which run Yak-38s, which are pieces of junk. They have low payloads, bad reliability, and poor electronics. The -38 isn't really a match for much of anything in the sky. It could probably be used for shooting down incoming attackers if they were unescorted, but it has such short legs that you're probably better off just firing off some cruise missiles than sending out the planes.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • For what it's worth, it's generally recognized that the design that won was better technically. Which design is actually better is usually a secondary concern when it comes to choosing defense contracts...

  • Jeez (Score:5, Funny)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @06:03PM (#3690153) Homepage
    Do you think [thinkgeek.com] stories could use fewer links [yahoo.com] so readers [naima.com] can just focus [healthyplace.com] on the specific article [theatlantic.com] instead of having to sort through every link under the sun [google.com]? Most stories should have just one [mit.edu] link (additional cool pictures [aeroflight.co.uk] excepted, of course).

  • 'Looks' thing stupid and baseless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @06:09PM (#3690180) Homepage Journal
    I liked the article. It seems a pretty good run down of the history of the JSF program. One of the more intelligent things to come from our military.

    But this whole - 'Boeing's plane was ugly' thing is sensationalistic journalism. The author throws it out there and then goes on to show that the author alone holds that opinion. It didn't make sense to me.

    I've watched the whole thing closely for quite a while. (My wife works for Lockheed and my sister in law for Boeing) They were both good but the article rightly states that the VSTOL variant put together by Lockheed is exceptional. It is a daring - effective design.

    Don't take away anything from either party with this 'It was about looks' nonsense. If that is what is was about we would be flying nothing but F-14s and not all these little plastic fag fighters that are out there now.

    .

    • Re:'Looks' thing stupid and baseless (Score:5, Interesting)

      by yeOldeSkeptic ( 547343 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @06:47PM (#3690403)

      Don't take away anything from either party with this 'It was about
      looks' nonsense. If that is what is was about we would be flying
      nothing but F-14s and ...


      I don't know. It seems to me that looks have as much to do
      with the selection as anything. Remember that these planes
      won't be placed in a museum to be gawked at by a wondering
      crowd. These planes will be flown by 19 year old jocks who
      will want to be photographed in front of their fighters
      and will have posters of these planes pinned on their
      walls. Would you want to be seen flying one of those pelican
      like things? Don't forget the psychological effect these
      would have on their morale. Fighters are not called
      Tomcat, Eagle, and Falcon without reason.
      (Pelican? Naaah.)


      In an article in Physics Today that I have read years
      ago in college, the author wondered why objects designed with
      utility and efficiency in mind often end up looking beautiful.
      The fighter plane is a very visible example of this
      phenomenon. Fighters are designed to have a low aerodynamic
      cross-section, to be able to carry armaments and to house
      a pilot. Even with these demands uppermost, fighters turn
      out to be sleek, beautiful and frightening beasts.


      The Boeing design is very strange-looking. The air intake
      is so huge I bet it could gulp a dozen pelicans with one
      snort. Even if the plane stays up in the air, can you imagine
      how disgusted the maintenance crew will be? How would it perform
      in the rain? With so much water pouring into the
      engines, wouldn't it have an effect on its efficiency?
      If you have one of these parked on an aircraft carrier,
      how many times would seagulls see the gaping hole
      as a chance to relieve their bowels?


      Considerations (or trolls if you wish) like my previous paragraph will
      surely have an effect on the selection process. And
      all because the aircraft looks ugly. Besides, did it ever occur
      to you that the Lockheed design performs better therefore
      it looks better?


      ...all these little plastic fag fighters that
      ...

      I don't think there are plastic fighters out there.
      Plastic may be light but it has a very low melting
      temperature. A plastic fighter will probably disintegrate
      above Mach 1. Ceramic maybe, but not plastic.
      • These planes will be flown by 19 year old jocks who will want to be photographed in front of their fighters and will have posters of these planes pinned on their walls. Would you want to be seen flying one of those pelican like things?

        That is an amazingly ignorant observation regarding joint strike fighter pilots. Their major aircraft is the A-10 Thunderbolt [a-10.org]. It is so ugly they call it the Warthog and say it with pride.
      • Actually, to fly a fighter, in the US, you have to have at least a 4 year degree from a school with an ROTC/NROTC program, or from a Military Academy. So it's not going to be 19 year olds, in the Second World War, sometimes, but since 1950, it's not been that way.

        "Fighters are not called Tomcat, Eagle, and Falcon without reason."

        Tomcat - because Grumman's carrier based planes were always given a "cat" name, Hellcat, Panther, Bearcat, Tiger, Cougar, Tomcat.

        Eagle - Because the name Mustang II was now a copyright of Ford, and because the national symbol of America is the Eagle.

        Falcon - because the Air Force academy is the Falcons, and because it was too sensable to give it a single name, it was saddled with Fighting Falcon, not a real kickass name.
    • I know quite a few fighter pilots, and they all (yes, every single one of them) said something along the line of "I'd rather fly a desk than that damn thing." (Even some scientist-type Air Force folks who never see a cockpit said this!)
      One guess who makes a lot of purchasing decisions on aircraft - pilots.
      Does it make sense? Should something so superficial be used as a basis for acceptance, not to mention millions in contract award $$$? Certainly not. Maybe it wasn't the main reason for not choosing Boeing, but I'm sure it played a part.
      • Well, it wouldn't exactly strike fear into the heart of evil everywhere to see a giant guppy bearing down on you, would it?
        Anyway, looks makes be superficial and all, but as a taxpayer I want the stuff my money is spent on to look neat, dammit!
    • first of all, it does look ugly, and most people agree, not that looks SHOULD have anything to do with performance.
      You should also remember the the stealth fighter are supposed to be painted light blue, But a well known general who shall remain nameless, insisted that US pilots will never fly anything that color.

  • More FAS information (Score:2, Informative)

    by gmanske ( 312125 )
    There's some more background FAS (Federation of American Scientists) information on both of the original contender JSF platforms located here. [fas.org]

    Gmanske.

  • JSF (Score:3, Funny)

    by nathanm ( 12287 ) <nathanm AT engineer DOT com> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @06:17PM (#3690225)
    I've read a lot about the JSF program over the last 2 years or so, and it seems they did pick the best aircraft. Lockheed Martin simply has more (recent) experience with this type of aircraft, since they also designed the F-22.

    On the other hand, I thanked God they didn't pick the hideous looking Boeing contraption. No self respecting fighter pilot would want to be seen in that.
    • ... the WW II P-47 and F4U wouldn't have won any beauty contests, and neither would the F-4 from the 60s. Yet their pilots swore by them, and the stats proved them to be world beaters. You don't know what you're talking about.
      • The P-47 Thunderbolt may not have won any beauty pageants, but it is definitely not ugly.

        On the other hand the F4U Corsair is a sleek, beautiful aircraft.

        The F-4 Phantom II may have nicknames like Rhino and Double Ugly, but I don't think it's ugly. It looks mean and muscular.

        The other poster mentioned the A-6 Intruder, which I don't think is ugly. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

        Then he mentioned the A-10 Thunderbolt II. This happens to be one of my favorite aircraft. No aircraft has ever been better suited for close air support than the A-10. As architect Louis Sullivan said, "form follows function."

        Boeing's F-32 design though, was truly ugly, IMNSHO.

  • Fast Company (Score:3, Informative)

    by ChristianBaekkelund ( 99069 ) <.draco. .at. .mit.edu.> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @06:20PM (#3690249) Homepage
    Fast Company [fastcompany.com] also had an article [fastcompany.com] on this recently.

  • how courteous (Score:5, Funny)

    by jdbo ( 35629 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @06:28PM (#3690301)
    In formal and informal comments to military officers, civilian analysts, politicians, consultants, reporters, and other members of the defense community, Boeing representatives were careful never to speak dismissively of the JSF.

    Boy, I wish I worked in an industry where the primary competitors (while competing all-out in every other arena) deliberately avoided trying to FUD each other into the dirt at every opportunity.

    And while I'm at it, I want a pony. One that can fly.
    • "Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Aerospace Entrepreneur." Being corteous goes a long way to not burning bridges you don't even know you're going to need yet. :)

      ---Mike

    • And while I'm at it, I want a pony. One that can fly.
      Then you might be interested in the military's next project, the Joint Strike Pony. It will be extremely cute, unlike the unattractive Joint Strike Fighter designs.

  • The JSF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Veteran ( 203989 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @06:36PM (#3690348)
    The Boeing design was known as "Monica" after Lewinsky. The Air Force was not to happy with the way it looked. The better design, in my opinion, won the competition.

    The Lockheed plane can fly nose down at speeds as low as 20 Knots (for strafing) - while being able to run away from an F-15 on the top end. It has the radar profile of a bird. The plane is unlike anything that has ever flown before. It can cruise at supersonic speeds without afterburners. The Marine Corps version can take off vertically - go supersonic - then land vertically at the end of the mission. It is a better air superiority fighter than anything we have in service now - while being a better ground support plane than an A-10 Warthog. Computerized control is what makes all of that possible.

    This will probably be the last manned fighter that the U.S. builds. Drones are cheaper, don't put a pilot at risk, and can make more violent maneuvers than any manned airplane - eventually they'll take over the air.

    The series of unmanned fighting aircraft that Boeing is developing can be thought of as reusable cruise missiles; instead of crashing into their targets they drop bombs and return for another mission.

    • Re:The JSF (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Brian Stretch ( 5304 )
      The Boeing design was known as "Monica" after Lewinsky.

      I wondered how long it'd take for someone to post that (heh).

      It (the JSF) is a better air superiority fighter than anything we have in service now - while being a better ground support plane than an A-10 Warthog.

      Can it absorb AAA and small arms fire like an A-10? Can it survive a SAM hit like an A-10? Does it carry a gun remotely comparable to the tank-shredding Avenger? Didn't think so.

      Sorry, it annoys me every time someone says they're going to replace the A-10 with some fragile supersonic fighter. Close air support requires serious armor and armament, which no fighter aircraft is ever going to have. The Air Force should transfer the A-10's to the Army where they'd be appreciated. Then we'd see the A-10's and Apaches go tag-team, which would be a beautiful thing.

      Or the Air Force should be merged back into the Army, which isn't such a bad idea.


      • Sorry, it annoys me every time someone says they're going to replace the A-10 with some fragile supersonic fighter. Close air support requires serious armor and armament, which no fighter aircraft is ever going to have


        Ground battles are for the police: real wars are fought with aircraft and missiles.


        Seriuosly, fighting on the ground is passe. The army has been irrelevant since their failure in the island hopping campaign of WW2. (credit the marines for most of the irrelevant ground fighting anyway)


        Even then, an air/naval blockade and nukes was more than enough to eliminate japan. The army's main role was as a peacekeeper. This has become moreso ever since.

        • Actually, ground battles are unpopular but necessary. What you fail to remember is that we've pretty much taken on small, disorganized, underfunded governments and their armies. That's fairly easy to do with quick strikes and cruise missiles, but if you ever need to take out a major target you just plain have to land ground troops.

          Besides, there is no way to occupy territory from the air. What, do you want to sit out on a boat 30 miles off shore and broadcast, "HEY, YOU ALL BEHAVE IN THERE!!!" without anything on the ground to back it up? Sorry, but ground force becomes inevitable, regardless of how the American public seems to forget that not only do people die in war, but it's a lot scarier in real life than on CNN.

        • Really... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Mulletproof ( 513805 )
          "The army has been irrelevant since their failure"

          You must have missed the entire Cold War. You know, the one where the old Soviet Union had hundreds of tanks waiting to rush into West Germany? Or the massive, one-sided land engagement in "that desert war" in 97? It wasn't all air power, though it went a long way in the outcome. Think of it this way; Somebody with heavy weapons on the ground has to actually claim the land from other people with heavy weapons. I guess you could theoretically carpet bomb every fox hole and bunker, but it's not realistic.

          "Even then, an air/naval blockade and nukes was more than enough to eliminate japan."

          Make no mistake, without those bombs, the cost of invading Japan would have been astronomical in lives, probably more than dropping the bombs themselves. Refer to planned operations Cornet and Olympic as to the scope of this undertaking. This article [cuny.edu] describes it as well as anything could. Yeah, we had the fleets and airforce, but the Imperial Japanese didn't care. It was going to be to the last man, woman and child with a conventional war. Think Vietnam, only a thousand times worse.

    • The ATF, not the JSF... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by trims ( 10010 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @07:50PM (#3690784) Homepage

      You're confusing some of the performance characteristics of the ATF (which turned into the F-22 Raptor) with the JSF (the now F-35).

      The F-22 is a high-performance, air-superiority fighter intended to superceed the F-15. It has a 2nd-gen stealth (very low radar cross-section and low observability infrared/visible features) design, coupled with a high speed (~ Mach 1.4 without afterburners, ~2.2 full burner), and is primarily a missile-platform (ie, no bombs). It is the premier air-superiority fighter in the world.

      The F-35 is a ground-attack AKA strike fighter (NOT a close-support aircraft). It tops out at about Mach 1.5 or so at altitude, and is not anywhere near as stealthy as the F-22 (though much, much better than the F-16, F-15, or F-18). One version will have VSTOL cabilities. It carries laser designators and other ground-attack sensors, and has a modest bomb-load (though smart weapons will be it's primary payload).

      All things said, the F-35 is a good design, and a reasonable compromise on cost, performance, and advanced technology. HOWEVER, it is NOT an air-superiority fighter (though the Royal Navy will use it as such off their carriers), neither is it a dedicated close-support aircraft (though the US Marines will use is in such a roll). It is primarily a multi-role strike craft. It's really a blend of the features of the F-18, Harrier, F-16, and F-22, with some compromises.

      The A-10 will probably remain the best close-support aircraft around for general use (the Harrier and similar craft are superior, but only in specific uses), and the F-15 and F-14 (and of course the F-22, plus the MiG-29) are better air-superiority fighers.

      My major concern with the F-35 is the low payload cability compared to the F-16/18 (though it's superior to the Harrier). It's probably OK, since it looks like the "bomb dumptruck" role of massive dumb firepower is being relegated to the B-52 bomber and AC-130 gunships these days.

      -Erik

  • One lesson they DIDN'T learn (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gentlewizard ( 300741 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @06:43PM (#3690385)
    "The most optimistic interpretation would be that the JSF represents the introduction of the best, real parts of the New Economy to the messy business of building military machines. Talking to Tom Burbage in Washington and in Fort Worth, I kept being surprised by how much he sounded like the high-tech executives I have interviewed in recent years."


    If this project was done according to the New Economy model, each competitor would have created a separate startup to develop their prototypes, hired engineers by promising them stock options, and run them separately from their main companies. The winning company would have been "acquired" by its sponsor, and the losing one would have gone away. This seems to be the main contribution of the New Economy IMHO, that companies are created not to endure for decades, but to bring products to market. After that, the exit strategies are well known: aquisition, IPO, or bankruptcy court.

  • X-32 (Score:5, Funny)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland@yahoo . c om> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @06:51PM (#3690420) Homepage Journal
    we called it "Vogon Poetry in motion"

  • While there are many cost advantages, the one airplace for all services is not a good idea. If Boeing wins some, and Lockheed wins some, then each time some branch wants a new plane they can get bids. If only one plane is used, it is cheaper, but next time Boeing says "Guess what, we didn't make any money last time, so we had to get rid of our military designers, at which point Lockheed has a monopoly. If each branch was different, then both would win a few contracts, so both would keep designing planes.

    I'm also not sure that one size fits all is a good idea anyway. The air force doesn't care about carrier landings, or even the ability to make them. They would much prefer a plane that they can afford the fuel to send anywhere in the world from one of two desert air strips. (if you fly commercially you will notice the ex-navy pilots hit the breaks as soon as they land, and throw you against the belts, the air force pilots barely hit the last turn off. I prefer air force from a comfort standpoint, and it really doesn't matter most of the time)

    Like everything else, it is more complex then the above. As a tax payer, anything to get costs down without cutting defense too much is a good thing. (the definition of too much is one penny over whatever it takes to maintain my way of life, which doens't even begin to show how complex that is)

    • One airplane for all IS good (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Goldenhawk ( 242867 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @09:45PM (#3691319) Homepage
      I work in an aviation acquisition role for the US Navy. I help evaluate aviation products. I think I can speak to this with some background knowledge.

      Actually despite the performance compromises, we find our country (the US) in a position where budget takes a front seat to absolute function.

      In this arena, a plane that minimizes the huge complexity of a support infrastructure is a good thing. The one thing this design will do, and do very well, is to create a multi-service purchasing and support system advantage. The majority of the cost of an aviation weapon is the pieces-parts that keep it flying. Those fees get paid LONG after the initial investment. With one highly common set of parts, all three services (Air Force, Navy, Marines) get to all buy the same parts - making it cheaper by far to maintain and operate many years into the future. Furthermore, with some exceptions, doing the testing and development on upgrades and parts replacements will also be cheaper for the life of the plane.

      Sure, you give up performance. But for the forseeable future, we are not going to really need (for example) a Mach 3 fighter. So why pay for one, that can't do anything else?

  • The companies had to use just the grant money, and not spend any of their own. This was meant in part to keep the largest company, Boeing, from outspending the others. It was also meant to spare all the companies the woes that had attended the B-2 and F-22 programs when bidding contractors invested money in the expectation of huge production runs that never occurred.

    This seems a little weird to me. The companies should damn-well know that there aren't any guarantees (especially because of the aforementioned B-2 and F-22 programs), they shouldn't be forced to limit their own spending. And so what is Boeing outspends the others? I would think that taxpayers should be trying to get the most for their bucks, and if Boeing stockholders want to subsidize us taxpayers, that's fine with me.

    Were the people in charge of spending my money, really thinking in terms of "we don't want Boeing to develop too good/affordable of a product at their expense, because that wouldn't be fair to the other companies"?

    (BTW, good submission, jonerik.)

    • It's in the taxpayer's interest for there to be multiple companies capable of designing and building weapons systems. A competition that kills the losing companies would be bad for future procurement. There has already been an amazing amount of consolidation in the military aircraft industry. We will be in deep trouble if LockMart is the only company capable of bidding on military contracts.

  • Meanwhile (Score:5, Funny)

    by Snafoo ( 38566 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @07:03PM (#3690502) Homepage
    Back on the Secret Ranch, RMS perfects his GPL'ed ultralight, which (for some bizarre reason) has all the features of the bigger planes at none of the cost. However, due to licensing constraints, whenever the plane is brought into battle a copy of all the blueprints and materials must be given to the opponent. Additionally, they occasionally explode due to forgetful pilots leaving out a couple of right parentheses, as the only interface to the flight computer is through M-x and M-;.

  • A bet paid off (Score:5, Interesting)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @07:18PM (#3690609) Homepage
    A friend of mine is a pilot, and he and I have talked about the JSF competition. I was hoping Boeing would win, since that would be good for the economy in my area, but the LockMart plane was better.

    The Boeing plane was a fairly traditional design. The LockMart plane was a radical new design. My pilot friend said that LockMart bet everything on the radical design; either the new design would fail and they would lose hugely, or else the new design would work and they would win hugely.

    In particular, the Boeing design uses conventional hydraulics for actuating its various parts, but the LockMart plane uses an electrical bus to distribute power to motors that actuate the various parts. It turns out that while the two systems weigh about the same and perform about the same, there are second and third order effects that favor the electrical bus:

    While a hydraulic system is constantly under pressure, which means pump motors run constantly and heat must be constantly dissipated, the electrical bus just sits there while you aren't using it. So the power systems and cooling systems for the LockMart plane don't have to be as heavy-duty as the Boeing plane. And you can make an electrical bus redundant more easily, just by running extra cables, much easier than making hydraulics redundant. And think how much easier it will be to repair and service an electrical bus compared to a bunch of heavy-duty hoses and pipes full of hydraulic fluid!

    steveha
    • And think how much easier it will be to repair and service an electrical bus compared to a bunch of heavy-duty hoses and pipes full of hydraulic fluid!

      And to further congratulate LockMart on their wise design choice, consider that this is a combat aircraft, and in a world full of people trying to kill you and/or break your airplane, it's comforting to note that an electrical bus can have holes blown through it and chunks blasted off of it and still probably work. One little hole in a hydraulic system and it's Pull The Black-and-Yellow-Striped Handle Time, if you're lucky enough to be able to.

      OTOH, if you get a chance to see a cutaway view of the -35's internals (I'm referring to the V/STOL version), you may find yourself shaking your head in disbelief at all the extra moving parts inside the aircraft. It makes the AV-8 Harrier look fairly simple by comparison.
    • Makers of the P-38 Lightning [af.mil] (the first all-aluminum skinned fighter, flown by the top 2 aces in the Pacific Theater during WW2), the P-80 Shooting Star [military.cz] (first operational US jet fighter), the SR-71 Blackbird [supersiteusa.com] (fastest aircraft in the world, high speed, high altitude photo recon) and the new F-22 Raptor [pspdepot.com]. Wonder if Lockheed will be putting the same powerplant that's in the F-22 into their JSF bird. It'd be nice since the thing can produce Mach 1 without afterburner/reheat.

    • Re:A bet paid off (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ryanvm ( 247662 )
      In particular, the Boeing design uses conventional hydraulics for actuating its various parts, but the LockMart plane uses an electrical bus to distribute power to motors that actuate the various parts.

      Hmmm, sounds like a prime target for an EMP type weapon. Of course, I suppose any aircraft built in the last 50 years would probably succumb to an EMP pulse too.

  • my pros and cons on the two planes (Score:4, Informative)

    by Thagg ( 9904 ) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @07:27PM (#3690653) Journal
    I thought that the Boeing plane should have won the competition, mostly because it fulfilled the specification better; while being smaller, lighter, and immeasurably simpler. The Boeing plane didn't take off vertically, it's true, but that is also not in the specification -- it's not what was asked for. Similarly, there was no line-item for aesthetics. The Boeing direct-lift concept is the same that powers the Harrier, and is the only demonstrated successful direct lift formula. The clutch-driven lift fan is an Osprey-scale debacle waiting to happen -- mechanically clutching in 40,000 HP in a few seconds with an extremely lightweight gearbox is, I believe, untenable. They finally got it to work for a few tests, but there were a number of fairly spectacular failures along the way. The Boeing design lets the pilot shift from forward to vertical thrust and back again in a few seconds, at will, and they did it more than 100 times during the flight test program -- the Lockheed one was only clutched a handful of times.

    The very wide-chord wing of the Boeing design is good for a number of structural, aerodynamic, and stealth reasons. Unfortunately, Boeing elected to change the design for the actual plane to a separate tail, rather than the delta wing -- Lockheed partisans claimed (rightly, IMHO) that this meant that the demonstrator that Boeing flew wasn't really representative of the final plane.

    The one terrific thing that the Lockheed design has, the one true aerodynamic innovation, is the bump intake. There's a big bump right in front of the intakes on the Lockheed plane; it performs all of the functions of the typical intake splitter plate, purging the boundary layer, with a far more elegant, lighter, simpler, stealthier, easier-to-maintain design. Hats off to the engineers that came up with that.

    I think that the Boeing design is prettier, too, but that's just me -- I'm a low-aspect ratio kind of guy.

    thad
    • I strongly suspect that the Pentagon is keenly interested in that gearbox. If LM can pull that off and come anywhere near budget (30% say) it'll be a miracle. They just might. Or they could Osprey the whole thing. Or, if we get really lucky the gearbox can be used to rescue the Osprey program.


      The Osprey really needs to be fixed. The Marines could really use flocks of them operating from the amphib carriers. We obviously need something really fast that can land troops like a helicopter, sooner orlater the engineering (maybe not on the V-22) will get worked out.

    • The Osprey problem may partly be one of scaling. The V-22 Osprey weighs around 65,000lb (gross takeoff weight). A similar, but smaller, tiltrotor, the Bell Augusta 609 [bellhelicopter.com], only weighs 16,000lb, and is reported to have far fewer troubles. The JSF is supposed to come in around 50,000lb.

      The drive system that interconnects the V-22 engines is the mechanical linkage from hell. It runs at 6500 RPM, has many flexible couplings [lucasutica.com], five gearboxes, and a clutch in the middle. Plus, the whole thing is a transformer; the wings and props fold. [globalsecurity.org] It's amazing that they can get it to hold together.

  • yeah right (Score:5, Funny)

    by bilbobuggins ( 535860 ) <`bilbobuggins' `at' `juntjunt.com'> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @07:41PM (#3690746)
    for a bunch of people enamored with a penguin you sure do give the pelican a lot of grief.

    besides, if you saw a 2 ton pelican bearing down on you at 800mph, you'd be screaming

  • Parse the Headline (Score:4, Funny)

    by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:06PM (#3690851)
    Did anybody else read that headline as
    some sort of gaming in prison?

  • My favorite X-32 quip (Score:5, Funny)

    by alumshubby ( 5517 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:10PM (#3690868)
    The bizarre appearance of the fighter's enormous single air intake, coupled with an understanding of the inherent dangers for flight-deck personnel in carrier operations, caused one US Navy officer to dub the X-32 with the sobriquet of "the Sailor Inhaler."

  • Although, the page has been removed from the Boeing site, this google cache provides good links to several video feeds of Boeing JSF flights and testing [216.239.37.100].

  • Ooooh... Stealthy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @09:18PM (#3691226) Homepage Journal
    Fun Fact: The Stealth design built into aircraft can be negated to some degree by syncronizing several radars spread over a wide area. Since a stealth fighter's design reflects radar waves away from the point of origin to decrease it's cross section, the theory is that multiple radar sites working in unison will see "enough" of the fighter at once to accurately track.
  • Sure Boeing lost because of a really, really stupid looking aircraft.

    Look at the B-2. I don't think anyone could say (with any amount of seriousness) that it is ugly. The plane serves its purpose even while sitting on the ground. We only have 19, not really enough for a full-scale war, yet they still work as a deterent. You don't have to know what it is to be scared of it, if you know it's gonna come after you.

    Being 'scared' of military technology is all part of the game. Boeing could not produce a scary looking aircraft, so they lost.

  • Audience (Score:2)

    by rwa2 ( 4391 )
    One factor was that Boeing was going after a more well-rounded entry that would be of use to all branches of the military, so they put a lot more emphasis on the VTOL capability than they should have.

    The LockMart JSF, on the other hand, was designed more as a conventional fighter with the VTOL added on.

    Only the Marine Corps were really interested in VTOL, and given that they would have only bought tens of aircraft (as opposed to the thousands the Air Force was looking for), the Air Force had much more sway. So LockMart correctly wooed the Air Force with fighter performance as the priority.

  • advantages of JSF (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jfet ( 238835 )
    i havent personally worked on the pane, but many fellow INCOSE members of mine are directly involved. i have learned many things about the plane, and i am about to give my 2 cents worth. for starters, it will have in its first production run over 10 times the amount of planes produced than the F-22. One reason for the name JSF is that it is a joint venture between aumy, navy, royal navy, etc...this is the first plane that all military divisions have agreed on the specifications and will train on and use. if im not mistaken, it is also the only plane to perform STOVL (short take off and vertical landing) in the same test flight. its computer systems are much more advanced require less maintanence, and more reliability through redundant systems. it also uses hardware that is not-so-proprietary so the electrical systems can be repaired quickly if necessary. also because of technological advances, and the amazing force produced by the engines, it is able to carry a larger payload than any previous fighter jet. one way it produces so much force and is able to to vertical takeoff is by a clutch mechanism that was previously thought impossible with the engines rotating at 20000-30000 rpm. they accomplished this by taking the brake pads directly from a commercial airplane and modifying them to implement a clutch in the actual engine so that the force can be directed from straight back to directly down. thats all the information i can think of to dish to the slashdot crowd now.
  • Boeing and Lockheed are both stupid. The obvious design is to shape the plane like, and paint it like, a shark. That way, when other pilots see the plane, they won't try to shoot it down. They'll just be like "Oh, air shark." and go about their business.

Slashdot Top Deals

The relative importance of files depends on their cost in terms of the human effort needed to regenerate them. -- T.A. Dolotta

Close