F-35 First Flight Comments...
- Thread starter Kurt Plummer
- Start date
The tooling and space available allows for much more than 36 airframes per year.
If the JSF is cancelled the rate of F-22 production can more than double.
How??? The F-22 is assembled in Marietta, the F-35 in Fort Worth! LockMart would need to establish a whole new set of tooling etc in Fort Worth going on your logic, something it would not do.
Magoo
Actually, thats not actually true. The tooling capacity will support in the area of ~36/year F-22s. When the declining orders were looming the 22 was never tooled up for the original run of 750 airframes (let alone 600). If Lockmart were to run overtime (and some key suppliers) they may be able to squeak out ~46+/year. Some of the key structural composite components are long lead time items due to how the composites are manufactured: its not a simple matter of simply putting a piece of steel or aluminum on a lathe and grinding out more pieces... To quote an overhyped movie some of the composites are made via, "Shake and bake." Now then, even 36 airframes on non-o.t. work schedules would be a lot better than the 20/year that have been getting pumped out: we're simply not even building the F-22 up to its pitiful maximum tooling capacity. If 1 F-22 is ~5_or_6 F-15s, then by the math, then those 36 F-22s/year is equiv to ~180+ Eagles. Now I don't know all of the ins and outs of the F-22 tooling situation, but it seems to me that if some of they long lead composite items were doubled up (tooling) then LM could pump out ~60-70 or so per year without actually doubling every piece of F-22 tooling. This scenario would cost significantly less than building the tooling for 3000+ F-35s and still yield a more effective USAF.
I just don't like that F-35 and its pitiful performance for the USA's 1st fighter of the 21st century. If 20 years ago someone were to ask me and others what kind of plane we'd be building in the 21st century to replace the F-16 (without thinking in sci-fi terms) I'd have imagined something with Raptor speed and more than *2* internal missiles and *2* internal bombs and a thrust to weight ratio of better than >0.XX.
I also found it intersting that after the F-35 first flight, Beasley(?) said something like (I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact words), "The F-35 flew great, but the F-16 chase planes... well the F-16 is a hell of a plane too." Being biased against the 35, that one line really jumped out at me. When the F-22 first flew, the chase planes had to go to AB to keep up with its rate of climb (with gear down as well) and I didn't see that with the F-35 and F-16s.
He Will Be Buying Beers For Years
The general consensus among colleagues in the flight test community is that Jon Beesley will (and should) be buying beers for many years to come on the back of his post first flight comments about the JSF.
How he could claim the F-35 to be 'quicker' than the Raptor after a 35 minute flight at a max speed of 225 KIAS and 15k feet MSL - WITH THE GEAR DOWN - belies belief.
One thing this claim does demonstrate is that it pretty much epitomises the JSF Program, to date - a good idea gone bad through too much smoke and mirrors marketing.
The general consensus among colleagues in the flight test community is that Jon Beesley will (and should) be buying beers for many years to come on the back of his post first flight comments about the JSF.
How he could claim the F-35 to be 'quicker' than the Raptor after a 35 minute flight at a max speed of 225 KIAS and 15k feet MSL - WITH THE GEAR DOWN - belies belief.
One thing this claim does demonstrate is that it pretty much epitomises the JSF Program, to date - a good idea gone bad through too much smoke and mirrors marketing.
Fair go mate, i think youre being a bit unfair to Americans, however, i think he is a fine example of an intelligent,boreing,lonley computer GEEK!Haha, he is a fine example of american.
Oh, you don't think he is racist and ignorant? How about disrespectful and hot headed? He definitely does not fit the profile of a computer geek....
Anyway, back to F-35, I think it only works if it is complemented with other stealthier platform. eg. F-22. So IMHO, I think Australia buying F-35 isn't a good choice, since there is no F-22 to back it up.
I think that we should remember that Kurt Plummer is taking an enforced holiday from this site and hence is unable to respond.
Chris
Chris
All: Please note the big bold bits in red. As much as there is opinion on individuals and their relative legacy, its inappropriate to stick the boot in when they're gone and unable to respond.
Please return to the topic ASAP rather than dwell on this.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=18096&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400
So it's made another flight. Obviously praising it like nothing else, when will we know how it truly handles? A video of the flights perhaps? That would be nice.
Here are some sources. The first video was released on 15 Dec 2006.
First Flight 15 Dec 2006
Hi-Res pictures
http://www.lmaeronautics.com/f35firstflight/
Same Video from two sources.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIiWRLlN75U
http://www.crmstudios.tv/videos/F35/
Second Flight 8 Jan 2007
This time with wheels up.
Third Flight planned for 10 Jan 2007
LM should post photo for second flight today and for both flights by the end of the week.
Chris
Yeah I've already got the hi-res photo from the second flight, a nice photo too actually. Maybe Johnny just keeps signing up to get the Aus flag on such a pretty plane (jk)
But yeah I'm waiting for a video of the 2nd flight, I've seen that one of the first flight, but more or less it proved nothing more than its ability to create sufficient thrust, lift and be somewhat controllable.
(jk)But yeah I'm waiting for a video of the 2nd flight, I've seen that one of the first flight, but more or less it proved nothing more than its ability to create sufficient thrust, lift and be somewhat controllable.
