David Hingtgen Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3718567.stm Heh heh. PS---3,300lbs overweight? WTF did they do to it, make the production version fan blades out of lead? That is a massive amount of weight for a plane that size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 HAW haw! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 heh damn imagine it fully loaded. holy crap. it would be a sigfht to watch the damn thing try to even lift up the front wheel. somehow i think the this is the fault of the pencil pushers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 (edited) Eh. As the article points out, this is pretty normal this early in the production of a combat aircraft. If the plane were two years from service and this was the case I'd be worried. Edited May 26, 2004 by Nied Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 it can also doom some planes. I remember what hqappened to the horrible F-111. the first plane o commonality which is rearing its ugly head under the JSF monnicker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellohikaru Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Try to be a plane to please everyone and you pretty much end up pleasing no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J A Dare Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 PS---3,300lbs overweight? WTF did they do to it, make the production version fan blades out of lead? That is a massive amount of weight for a plane that size. Well, I thought American has a weight problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted May 26, 2004 Author Share Posted May 26, 2004 It's 3,300lbs. That's insane. That's not going to happen. They need 3,300lbs more thrust from the engines, because they sure aren't going to lose that much weight. They could chop the v.stabs off and it wouldn't be 3,300lbs.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 PS---3,300lbs overweight? WTF did they do to it, make the production version fan blades out of lead? That is a massive amount of weight for a plane that size. Well, I thought American has a weight problem? It was under the weight limit... ...Then the pilot got in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellohikaru Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 They could probably lose the ejection seat, the landing gear and the gun...now would cut the 3000lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J A Dare Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 They could probably lose the ejection seat, the landing gear and the gun...now would cut the 3000lbs. Is that the kamikazi version? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightning Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 (edited) They could probably lose the ejection seat, the landing gear and the gun...now would cut the 3000lbs. Is that the kamikazi version? no, that's the Kakizaki version! EDIT: misspelled "the" Edited May 26, 2004 by Lightning 06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 I wonder if it's too late to go with Boeing's F-32? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drifand Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 The X-32 didn't look too dainty early on, but I'm already looking back on it with fondness. It seems much more 'purpose-built' than the generic looking X-35. And the STO videos were very convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Johnathan Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Yeah, that's typical news. What's been happening for more than a decade in American fighter aircraft "competions" is a gargantuan, wretched scandal. This is what happens when Congress and a few corporations make deals to undercut those companies that don't have the political savy to bribe their way to domination. If there was a serious competion this kind of thing would have been discovered long ago, but I'm sure the computer simulations worked fine. The sad saga of the Northrop-McdonnelDouglass-Boeing F/A-18A,B,C,D-E/F Super duper Hornet set the new low, the F-35 is fitting in nicely. Was it really that long ago that the U.S. had a dozen or more credible military aircraft makers? Now we have 2 or 3... Eventually, this will come back to haunt us. Anyway, I'm sure the F-35 will come in to service under budget and before dead-lines. (Remember, they billed the F-35 as a great bargain.) That said, what's the latest on the Osprey and F-22? I keep hearing their almost ready, year after year and I still don't see them in Iraq or Afghanistan... how many decades does it take to deploy a new plane these days? Not to mention they axed the Comanche... right as it was ready for full scale production... we'll just buy more Apaches? Will we build ANY new designs from now on or is the F-18, Apache and Chinook gonna be around forever? Don't answer that... rant over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted May 26, 2004 Author Share Posted May 26, 2004 Hey, the F-4 got up to "S" for normal versions. I'm sure the Subpar Hornet won't take too long to get up that high either... Man, if only MDC was still around. Take their Harrier experience, combine it with a "mini-YF-23" airframe, and you'd have a world-beating JSF... Anyone who watched the Nova program could literally see the Boeing people over-riding the ex-MDC people's suggestions (including using the ultra-stealthy YF-23's tail design, which would have worked wonderfully in a design like that). Of course, Northrop/MDC/BAe would have been the ULTIMATE JSF team. Probably have something as powerful as the F-15, the agility of the F-16, better VTOL than a Harrier, and as stealthy as the YF-23. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winkle Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 That said, what's the latest on the Osprey and F-22? I keep hearing their almost ready, year after year and I still don't see them in Iraq or Afghanistan... how many decades does it take to deploy a new plane these days? Not to mention they axed the Comanche... right as it was ready for full scale production... we'll just buy more Apaches? Will we build ANY new designs from now on or is the F-18, Apache and Chinook gonna be around forever? Don't answer that... rant over. WHOA... STOP THE PRESSES. They axed the Commanche? Since when did this happen? I thought they were still going to go into production and replace the Apache? The Commanche's the coolest looking helicopter out there... what happened that they cancelled it? Budget problems or technical problems with the machine itself? Anyway I don't think the Osprey will ever come into existence. Who's the guy in government that hates it with a passion and wants to kill it? Rumsfeld or Cheney? I don't even remember. And the F-22 seems to be on route to coming into service in what... 2006 or 2008? I don't remember that either Oh and what ever happened to that Super Tomcat 21 program they were going to launch? It's supposed to upgrade the Tomcats with redesigned airframes and avionics systems... pretty much like what they did with the F/A-18E Super Hornet. I read about it in a book somewhere back in the 90's but I figured that didn't take off either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Leader Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 that got axed when Cheney axed the F-14 program. Are there any pictures of this F-35 floating around? I just realized I have no idea what it looks like (or if I do, I don't know it...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted May 26, 2004 Author Share Posted May 26, 2004 (edited) Comanche was very recently, utterly totally killed. Kaput. Tomcat's been kaput since, oh, 1991. Most "instantly stopped" jet program ever AFAIK. One day, people were building F-14's at the factory like they had for years. The next day, all the factory workers didn't have a job and had to go find new ones. Any unfinished Tomcat still on the line was scrapped along with all the material and tools. I could type quite the rant, but Tomcat-21's could have cost 8 cents each, and the Super Hornet would still have been built due to various people's/company's political clout. F-22's in service early 2005 AFAIK. Can't remember if it's the 27th or 71st squadron that gets them first (I was hoping for the 94th, my fave CONUS fighter squadron) Skull Leader: the F-35 looks almost exactly like a single-engined F-22. Could always check out the official site: http://www.jsf.mil/ Edited May 26, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Leader Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 (edited) nevermind.. found some pics. Man, that just sucks.... but then, Britain needs to get off it's lazy ass and build some REAL aircraft carriers that don't require VTOL for their aircraft (ok, ok.. I know everything from the Nimitz-class and up is more or less a gross symbol of excess... but it also pretty much gives you the power to tell other countries what to do!) We've got plenty of older carriers drydocked that they could buy..... Whatever happened to the days when we could be PROUD of the aircraft we're going to use to defend our skies? I'm still greatly looking forward to the first active F-22 squadrons... but everything else seems to be less than stellar. I'm a little fuzzy on my air-force fighters... do they use the F-15ACTIVE to any great capacity? or was it more or less a vectored-thrust proof of concept? Basically looks like an americanized SU-27 to my eyes.... Edited May 26, 2004 by Skull Leader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted May 26, 2004 Author Share Posted May 26, 2004 (edited) Yes, but, since the US is buying 1,000+ to replace every F-16, Harrier, and early F-18 in service, that's a problem. Especially for the Marines, since a non-VTOL Harrier replacement is really, really, worthless. And for the Navy, 3,300lbs is a tremendous problem. They don't operate F-18B's or D's from carriers because the 2nd seat and person adds too much weight and cuts into fuel reserves. F-8's only had an 800lb margin for landing IIRC. Later F-18C's weigh 250lbs more due to RAM, and that's a problem in some circumstances, especially night ops. 3,300lbs is more than the bring-back allowance for just about any plane. Regardless that the Navy doesn't want VTOL, they sure do want payload! "Yeah, it can land on a carrier just fine, assuming it just sort of glides on deck empty with no fuel and no weapons" Edited May 26, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drifand Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 And now the Eurofighter Typhoon might just crash on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 And now the Eurofighter Typhoon might just crash on you. Good God. Overweight F35, aging Harriers, uncertified Chinooks, unreliable Eurofighters.. does the Brits have any thing that will fly properly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted May 26, 2004 Author Share Posted May 26, 2004 Tornado's good. Except when being shot down by Patriots: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/patriot_missile/ Patriot sucks, IMHO. It's like the AEGIS system, only with a much worse record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Tornado's good. Except when being shot down by Patriots: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/patriot_missile/ Patriot sucks, IMHO. It's like the AEGIS system, only with a much worse record. Uh-huh. I guess a working IFF isn't a necessity for flight... Patriot, yeah. I guess it's a victim of its own "success".. the media wanted a success story, and the Patriot was in the right place at the right time. Anyway, back to the overweight F35. Given that there's about a decade's time before it enters service, the probability is good that advancements and refinements will lower the engine weight. It probably WILL still end up overweight, but not by 1.5 metric tons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted May 26, 2004 Author Share Posted May 26, 2004 1. Increased thrust solves 99% of most weight/power/drag/speed problems. And it's usually not too hard to get. Try that before anything else. 2. More importantly--given that it's got another decade until it enters service, it will only get heavier. Has ANY plane ever lost weight from prototype to in-service? Heck, they usually tack on 10-20%. I think the F-15 had about the lowest gain of any recent plane. F-16's was quite high, F-18 was of course enormous. Sure, F-35 might get a lower-weight engine. But it won't help with the other thousands of pounds that will inevitably "creep" onto the airframe as they make a plane actually suitable for combat, rather than a demonstrator. Only saving grace is that it's stealth, and thus that implies no external additions, and thus could limit weight growth due to sheer lack of internal volume. 2.5 (rant). I tend to hate external additions to planes, e.g. "lumps and bumps". What's the point of spending 10,000 hours with a wind tunnel perfecting the airflow, when the C-model is just going to have a half-dozen new antenna bumps plastered along the leading edges and fin, bulged gear doors, and a new hump on the spine anyways? Of course, increased thrust can overcome all the drag/weight problems they impose... "In thrust we trust". SR-71 motto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Better start refurbishing Fairey Swordfish again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californium Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Better start refurbishing Fairey Swordfish again... Looks better than the F-35 anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zentrandude Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 And now the Eurofighter Typhoon might just crash on you. Good God. Overweight F35, aging Harriers, uncertified Chinooks, unreliable Eurofighters.. does the Brits have any thing that will fly properly? a kite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatMoose Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Why don't they just kill the F-35 now, BEFORE it's ready for production (ala RAH-66)? The thing is going to suck. I'd rather have F-16 Block 60's any day for the AF, nothing wrong with the harrier and Hornet for the Marines, and the navy, well, they got different problems (SubPar Bug). Stealth isn't anywhere NEAR as important as it used to be. Oh, hasn't the F-22 been axed also? I thought I read that recently (like a month ago). Maybe not. Ok, rant over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 (edited) What did they do before, weight it without the gas? Or maybe with no avionics. The VTOL doesn't even have a damn gun for crying out loud. Where the hell did they get an extra 3300lbs? We have some real geniuses managing this stuff. It won't be until we finally get our asses handed to us that these morons will wake up and design stuff right, and get the new stuff we actually need operational. Block 60 F-16's are indeed looking better and better the more this goes on. Edited May 26, 2004 by Anubis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 WHOA... STOP THE PRESSES.They axed the Commanche? Since when did this happen? I thought they were still going to go into production and replace the Apache? The Commanche's the coolest looking helicopter out there... what happened that they cancelled it? Budget problems or technical problems with the machine itself? Anyway I don't think the Osprey will ever come into existence. Who's the guy in government that hates it with a passion and wants to kill it? Rumsfeld or Cheney? I don't even remember. And the F-22 seems to be on route to coming into service in what... 2006 or 2008? I don't remember that either Oh and what ever happened to that Super Tomcat 21 program they were going to launch? It's supposed to upgrade the Tomcats with redesigned airframes and avionics systems... pretty much like what they did with the F/A-18E Super Hornet. I read about it in a book somewhere back in the 90's but I figured that didn't take off either. The Comanch was ment to be a replacement for the OH-58 Kiowa, but both of their missions have been suplanted by the Predator drone. The Apache is due to stay in service for quite some time now. It's Cheney who has it in for the Osprey (though I'm sure Rumsfeld is following suit). It was also Cheney who ordered all of the tooling for the F-14 to be destroyed thus making the prospect of any new F-14s highly unlikely. Hell with out the ability to manufacture new parts the Navy's having trouble maintaining the aircraft they have now, supporting our troops indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 (edited) Overweight F35, aging Harriers, uncertified Chinooks, unreliable Eurofighters.. does the Brits have any thing that will fly properly? Supermarine Spitfires, Hawker Hunters, Hawker-Siddeley Harriers, Blackburn Buccaneers, English Electric Lightnings and Canberras, BAC TSR-2... ...it seems its only when other countries get involved we have problems... Edited May 26, 2004 by F-ZeroOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zentrandude Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 ...it seems its only when other countries get involved we have problems... i have to disagree when the political parties get involved then we get problems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 yep poiliticians ruin everything. look at vietnam war and especially what cheney did to the F-14. back on topic. Cot damn this has F-111 written ALL over it. Its lke a small TFX program. ANd burn it shall. F-111 was too heavy at many points for the navy and air force and its engine wasnt helping either. Its the TF30 which plagued F-14s years later. The navy canned their version(that rear admiral connolly was a genius for nailing that dumb plane in its coffin) and the navy with grumman worked towards tgetting an F-14. Though commmonality on paper looks good, the point is this. Multirole is good, but no plane can do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING all at once perfectly. A-6 got canned and now we dont have a legitimate A-6 replacement, we got a superhornet that cant match the range and bombload. try as they may, dedicated roles need dedicated planes. Sio while multirole is a must, we gotta hav balance in the force. a force of 4 multiroles wont be able to strike as far as a dedicated long range bomber. Air force seems to be doing well but teh navy for the first time in many many years seems like it will not have the best planes. F-14 vs F-15 stems a long ass debate. F-18F vs F-22 and you clearly know which is the best fighter. see what i mean? anyhoo i wouldnt be surprised if the JSF got canned completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.