pretty sure. i don't think they did any fit testing on the demonstrator and by the time they started doing it this plane had been shot to pieces...literally
It was the X-35 that didn't have weapon bays. Apparently, Lockheed-Martin was given a pass on that one as they had already demonstrated the know-how on the F-22.
Boeing's X-32 had weapons bays, and likely suffered for it. In engineering terms, "holes can be heavy".
The X-32/35 were “Tech Demonstrators” and as such LM did not have to demonstrate a bay since the F-22 showed they knew how to do it. Boeing’s bays were also of the tilting variety which had NEVER been done so they need to show that working.
Besides, the primary reason for the Tech Demo was the STOVL propulsion systems.
Just another way to LM was able to effectively gain an unwarranted advantage in the competition as significant weight was gained when they had to actually add the bays.
The x32/35 competition was a horribly run joke. And preluded to many of the issues that the f-35 was to have including a complete lack of cost controls and management.
Boeing & LM did not propose the X-32/35 for the JSF as was evident in that the Boeing proposal was a classic 4-post design. The X-32/35 were just to show that the propulsion designs were up to snuff. They both succeeded in that regard.
LM won the bid likely due to it's design having more room for growth in the areas of avionics, speed and weapons (and quite frankly just looking better :) ). Their mistake with the B was to try and go with the same 2k load as the A&C instead of sticking with the original 1k requirement.
I would go so far as to suggest the entire JSF concept is flawed. The idea of a single common airframe for CTOL, CV, and STOVL operations was never going to work smoothly, especially when adding the stealth component and other "gold plating" like the advanced HMD, EOTS, and DAS.
It likely would have been far easier to develop 3 separate aircraft, but limit them to specific "parts pool" of engine, radar, weapon systems, and other high cost equipment. Kind of like how car manufacturers use similar engines and chassis components to build everything from sports cars to minivans.
Not necessarily, a majority of the cost for the JSF isn't in the actual airframe but the software and system which are equipped on that actual airframe.
Doing separate airframes would of likely resulted in a cheaper and more capable A model, a more expensive and capable B model, and a cheaper and more capable C model. The most/all the subsystems would of been shared between the models allowing the vast majority of the software modules to be completely common. The only software models that would be different between the models would of been the flight control module.
AKA, where it make sense to do joint is in the subsystems, not in the overall airframe.
The net result with 3 separate airframes is like a net cost reduction due to the model mix that will be acquired with A>C>B.
Are you sure this ain't real?
ReplyDeletepretty sure. i don't think they did any fit testing on the demonstrator and by the time they started doing it this plane had been shot to pieces...literally
DeleteI know they did test a F-35 with a JDAM and amraam that look just like this.
DeleteJust ran the picture thru a photo forensics program, yeah it's been heavily modified,IMO. Looks great and I'm no F35 fan!
ReplyDeleteWhile the photo was touched up, AA-1 did do quiet a bit of weapons fit testing before heading to Life Fire testing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12014.html
Pic here
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/a/sdd_f35testa_070.jpg
It was the X-35 that didn't have weapon bays. Apparently, Lockheed-Martin was given a pass on that one as they had already demonstrated the know-how on the F-22.
ReplyDeleteBoeing's X-32 had weapons bays, and likely suffered for it. In engineering terms, "holes can be heavy".
The X-32/35 were “Tech Demonstrators” and as such LM did not have to demonstrate a bay since the F-22 showed they knew how to do it. Boeing’s bays were also of the tilting variety which had NEVER been done so they need to show that working.
ReplyDeleteBesides, the primary reason for the Tech Demo was the STOVL propulsion systems.
Just another way to LM was able to effectively gain an unwarranted advantage in the competition as significant weight was gained when they had to actually add the bays.
DeleteThe x32/35 competition was a horribly run joke. And preluded to many of the issues that the f-35 was to have including a complete lack of cost controls and management.
Oh dear God...
ReplyDeleteBoeing & LM did not propose the X-32/35 for the JSF as was evident in that the Boeing proposal was a classic 4-post design. The X-32/35 were just to show that the propulsion designs were up to snuff. They both succeeded in that regard.
LM won the bid likely due to it's design having more room for growth in the areas of avionics, speed and weapons (and quite frankly just looking better :) ). Their mistake with the B was to try and go with the same 2k load as the A&C instead of sticking with the original 1k requirement.
I would go so far as to suggest the entire JSF concept is flawed. The idea of a single common airframe for CTOL, CV, and STOVL operations was never going to work smoothly, especially when adding the stealth component and other "gold plating" like the advanced HMD, EOTS, and DAS.
DeleteIt likely would have been far easier to develop 3 separate aircraft, but limit them to specific "parts pool" of engine, radar, weapon systems, and other high cost equipment. Kind of like how car manufacturers use similar engines and chassis components to build everything from sports cars to minivans.
"It likely would have been far easier to develop 3 separate aircraft"
DeleteI think you meant to say, "far more expensive" which is why they went the route they did.
Not necessarily, a majority of the cost for the JSF isn't in the actual airframe but the software and system which are equipped on that actual airframe.
DeleteDoing separate airframes would of likely resulted in a cheaper and more capable A model, a more expensive and capable B model, and a cheaper and more capable C model. The most/all the subsystems would of been shared between the models allowing the vast majority of the software modules to be completely common. The only software models that would be different between the models would of been the flight control module.
AKA, where it make sense to do joint is in the subsystems, not in the overall airframe.
The net result with 3 separate airframes is like a net cost reduction due to the model mix that will be acquired with A>C>B.