Lockheed Martin

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 8:13 am

Anyone else glad they just got a contract estimated to be worth at least $200 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter?

Standard take-off/landing, carrier take-off/landing, short take-off, and vertical landing. Now that's sweet. Besides the fact that it'll probably be stealthier than the stealth fighter (hey, the F-22 was, even though people ignore that fact).

It's kind of ironic that the first plane designed to replace multiple levels of planes (the F-22) was from Lockheed and the government screwed them over (They were promised the necessity for hundreds, they got to makea handful). Think there's any chance of that happening again?

It's estimated that the US and British governments together want 3000 of these planes, with a supposed 3000 possibly made for other allies. Who here bets that number will go down eventually?

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 8:15 am

Just out of curisotiy, wouldn't that be classified information? That sounds pretty high tech and advanced to be shouting from the roof tops...

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 8:17 am

The government takes alot of pride in their weapons.

200 billions is alot. THey may as well have rebuilt the WTC with that much.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 8:22 am

*Thinks back to the troubled Eurofighter project*

nael · Post by **nael** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 8:29 am

the 200 billion is an estimate as to how much they will make from sellign the planes to the governments of the US ad it's allies. the actual amount up front for further development and construction is somethign like 20 billion over the next 10 years.

none of that sort of information is classified, the classified stuff are things like materials, engine design, specific modeling.
for instance, everyone knows the general specs for the stealth fighter, including any "enemy" nations, but they have no idea how to duplicate that kind of technology that allowed us to build it.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 8:35 am

Posted by Quark -

It's estimated that the US and British governments together want 3000 of these planes

Hmmm - this is news - where did you get your information? Is it intended that this aircraft will replace the Harrier which is already capable of all you described and is still in active use

nael · Post by **nael** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 8:40 am

it is to replace just about everything, but mainly the F16. but also the harrier and and FA18, maybe even the A10, but i doubt that one

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 8:42 am

But the A10 is a different aircraft altogether - it is hardly an interceptor...more of an air to ground offensive plane...

nael · Post by **nael** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 9:05 am

i know it is, that's why i doubt it will actually replace it, but these new jets are listed to replace it.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:19 am

Posted by Quark -

Anyone else glad they just got a contract estimated to be worth at least $200 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter?

So out of interest are you in the industry?

Ok, UK press have discussed the project. Up to 9000 British jobs will be safeguarded as UK firms could get contracts of some £24 billion over twenty years. Rolls Royce have stated that development work on engine systems would bring £700 million in income to it's Bristol and Indianapolis factories, with other firms such as BAe Systems in Lancashire and Kent and Smiths Industries in Wolverhampton also benefitting.

The RAF and Royal Navy will take 150 of the 3000 jets being planned. This number of planes does indicate that there could be a plan to decommission the Harrier - I will need to confirm this though...

Recoba · Post by **Recoba** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 11:25 pm

JSF. I hope it is as good as they say it is. They are planning to replace alot of different planes with this one, and I hope it can handle all of the different roles that can be thrown at it.

Having said that, I think in my opinion the best design won. The lockheed one looked better for starters.

As Yshania said, I hope it runs smoother than the Eurofighter project (which seems to have stalled a bit). Anyone have any idea of an in service date?

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 6:52 am

I'm not in the industry, but I do believe that we need the best weapons as a deterrent (and, sometimes, a defense). Besides, I'm happy that it was specifically Lockheed that got the contract because they were screwed by the US government twice in the last decade.

First, the stealth bomber. What a joke. The estimates put the initial B-2 model from Northrop at $450 million (IIRC)- and it ended up at over $2 billion. The Lockheed model was estimated cost $200 million. Lockheed's had better stealth and speed, the two most important aspects to a 'stealth' bomber. All Northrop's had was a bigger payload.

The US government took the viewpoint 'hey, if they get shotdown let's just make sure they drop more bombs!' I'd rather the plane just didn't get shot down.

Second, the F-22. This was supposed to be a semi-versital (sp?) fighter, expected to replace many models in the Air Force and Navy (including the F-16). Hundreds of purchases were promised - guess how many were bought. 22 whole planes. Giving Lockheed this contract gives the gov't a chance to redeem itself from screwing them last time.

Edit: About the Harrier: I'm not sure if they are replacing them, but why not? You get the Harrier's abilities, stealth that beats the initial F-117A, and the versatility that it can run many different types of missions. Why have 3 different aircrafts when just 1 can do the same jobs?

I get my info from [url="http://www.cnn.com"]www.cnn.com[/url] and [url="http://www.ananova.com"]www.ananova.com[/url]

[ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: Quark ]

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 9:15 am

Posted by Quark -

I'm not in the industry, but I do believe that we need the best weapons as a deterrent (and, sometimes, a defense).

I agree. The irony though is in the assumption that the allies in these joint ventures remain allies. I would hope so or where would our advantage be?

Posted by Quark -

Edit: About the Harrier: I'm not sure if they are replacing them, but why not? You get the Harrier's abilities, stealth that beats the initial F-117A, and the versatility that it can run many different types of missions. Why have 3 different aircrafts when just 1 can do the same jobs?

I know...*shuffles feet*...but I have a soft spot for the Harrier

LOL!! if you can have a soft spot for an aircraft

Saruman · Post by **Saruman** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 9:25 am

Yshania, I also have a soft spot for the good old harrier, it's possibly because it was the first aircraft that I remember being involved in a major british conflict (the falklands crisis)

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 9:47 am

@Saruman. I saw their display at Farnborough years ago now. The Sukhoi was not allowed to display it's vertical take off because it burnt holes in the tarmac (those pilots were so skilled though). The Harrier not only displayed it's vertical take off and landing, but also turned and bowed to the crowd

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 9:52 am

The JSF is primarily designed to reduce the number of different types of aircraft on an aircraft carrier currently. Currently the US Navy flies several different types. Changing this to 1 means more of the same spare parts and weapons loads. One training regime. More aircraft on the crowded decks (smaller and V/STOL). Compatability with the UK. Stealthy frame. Possible reductions in carrier size.

All nice benefits. I am looking forward to its success.

They're gonna need lots of these babies soon