HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Oct 26, 2001, 10:31 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2000
940 Posts
Lockheed Martin, good or bad?

I dunno kinda feel sorry for Boeing since they lost this huge contract. also kinda wonder about lockheed too. they won the air superiority fighter contract also (F-22) over, who was it, Northrop Grumman? now about the JSF program, lets say that some terrorists or whoever learn that the F-35 has a certain weakness and other design flaws, so the F-35 is rendered useless, would one consider the JSF a waste? i keep on thinking that it's like putting all of one's eggs in one basket. i always thought that every military weapon has it's drawback, but there were always a few options. so let me get this straight, the F-22 is to replace the F-15 w/ it's role being an Air Superiority All Weather Fighter, the F-35 is to replace the F-16, F-18, Harrier, F-14, and what other planes? I always learned that if you try to ride 2 horses at once, your bound to fall off; in this case it's 3 (Navy, air force, and marines)
petn7 is offline Find More Posts by petn7
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2001, 10:49 PM
Master of disaster
Travis's Avatar
Northern Virginia
Joined May 2000
707 Posts
I agree. "a tool that serves all purposes serves none of them well" Just ask Georing.
Travis is offline Find More Posts by Travis
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2001, 11:10 PM
Registered User
Texas
Joined Aug 1999
5,110 Posts
How could a terrorist exploit the weakness of a military plane? Terrorists strike targets that are weak.

While the basic airframe will be used by all the services, there will be modifications for each role. This keeps the overall tooling costs down while allowing for speciaization for multiple roles.

Quote:
Three variants emerge from this joint design, all sharing a highly common structure that includes the same fuselage and internal weapons bay. All models of the Lockheed Martin design look essentially alike, with common structural geometries, identical wing sweeps, and similar tail shapes. They carry weapons in two parallel bays located in front of the main landing gear. Major portions of the fuselage contain common or closely related parts, referred to as cousin parts. The canopy, radar, ejection system, subsystems, and most of the avionics are common. All the aircraft are powered by a modification of the same core engine, the Pratt & Whitney F119.
dave_lilley is offline Find More Posts by dave_lilley
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2001, 11:57 PM
Registered User
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States
Joined Nov 2000
6,291 Posts
I assume you gentlemen have forgotten the F4 Phantom. I kind of remember that plane served all services pretty well. I seem to recall that it was not designed to serve all three services but was designed as an air superior fighter for the Navy/Marine Corp.

Don't worry about Lockheed Martin. They will do the job and do it well.

Some Lockheed successes: P-38 Lightning (The only fighter to be in production on the first and last day of WWII)
C-130 Hercules(still the most widely used transport in the world)
F-104 Starfire(fastest plane of its era)
There were many others but I hate to type so you can look them up if you want too.

And yes I am a Lockheed Martin retiree.
BillM is offline Find More Posts by BillM
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2001, 01:41 AM
Registered User
Texas
Joined Aug 1999
5,110 Posts
Boeing isn't hurting...

Quote:
The decision today does not have a material impact on our 2001 financial outlook. For 2002, the overall revenue will be lowered by an estimated $1 billion to about $55 billion. It does not have an impact on our margins or free cash.
dave_lilley is offline Find More Posts by dave_lilley
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2001, 09:11 AM
Registered User
Melbourne, Victoria, Oz.
Joined Oct 2000
316 Posts
Hmmmmmm, whose forgotten the Spitfire and the 109 then. And I bet more of them were built than the P38. And wasn't the G (for Germany) version of the F 104 Starfighter a truely raging sucess as well, got more german pilots than any allied fighter pilot of any war, and managed it in peace time! With Lockheed being paid for it into the bargain! A perfect choice of the multi purpose airframe....Not.

hugh,
Oneson1 is offline Find More Posts by Oneson1
Last edited by Oneson1; Oct 27, 2001 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2001, 09:39 AM
Registered User
Mike C's Avatar
Roxboro, NC U.S.A.
Joined Sep 2000
714 Posts
I am glad to hear that Lockheed got the cotract. I don't have any connection to any aerospace firm however I do have a healthy curiousity about these firms and what they have done in the past as well as the future. Lockheed iin the past has been able to produce planes that were years and sometimes decades ahead of their time. I won't mention the names of the planes because you probably already know them! I recently reread an autobiography by Ben Rich written with Leo Janos. This really made me appreciate this company. Of course past performance is no gaurantee of future performance but it can be a good indicator to success.
Boeing has the commercial business.
Mike C is offline Find More Posts by Mike C
Last edited by Mike C; Oct 27, 2001 at 09:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2001, 10:20 AM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2000
940 Posts
frankly, i've always thought of lockheed martin as THE premiere aerospace contractor, but still wonder about politics that r involved. i heard tha the plane that was beat out by the F-22 (YF-23?) had better stealth and top speed, but lost out b/c of the "supercruise" ability of the F-22. am i right or r there other reasons as well besides politics?
petn7 is offline Find More Posts by petn7
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2001, 11:22 AM
characters welcome!
Mark Wood's Avatar
United States, CA, Bear Valley Springs
Joined Feb 2000
26,500 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by dave_lilley
Boeing isn't hurting...

Tell that to the men and women of Boeing whose resumes I took yesterday at the Job Fair in Silverdale. A LOT of them are looking for jobs right now.

mw
Mark Wood is online now Find More Posts by Mark Wood
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2001, 11:50 AM
Registered User
Texas
Joined Aug 1999
5,110 Posts
That SUCKS! The message I posted above was from Boeing's site. They made it sound like everything was fine!

http://www.boeing.com/news/breakingnews/011026n.htm
dave_lilley is offline Find More Posts by dave_lilley
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2001, 12:06 PM
p471701
Guest
n/a Posts
mark,dave: i would bet those were from the previously announced lay offs after 9-11. due to the passenger downturn........gregg
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2001, 12:29 PM
Ascended Master
Sparky Paul's Avatar
Palmdale, CA
Joined Oct 2000
13,499 Posts
The Boing JSF contender could VSTOVL, or fly supersonically. But not both on the same flight.
The inlet has to be removed for the V...part.
The Lockheed does both on any flight.
.
The Boing was space limited internally for future growth.
.
Which is a better choice for the purpose of strike fighter?
.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Lockheed is laying off many of those on the JSF program, as that program is now done. Some will be rehired when the F-35 program starts up. That's what happened with the F-22.
.
I've always felt the Northrop F-23 would have been a perfect follow-on for the F-117, being more of a stealthy bomb carrier than fighter.
Sparky Paul is offline Find More Posts by Sparky Paul
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2001, 03:39 PM
Registered User
Sluf7's Avatar
New Zealand, Taranaki, Midhirst
Joined Feb 1999
3,431 Posts
Me I think for the size of the program and units made it would have been better to have had one of each built as a production model and given to the services to use for a year so as to evalute there in service problems and then chose from there.

As these are going to replace quite a few types in service now this should have been a minimum requirement as it'll turn to custard if the aircraft proves a lemon in Combat flight conditions.

I also feel that with this aircraft replacing all these other aircraft that both the X32 & X35 could have been develpoed as a package as you would eventually end up with these to primary aircraft and they would have both different attributes in a given field. But then we are talking Politics here not good management as history keeps on showing us.

Congrats to the winning team.

Sluf7
Sluf7 is offline Find More Posts by Sluf7
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2001, 12:22 AM
Registered User
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States
Joined Nov 2000
6,291 Posts
Oneson1

The F-104 was one of the fastest if not the fatest airplane of it's era. To point a finger at a particular plane as a pilot killer you must compare it to others.

Let's go back to WWI and examine the Sopwith Camel. That plane killed a lot of pilots until they learned how to fly it. During WWII the B-26 did in a lot of people. They used to say " one a day in Tampa Bay" at the test facility in Florida. That plane also served well when it's traits were understood. After WWII came the F7U cutlass-known far and wide as the Ensign Killer.

The point is there were many planes that were known as being tough to handle. Of the three examples listed none were Lockheed products. Don't hang your hat on the Starfire as an indicator of Lockheed's capability. Having been there I know what they can do.
BillM is offline Find More Posts by BillM
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2001, 01:46 AM
Registered User
Melbourne, Victoria, Oz.
Joined Oct 2000
316 Posts
Hey there Bill, I am not knocking the rest of the F104 range at all, but the G spec took a terrific lightweight, fair weather, high speed, interceptor and tried to turn it into an all weather, interceptor, ground attack aircraft and even N bomber. It was used outside it's envelope. perhaps you can blame the German Military who wrote the specs or the Lockheed salesmen who agreed that "of course" the Mods could be safely done. But too many Pilots died in that model for it to be called safe. And my intention was to call into question the concept of the multi purpose airframe. Of course, I can shoot myself in the foot with the best of them, all anyone needs to say is De Havilland Mosquito, the best multi purpose airframe yet developed. But it's a very big ask to repeat that one.

hugh
Oneson1 is offline Find More Posts by Oneson1
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So, are adjustable frequency transmitters a good or bad thing? slowflyer Electric Plane Talk 31 Oct 31, 2011 02:39 PM
Question Cirrus 21 BB Hp Servos - good or bad? CactusJackSlade Thermal 2 Nov 09, 2002 08:17 PM
JR R610M receiver - good or bad ? yclui Radios 2 Nov 08, 2002 08:07 PM
Winglets lower??? good or bad thor4944 Foamies (Kits) 9 Sep 25, 2002 10:51 AM
M100 on litestick, Good or bad?? also best ESC for the $$? jayboy Parkflyers 0 Mar 19, 2002 09:53 AM