Lockheed Martin, good or bad? - RC Groups
Shop our Airplanes Products Drone Products Sales
Thread Tools
Oct 26, 2001, 10:31 PM
Registered User

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)
Oct 26, 2001, 10:49 PM
Master of disaster
Travis's Avatar
I agree. "a tool that serves all purposes serves none of them well" Just ask Georing.
Oct 26, 2001, 11:10 PM
Registered User
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.

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.
Oct 26, 2001, 11:57 PM
Registered User
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.
Oct 27, 2001, 01:41 AM
Registered User
Boeing isn't hurting...

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.
Oct 27, 2001, 09:11 AM
Registered User
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.

Last edited by Oneson1; Oct 27, 2001 at 09:16 AM.
Oct 27, 2001, 09:39 AM
Registered User
Mike C's Avatar
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.
Last edited by Mike C; Oct 27, 2001 at 09:42 AM.
Oct 27, 2001, 10:20 AM
Registered User
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?
Oct 27, 2001, 11:22 AM
characters welcome!
Mark Wood's Avatar
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.

Oct 27, 2001, 11:50 AM
Registered User
That SUCKS! The message I posted above was from Boeing's site. They made it sound like everything was fine!

Oct 27, 2001, 12:06 PM
mark,dave: i would bet those were from the previously announced lay offs after 9-11. due to the passenger downturn........gregg
Oct 27, 2001, 12:29 PM
Ascended Master
Sparky Paul's Avatar
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.
Oct 27, 2001, 03:39 PM
Registered User
Sluf7's Avatar
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.

Oct 28, 2001, 12:22 AM
Registered User

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.
Oct 28, 2001, 01:46 AM
Registered User
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.