Forum: F-35 Lightning II

This article includes an audio interview. Of course LM is gonna toot their own horn, but it's still interesting. I found out a lot of things I didn't know before, such as why the canopy hinges forward (you'll have to listen yourself to find out).

http://defense.aol.com/2011/11/03/why-l ... ings-f-18/

F-16.net Sponsor

Thanks 1st503rdsgt. It's a long discussion but has a lot of good info.

Interesting, thanks!

It seems to make such good sense to hinge the canopy at the front. one wonders why it isn't done more often?

Sorry, don't have audio to hear either examples of radio interview. Was wondering if this one here is the same? (File Size .MP3 different - first one above 30Mb)

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?sid=26 ... mp;nid=867

27 Oct 2011
"Moderator - Tom Temin - Host of the Federal Drive
Panelists:
Tom Burbage - Executive Vice President and General Manager, F-35 JSF Program Integration, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Jon Rambeau - Vice President, F-35 International Programs, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Ed O'Donnell - Vice President, Pratt & Whitney F135 and F119 Business Development"

Audio Download: http://media.dev-cms.com/wtop/22/2289/228909.mp3 (47Mb)

I am downloading the file right now, but I can tell you that the article above (from AOL defense) was authored by the same person who moderated the AOL article's embedded audio file, Colin Clark.

---edit---

Finished downloading, did a quick compare and they are different interviews.

Thanks for the new one.

Interesting interviews. Thanks.

Thank you for sharing.

Its an interesting interview, but it did get me thinking: is there any value to having two domestic fighter plane producers?

Right now, Lockheed Martin has a lock on the US fighter market from about 2014 - 2030 ish. That isn't a healthy position, especially as Boeing may be forced by profit considerations to eliminate its fighter division for lack of new business. So, any thoughts about that? Is there a limit to consolidation and pursuing a single fighter?

Is there a way to download the podcast (as opoosed to listening to it via streaming)
http://defense.aol.com/2011/11/03/why-l ... ngs-f-18/.

F16VIPER, if you look in your 'Temporary Internet Files' Folder after listening to / downloading the podcast you will find:

"F-35-vs-F-18 BURBAGE Interview.mp3" at 30+Mb (I may have added the 'BURBAGE Interview' text to the original file name. Copy that file to another folder on your computer.

arkady,

From what Boeing is telling us, they have every intent on being part of the 'next-generation' tactical offerings. I don't think there's any reason to think they wouldn't. Even with a down scaled manned-fighter market 20 yrs from now, there will always be a competition for high unit-priced future models. What Boeing has going for it, is a sustainable business model for building affordable fighters even while manufacturing at Low Rates of production. Even at a rate of just 24-30 AESA-equipped Super Hornets a year, the Total Procurement unit cost is under $90m per F-18E/F. Same goes for the F-15E type... Boeing can produce as few as 6-8 modern F-15E units and remain viable. Ironically, Lockheed actually does have a pretty sustainable business model going for it in producing F-16 today - this is an actual success story for LM for which they've done seemingly well with since acquiring the manufacturing rights. So LM proves that it can be prudent and efficient in producing Fighters at low rates of production too - given the right fighter design and it's inherent sustainability produced at low rates.

Lastly on Boeing in particular.. I think one of their keen investments and focuses however, could shift as an Industry leader to semi-autonomous VLO UCAV type development. They are apparently pushing hard in that direction in addition to manned programs, so in fact they might actually be in an even better position to design next-gen manned-optional tactical platforms given the possibility to migrate certain technologies from unmanned Programs over to manned.

Regarding the thread's subject and interview... it was actually a very interesting and candid interview. They seem to get along well and in that regard some of the discussion seems to be more open and expanded on than usual interviews might be. TB is definitely doing his job well marketing the aircraft regardless of what one might pick out in various claims and envisioned scenarios to be perceived as exaggerated, or dubious.

popcorn wrote:

It seems to make such good sense to hinge the canopy at the front. one wonders why it isn't done more often?

Canopy Jettison and ejection issues are much more complex with a forward hinged canopy is why.

Why? If previous canopies could safely separate from their hinge when it's place in the rear, why not the front?

SpudmanWP wrote:

Why? If previous canopies could safely separate from their hinge when it's place in the rear, why not the front?

He didn't say it wasn't doable, he said it was more complex. F-35 gets around some of that complexity with det cord (similar to Harrier).

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Why Lockheed Thinks F-35 Beats Boeing's F-18