By: Sens
- 9th February 2010 at 22:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Should we not also keep the following as a possible explanation:
The F-35 is a military piece of hardware. Exact details of such equipment are often classified. The real weight of the F-35 may be classified.
So perhaps we should not put too much emphasis on the numbers that LM publishes? They may be all wrong!
I know for a "fact" that the empty weight of Gripen A/B/C/D is not reported correctly. I have seen this implicitly acknowledged by people actually working with it....
So for the naysayers they can claim that perhaps the weight is even higher than what LM says?
The F-35 fanboys can go in the other direction and claim that the real weight is actually much lower than published :)
Empty equipped weight is not classified, because it does not give away in detail, what item is contributing what to the total. Not even what is installed by that.
It does not even matter much about the F-35A and F-35C in general, when the F-35B is limited by the available thrust for the vertical mode.
A compromise was found for the F-35B f.e.. The reduction of the capabilities of the weapons-bay as the best known reduction and to tweak some extra thrust from the propulsion system. The common 9 G life-time standard was dropped to 7,5 G.
For all F-35s the setbacks from weight rise are a higher wing-load, a lower climb-rate and less range to name some obvious ones.
One main problem of the F-35s is the high demand in electricity and the related high cooling demands. One reason that even the "series" examples are still "hand-made" some way and LM does have still problems to built a sufficiant number in short notice to do all the testing still in need.
What the hell does prevent LM to built just 30 of that in 2009 alone to make up the delays of several years?! Just the British bought test examples and that were shipped by vessel, because time is no longer an issue.
After weight reduction the weight of the F-35 IS...
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs
Engage your brains for once & recongize the impossibility that after weight reduction that the F-35 could be EXACTLY THE SAME WEIGHT as they were before weight reduction OR heavier ( & exact intervals of 100 lbs).
After weight reduction the weight of the F-35 IS...
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs
Engage your brains for once & recongize the impossibility that after weight reduction that the F-35 could be EXACTLY THE SAME WEIGHT as they were before weight reduction OR heavier ( & exact intervals of 100 lbs).
Not necessarily if the data stated in the davisday.pdf were wrong in the first place. It could also be that the data from the programme briefing from 2006 were already post weight reduction figures and that the over weight figures were never released at all. But of course it could be that LM just didn't updated its website and that the person who assembled the may 2009 programme brief simply took the data from an older source as well. Do you have any pre 2006 documents which state the weight?
After weight reduction the weight of the F-35 IS...
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs
Engage your brains for once & recongize the impossibility that after weight reduction that the F-35 could be EXACTLY THE SAME WEIGHT as they were before weight reduction OR heavier ( & exact intervals of 100 lbs).
That has nothing to do with the related brains, because the real problems are showing up during production and testing the real thing. Nearly none of the F-35s built after the weight reductions calculations were built to that standard really. By the way, for the testing it does not even matter, because some items could be deleted to keep it in the desired weight range and be replaced by lighter ones later on just to save some time.
General Norton Schwartz is preparing the public about that. He can not or will not confirm the problems in detail, but he can not claim to be not informed about that in time either! The slow down a delayed program further does point to some severe problems to be overcome at first.
There is no word on when the system will be cleared to its 600-kt. equivalent airspeed design limit.
When that is 600 kt IAS and the max design limit the max possible speed at height will be ~1000 kt TAS or ~ Mach 1,7 by that. At the moment not cleared for that.
After weight reduction the weight of the F-35 IS...
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs
Interesting how much the weight has crept up in just three years. Considering that the JSF is barely into its flight test program that could necessitate changes, I wonder how much potential there is for added weight gain. Your Davis brief number from 2007 is now about three years old.
Engage your brains for once & recongize the impossibility that after weight reduction that the F-35 could be EXACTLY THE SAME WEIGHT as they were before weight reduction OR heavier ( & exact intervals of 100 lbs).
It requires a lack of imagination to not see any way the weight reduction could have been counteracted again. Best case: Required changes as discovered in flight testing added weight back. Worst case: Flight testing yielded that some, much or most of SWAT measures could not be integrated for expected life span and have other changes added even on top of it.
Out of interest and to weigh the different sources: What other sources do you have for the Davis numbers and are there some more recent than his brief?
By: pfcem
- 10th February 2010 at 04:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not necessarily if the data stated in the davisday.pdf were wrong in the first place. It could also be that the data from the programme briefing from 2006 were already post weight reduction figures and that the over weight figures were never released at all. But of course it could be that LM just didn't updated its website and that the person who assembled the may 2009 programme brief simply took the data from an older source as well. Do you have any pre 2006 documents which state the weight?
Documents from 2004 through 2006.
In order for any numbers OTHER THAN those disclosed in 2007 to be you have to believe that in 2004 they were 5,000-6,000 lbs over what they were in 2003 AND that the 2 yearts + $6.2 billion only cut the 15-20% SINGLE YEAR (2003-2004) weight growth in half.
***
That has nothing to do with the related brains, because the real problems are showing up during production and testing the real thing. Nearly none of the F-35s built after the weight reductions calculations were built to that standard really. By the way, for the testing it does not even matter, because some items could be deleted to keep it in the desired weight range and be replaced by lighter ones later on just to save some time.
General Norton Schwartz is preparing the public about that. He can not or will not confirm the problems in detail, but he can not claim to be not informed about that in time either! The slow down a delayed program further does point to some severe problems to be overcome at first.
What weight problems are/have been showing up during production and testing?
And no, the recent 'slow down/delay' shows a desire to minimize risk.
***
Interesting how much the weight has crept up in just three years. Considering that the JSF is barely into its flight test program that could necessitate changes, I wonder how much potential there is for added weight gain. Your Davis brief number from 2007 is now about three years old.
And the numbers many other are quoting are 3 years older than that...
It requires a lack of imagination to not see any way the weight reduction could have been counteracted again. Best case: Required changes as discovered in flight testing added weight back. Worst case: Flight testing yielded that some, much or most of SWAT measures could not be integrated for expected life span and have other changes added even on top of it.
No, it show a lack of thinking to 'think' that 2 years + $6.2 billion dollars was spent on weight reduction WHICH WAS CLAIMED A SUCCESS & that additional weight reductions were/have been recognized but not implemented only for the actual end result to be aicraft that magicall weigh EXACTLY THE SAME or are heavier than they were before.
Out of interest and to weigh the different sources: What other sources do you have for the Davis numbers and are there some more recent than his brief?
I do not recall any program breifings/documents that provide any different numbers. Note that Major General Charles R. Davis is the Program Executive Officer.
I HAVE, however seen documents by Air Vehicle Director Capt John “Snooze” Martins (as recent as 2009) that DO use the same internal fuel numbers as those given in 'by Davis' 2007.
Have you not been paying ANY attention whatsoever? I have already expained MANY TIMES that those numbers are those given from 2004-2006, then you had the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION NUMBERS given in 2007 but strangely in 2008 the 'new' document give the EXACT SAME NUMBERS as from 2004-2006 (as already posted it appears as though who ever updated the pdf files for 2008 did so by editing the 2006 files rather than the more recent 2007 files).
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 10th February 2010 at 07:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Have you not been paying ANY attention whatsoever? I have already expained MANY TIMES that those numbers are those given from 2004-2006, then you had the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION NUMBERS given in 2007 but strangely in 2008 the 'new' document give the EXACT SAME NUMBERS as from 2004-2006 (as already posted it appears as though who ever updated the pdf files for 2008 did so by editing the 2006 files rather than the more recent 2007 files).
Sounds like voodoo to me. Until there is some evidence supported by other sources, I rather stick to the new document from 2008 as it is the most present source there is up to date.
By: Loke
- 10th February 2010 at 08:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Empty equipped weight is not classified, because it does not give away in detail, what item is contributing what to the total. Not even what is installed by that.
Then why did the Swedes keep the weight of Gripen classified? The numbers reported did never "add up".
Perhaps US and Sweden simply have different rules?
By: Scorpion82
- 10th February 2010 at 10:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Documents from 2004 through 2006.
In order for any numbers OTHER THAN those disclosed in 2007 to be you have to believe that in 2004 they were 5,000-6,000 lbs over what they were in 2003 AND that the 2 yearts + $6.2 billion only cut the 15-20% SINGLE YEAR (2003-2004) weight growth in half.
Do you have any links, to documents prior 2006 which state these weight figures?
The Swedes may differ about that, but all the intrested ones get the related data with ease. Even the basic Gripen got "fatter" over some years in service to keep the specifications.
By: Loke
- 10th February 2010 at 12:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
/factsheet.asp?id=199[/url]
The Swedes may differ about that, but all the intrested ones get the related data with ease. Even the basic Gripen got "fatter" over some years in service to keep the specifications.
Yes, but my point was that these figures on Gripen may or may not be correct -- and as I said somebody working on Gripen at one occation acknowledged that the "real weight" of the Gripen was not published. So instead of just writing "classified" they just publish a number, which does not reflect reality.
Range was also a secret at least for the Gripen A, as was the maximum fuel load.... Still you could find numbers. So how could it still be a secret? The numbers published were misleading. Those sneaky Swedes... I'm sure the Americans would not do the same...?
By: Satorian
- 10th February 2010 at 12:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And the numbers many other are quoting are 3 years older than that...
No, they are as old or new as their latest confirmation, which would be May 2009, September 2008--and ongoing on Lockheed-Martin's site.
No, it show a lack of thinking to 'think' that 2 years + $6.2 billion dollars was spent on weight reduction WHICH WAS CLAIMED A SUCCESS & that additional weight reductions were/have been recognized but not implemented only for the actual end result to be aicraft that magicall weigh EXACTLY THE SAME or are heavier than they were before.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2784.html makes it sound like the figures given are design targets, not actual item weights. What if the weight reduction measures were put in place for the plane to hit its design target and get within KPP bounds, instead of being below design target already and spending a lot of resources to get even lower?
I do not recall any program breifings/documents that provide any different numbers.
So you have this one single source?
Note that Major General Charles R. Davis is the Program Executive Officer.
Yes, indeed. Just the man who used the higher numbers in 2008 again. And his 2008 figures trump his 2007 figures. Perhaps the program floated the idea of lower weight targets for a while between 2006 and 2007, but has gone back to the old target from 2008 on?
I HAVE, however seen documents by Air Vehicle Director Capt John “Snooze” Martins (as recent as 2009) that DO use the same internal fuel numbers as those given in 'by Davis' 2007.
Inconclusive at best. Perhaps they stuck with the lower fuel capacity due to changes and have gone up with the weight due to other components again? Cpt. Martins' program update presentation contains no weight figures. Why is that?
***
Have you not been paying ANY attention whatsoever? I have already expained MANY TIMES that those numbers are those given from 2004-2006, then you had the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION NUMBERS given in 2007 but strangely in 2008 the 'new' document give the EXACT SAME NUMBERS as from 2004-2006 (as already posted it appears as though who ever updated the pdf files for 2008 did so by editing the 2006 files rather than the more recent 2007 files).
No, you haven't explained anything a single time, but have been regurgitating your standpoint repeatedly. And simple repetition does not make it more convincing all by itself.
My theory is that the weight reduction measures were there to hit the 2006 DESIGN TARGETS. To make the plane reach its specification. Perhaps, for a while, they thought of being able to go even lower, but have retracted shortly afterwards and stuck to the previous DESIGN TARGET again since 2008.
By: Sens
- 10th February 2010 at 13:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, but my point was that these figures on Gripen may or may not be correct -- and as I said somebody working on Gripen at one occation acknowledged that the "real weight" of the Gripen was not published. So instead of just writing "classified" they just publish a number, which does not reflect reality.
Range was also a secret at least for the Gripen A, as was the maximum fuel load.... Still you could find numbers. So how could it still be a secret? The numbers published were misleading. Those sneaky Swedes... I'm sure the Americans would not do the same...?
It made some sense during Cold War times and till the Gripen was not offered for exports. When shown the first time in the 80s, the real experts had no problem to figure out the rough numbers by technical calculation. As I did point before, every building lot did differ and the small Gripen is critical for every weight rise caused by later fixes introduced. By the way, why the Gripen NG will be introduced and does start in the 7 tons class already.
Whatever the people do claim. +/- 100 kg does tell nothing about the technical gains from that, just a small shortfall in flight performance effected by weight and the resulting drag. The basic Gripen has a small internal fuel-fraction and is dependent on minimum drag to keep its specification.
Some security claims are just nonsense and lost its justification for decades already. "It is not allowed to take pictures from military installations or from aircraft, when at the same time the experts can touch the Gripen at the Aerosalon Paris for example or did stop-watch filming during flight demonstration to learn something about the demonstrated capabilities.
By: Jwcook
- 10th February 2010 at 21:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This was from 2006
In October 2004, the Defense Acquisition Board signed off on more than 500 recommendations, officially making the STOVL weight loss attack team a success.
In eight months, the Lockheed engineers cut a total of 2,700 pounds from the F-35B. The effort also trimmed 1,300 pounds from the other variants. Comfortable with that legacy, SWAT faded, with accolades, into company history, but an estimated 20 ideas a week still turn up in the Weight Improvement Program office.
Design and assembly changes, mostly related to the SWAT recommendations, have cost about $4.8 billion—part of a $6.2 billion replanning to accommodate the additional design cycle required to make the improvements. The replanning forced an 18-month slip in F-35 deliveries. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office report, since inception, the development costs of the JSF program have increased 84 percent and its timeline slipped by about five years. The STOVL’s final delivery deadline has been extended two years, to 2012.
When AA-1, the first CTOL F-35, rolled out of the assembly building on a gray, misty morning last February, it featured none of the SWAT-era optimizations. The weight of this F-35A is greater than what was originally projected, but not so high that the aircraft does not meet key performance parameters, Lockheed officials say. The margins would be very tight—they are not wide, even with the redesign—but it would have made it. Every F-35A that follows will be lighter.
“Weight’s going to be a focus item for this program for the rest of its life,” notes Enewold. He adds that until flight tests are completed, he will worry that the diet has removed some of the aircraft’s “good weight”—the structure that makes the airplane durable. A former Navy pilot, Enewold knows well the punishment an aircraft suffers during carrier operations.
By: Satorian
- 10th February 2010 at 22:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Let's not forget that nice paragraph from page one:
On April 7, 2004, the most expensive, ambitious airplane project in history screeched to a halt. Thousands of Lockheed Martin employees tasked with creating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter found their daily routines broken by a crisis. It had been quietly building for months as engineers cast wary eyes on the weight projections, particularly for one of the three JSF variants, a short-takeoff/vertical-landing fighter. With each review the problem was becoming more evident: The F-35B STOVL fighter was nearly 3,000 pounds over its projected weight.
The 2004-2006 figure seems like the maximum acceptable weight, which they used as target for the weight reduction measures and just about reached with the post-SWAT 2006 design state. Pre-SWAT target figures could be post-SWAT figures as well because the plane was way overweight by 3,000 lbs beforehand.
New
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem
- 10th February 2010 at 23:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sounds like voodoo to me. Until there is some evidence supported by other sources, I rather stick to the new document from 2008 as it is the most present source there is up to date.
Yes it WOULD take some POWERFUL voodoo for POST WEIGHT REDUCTION F-35s to weigh EXACTLY THE SAME (or more) than they did PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION.
***
No, they are as old or new as their latest confirmation, which would be May 2009, September 2008--and ongoing on Lockheed-Martin's site.
No, they are the EXACT SAME NUMBERS which appear in documents from 2004-2006.
Afn the 'Lockheed-Martin's site' give totally different & astronimically impossible numbers.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2784.html makes it sound like the figures given are design targets, not actual item weights. What if the weight reduction measures were put in place for the plane to hit its design target and get within KPP bounds, instead of being below design target already and spending a lot of resources to get even lower?
No, it shows the projected weights of the designs.
So you have this one single source?
No. I have seen MANY program documents & from ~2004 thru 2009 the ONLY weight numbers I can recall seeing are the 29,036/32,161/32,072 & 26,664/29,695/29,996.
Yes, indeed. Just the man who used the higher numbers in 2008 again. And his 2008 figures trump his 2007 figures. Perhaps the program floated the idea of lower weight targets for a while between 2006 and 2007, but has gone back to the old target from 2008 on?
Not 'just a man'. THE MAN.
And THE EXAXT SAME NUMBERS that appear in 2004-2006 suddenly 'reapearing' in 2008 after the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers were given in 2007 does not mean the trup the 2007 numbers. It IS an indication that who ever updated the PDF files for the 2008 program briefings appears to have screwed up & created them by 'updating' fro the OLDER 2006 files rather than the NEWER 2007 files.
Inconclusive at best. Perhaps they stuck with the lower fuel capacity due to changes and have gone up with the weight due to other components again? Cpt. Martins' program update presentation contains no weight figures. Why is that?
So they spent 2 years + $6.2 billion on WEIGHT REDUCTION only to reduce the fuel capcity but have the aircraft weight end up EXACTLY THE SAME. :rolleyes:
The POINT was that the 2007 Davis briefing documents are NOT the only ones that use those numbers.
No, you haven't explained anything a single time, but have been regurgitating your standpoint repeatedly. And simple repetition does not make it more convincing all by itself.
My theory is that the weight reduction measures were there to hit the 2006 DESIGN TARGETS. To make the plane reach its specification. Perhaps, for a while, they thought of being able to go even lower, but have retracted shortly afterwards and stuck to the previous DESIGN TARGET again since 2008.
No, the 2006 weight projections were the ones that were 'overweight' & needed to be reduced in order for the F-35B to meet performance requirments. As I posted before, to believe otherwise would mean yoiu would have to believe that F-35 was IN 2004 ~3,000 lbs heavier than that & THAT would mean that in a SINGLE YEAR (2003-2004) the F-35 somehow gained ~4500 lbs on average between all three variants.
NOBODY has yet to provide a shred* of evidence that the 2004-2006 numbers are not the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers &/or that the 2007 numbers are not the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers.
And FURTHER evidence is found with the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION AA-1. It weighs ~29,000 lbs. :)
* I meant thread of of evidence. Meaning a progression of evidence of what the weights are/were if not those I have shown them to be.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 9th February 2010 at 22:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Empty equipped weight is not classified, because it does not give away in detail, what item is contributing what to the total. Not even what is installed by that.
It does not even matter much about the F-35A and F-35C in general, when the F-35B is limited by the available thrust for the vertical mode.
A compromise was found for the F-35B f.e.. The reduction of the capabilities of the weapons-bay as the best known reduction and to tweak some extra thrust from the propulsion system. The common 9 G life-time standard was dropped to 7,5 G.
For all F-35s the setbacks from weight rise are a higher wing-load, a lower climb-rate and less range to name some obvious ones.
One main problem of the F-35s is the high demand in electricity and the related high cooling demands. One reason that even the "series" examples are still "hand-made" some way and LM does have still problems to built a sufficiant number in short notice to do all the testing still in need.
What the hell does prevent LM to built just 30 of that in 2009 alone to make up the delays of several years?! Just the British bought test examples and that were shipped by vessel, because time is no longer an issue.
I found that link just minutes after my post.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4463029
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem - 9th February 2010 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ONE MORE TIME
Prior to weight reduction the weight estimates of the F-35 were...
2002
F-35A: 26,500 lbs
F-35B: 29,735 lbs
F-35C: 30,049 lbs
2003
F-35A: 27,100 lbs
F-35B: 30,500 lbs
F-35C: 30,700 lbs
2004-2006
F-35A: 29,036 lbs
F-35B: 32,161 lbs
F-35C: 32,072 lbs
After weight reduction the weight of the F-35 IS...
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs
Engage your brains for once & recongize the impossibility that after weight reduction that the F-35 could be EXACTLY THE SAME WEIGHT as they were before weight reduction OR heavier ( & exact intervals of 100 lbs).
Posts: 4,461
By: Scorpion82 - 9th February 2010 at 22:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not necessarily if the data stated in the davisday.pdf were wrong in the first place. It could also be that the data from the programme briefing from 2006 were already post weight reduction figures and that the over weight figures were never released at all. But of course it could be that LM just didn't updated its website and that the person who assembled the may 2009 programme brief simply took the data from an older source as well. Do you have any pre 2006 documents which state the weight?
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 9th February 2010 at 23:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That has nothing to do with the related brains, because the real problems are showing up during production and testing the real thing. Nearly none of the F-35s built after the weight reductions calculations were built to that standard really. By the way, for the testing it does not even matter, because some items could be deleted to keep it in the desired weight range and be replaced by lighter ones later on just to save some time.
General Norton Schwartz is preparing the public about that. He can not or will not confirm the problems in detail, but he can not claim to be not informed about that in time either! The slow down a delayed program further does point to some severe problems to be overcome at first.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 9th February 2010 at 23:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I just red, but I will not go into all named details known to most.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/dti/2010/02/01/DT_02_01_2010_p32-199424.xml&headline=F-35%20Faces%20A%20Troubled%202010
What rose my intrest:
There is no word on when the system will be cleared to its 600-kt. equivalent airspeed design limit.
When that is 600 kt IAS and the max design limit the max possible speed at height will be ~1000 kt TAS or ~ Mach 1,7 by that. At the moment not cleared for that.
Posts: 753
By: Satorian - 9th February 2010 at 23:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting how much the weight has crept up in just three years. Considering that the JSF is barely into its flight test program that could necessitate changes, I wonder how much potential there is for added weight gain. Your Davis brief number from 2007 is now about three years old.
It requires a lack of imagination to not see any way the weight reduction could have been counteracted again. Best case: Required changes as discovered in flight testing added weight back. Worst case: Flight testing yielded that some, much or most of SWAT measures could not be integrated for expected life span and have other changes added even on top of it.
Out of interest and to weigh the different sources: What other sources do you have for the Davis numbers and are there some more recent than his brief?
Posts: 753
By: Satorian - 10th February 2010 at 00:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about this one:
ECD Brief - 30. September 2008
30. September 2008
Major General Charles R. Davis, USAF
Program Executive Officer, F-35 Lightning II Program
Weight figures:
F-35A: 29,036
F-35B: 32,161
F-35C: 32,072
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem - 10th February 2010 at 04:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Documents from 2004 through 2006.
In order for any numbers OTHER THAN those disclosed in 2007 to be you have to believe that in 2004 they were 5,000-6,000 lbs over what they were in 2003 AND that the 2 yearts + $6.2 billion only cut the 15-20% SINGLE YEAR (2003-2004) weight growth in half.
***
What weight problems are/have been showing up during production and testing?
And no, the recent 'slow down/delay' shows a desire to minimize risk.
***
And the numbers many other are quoting are 3 years older than that...
No, it show a lack of thinking to 'think' that 2 years + $6.2 billion dollars was spent on weight reduction WHICH WAS CLAIMED A SUCCESS & that additional weight reductions were/have been recognized but not implemented only for the actual end result to be aicraft that magicall weigh EXACTLY THE SAME or are heavier than they were before.
I do not recall any program breifings/documents that provide any different numbers. Note that Major General Charles R. Davis is the Program Executive Officer.
I HAVE, however seen documents by Air Vehicle Director Capt John “Snooze” Martins (as recent as 2009) that DO use the same internal fuel numbers as those given in 'by Davis' 2007.
***
Have you not been paying ANY attention whatsoever? I have already expained MANY TIMES that those numbers are those given from 2004-2006, then you had the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION NUMBERS given in 2007 but strangely in 2008 the 'new' document give the EXACT SAME NUMBERS as from 2004-2006 (as already posted it appears as though who ever updated the pdf files for 2008 did so by editing the 2006 files rather than the more recent 2007 files).
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 10th February 2010 at 07:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sounds like voodoo to me. Until there is some evidence supported by other sources, I rather stick to the new document from 2008 as it is the most present source there is up to date.Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 10th February 2010 at 08:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then why did the Swedes keep the weight of Gripen classified? The numbers reported did never "add up".
Perhaps US and Sweden simply have different rules?
Posts: 4,461
By: Scorpion82 - 10th February 2010 at 10:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you have any links, to documents prior 2006 which state these weight figures?
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 10th February 2010 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A = 13170 kg
B = 14588 kg
C = 14548 kg
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 10th February 2010 at 12:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
See the USAF about that.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/specs.html
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199
The Swedes may differ about that, but all the intrested ones get the related data with ease. Even the basic Gripen got "fatter" over some years in service to keep the specifications.
http://www.air-attack.com/page/49/JAS-39-Gripen.html
When JANES give a more detailed empty equipped of 6622 kg received ~1990.
Later confirmed by that:
http://www.airramstein.nato.int/bast_e3_factsheet_saab_jas39.pdf
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 10th February 2010 at 12:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, but my point was that these figures on Gripen may or may not be correct -- and as I said somebody working on Gripen at one occation acknowledged that the "real weight" of the Gripen was not published. So instead of just writing "classified" they just publish a number, which does not reflect reality.
Range was also a secret at least for the Gripen A, as was the maximum fuel load.... Still you could find numbers. So how could it still be a secret? The numbers published were misleading. Those sneaky Swedes... I'm sure the Americans would not do the same...?
Posts: 753
By: Satorian - 10th February 2010 at 12:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, they are as old or new as their latest confirmation, which would be May 2009, September 2008--and ongoing on Lockheed-Martin's site.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2784.html makes it sound like the figures given are design targets, not actual item weights. What if the weight reduction measures were put in place for the plane to hit its design target and get within KPP bounds, instead of being below design target already and spending a lot of resources to get even lower?
So you have this one single source?
Yes, indeed. Just the man who used the higher numbers in 2008 again. And his 2008 figures trump his 2007 figures. Perhaps the program floated the idea of lower weight targets for a while between 2006 and 2007, but has gone back to the old target from 2008 on?
Inconclusive at best. Perhaps they stuck with the lower fuel capacity due to changes and have gone up with the weight due to other components again? Cpt. Martins' program update presentation contains no weight figures. Why is that?
***
No, you haven't explained anything a single time, but have been regurgitating your standpoint repeatedly. And simple repetition does not make it more convincing all by itself.
My theory is that the weight reduction measures were there to hit the 2006 DESIGN TARGETS. To make the plane reach its specification. Perhaps, for a while, they thought of being able to go even lower, but have retracted shortly afterwards and stuck to the previous DESIGN TARGET again since 2008.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 10th February 2010 at 13:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It made some sense during Cold War times and till the Gripen was not offered for exports. When shown the first time in the 80s, the real experts had no problem to figure out the rough numbers by technical calculation. As I did point before, every building lot did differ and the small Gripen is critical for every weight rise caused by later fixes introduced. By the way, why the Gripen NG will be introduced and does start in the 7 tons class already.
Whatever the people do claim. +/- 100 kg does tell nothing about the technical gains from that, just a small shortfall in flight performance effected by weight and the resulting drag. The basic Gripen has a small internal fuel-fraction and is dependent on minimum drag to keep its specification.
Some security claims are just nonsense and lost its justification for decades already. "It is not allowed to take pictures from military installations or from aircraft, when at the same time the experts can touch the Gripen at the Aerosalon Paris for example or did stop-watch filming during flight demonstration to learn something about the demonstrated capabilities.
Posts: 1,067
By: Jwcook - 10th February 2010 at 21:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This was from 2006
Source
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/weight_watchers.html?c=y&page=8
Cheers
Posts: 4,461
By: Scorpion82 - 10th February 2010 at 22:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interestingly most of the numbers from the Davisday.pdf adds up and confirms the weight savings at all.
Posts: 753
By: Satorian - 10th February 2010 at 22:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Let's not forget that nice paragraph from page one:
The 2004-2006 figure seems like the maximum acceptable weight, which they used as target for the weight reduction measures and just about reached with the post-SWAT 2006 design state. Pre-SWAT target figures could be post-SWAT figures as well because the plane was way overweight by 3,000 lbs beforehand.
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem - 10th February 2010 at 23:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes it WOULD take some POWERFUL voodoo for POST WEIGHT REDUCTION F-35s to weigh EXACTLY THE SAME (or more) than they did PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION.
***
No, they are the EXACT SAME NUMBERS which appear in documents from 2004-2006.
Afn the 'Lockheed-Martin's site' give totally different & astronimically impossible numbers.
No, it shows the projected weights of the designs.
No. I have seen MANY program documents & from ~2004 thru 2009 the ONLY weight numbers I can recall seeing are the 29,036/32,161/32,072 & 26,664/29,695/29,996.
Not 'just a man'. THE MAN.
And THE EXAXT SAME NUMBERS that appear in 2004-2006 suddenly 'reapearing' in 2008 after the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers were given in 2007 does not mean the trup the 2007 numbers. It IS an indication that who ever updated the PDF files for the 2008 program briefings appears to have screwed up & created them by 'updating' fro the OLDER 2006 files rather than the NEWER 2007 files.
So they spent 2 years + $6.2 billion on WEIGHT REDUCTION only to reduce the fuel capcity but have the aircraft weight end up EXACTLY THE SAME. :rolleyes:
The POINT was that the 2007 Davis briefing documents are NOT the only ones that use those numbers.
No, the 2006 weight projections were the ones that were 'overweight' & needed to be reduced in order for the F-35B to meet performance requirments. As I posted before, to believe otherwise would mean yoiu would have to believe that F-35 was IN 2004 ~3,000 lbs heavier than that & THAT would mean that in a SINGLE YEAR (2003-2004) the F-35 somehow gained ~4500 lbs on average between all three variants.
NOBODY has yet to provide a shred* of evidence that the 2004-2006 numbers are not the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers &/or that the 2007 numbers are not the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers.
And FURTHER evidence is found with the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION AA-1. It weighs ~29,000 lbs. :)
* I meant thread of of evidence. Meaning a progression of evidence of what the weights are/were if not those I have shown them to be.