This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Jerry Daniels (left) talks with Steve McDonald at the F/A-18E/F facility; he counts on expandable tooling to adjust for varying production rates.
Proceedings Editor-in-Chief Fred Rainbow and Associate Editor Mac Greeley interviewed Jerry Daniels, McDonnell Douglas Vice President and General Manager of the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18E/F program. Mr. Daniels, a Naval Academy graduate and nuclear submariner, joined the company in 1979. He led submarine- launched Harpoon programs for several allied nations, managed the NATO Antiair Warfare (NAAWS) Program, and until 1993 was the Vice President and General Manager of the Harpoon/ Standoff Land Attack Missile Program.
Proceedings: Is the F/A-I8E on schedule for the December 1995 first flight? Daniels: Yes—on schedule [and] on budget. December 1995 will be the first flight. We plan to fly two airplanes that month, both El and E2, and we’ve recently completed several key milestones. In mid-April, Northrop completed the center-aft fuselage and shipped it to St. Louis. During the first two weeks in May, we spliced the center-aft fuselage to the forward fuselage—that was a major event.
We’re doing this differently than we’ve ever done it before. We bought a laser alignment tool that takes and holds the center-aft fuselage in a fixed position. The forward fuselage is on three hydraulic jacks on lifting points, and we feed the positioning of the splicer face from both center-aft and forward into a computer. The lasers track it,
[and we] position it in for the splice. It’s one of the new tooling techniques that we put in.
Once that splice is completed, we’re basically into final assembly and leading up to a roll-out ceremony. Right now it’s planned for the 19th of September.
Proceedings: Who’s going to fly the first one?
Daniels: Fred Madenwald, a former Marine Corps aviator.
Proceedings: How representative will the first airplanes be, the El and the E2? Will they have the F4I4 engine? Daniels: Oh, sure. In fact, I forgot that milestone. That’s the other key event coming up. The Navy is going to take delivery of those first flight test engines during the last week in May. The [first-flight] F/A-18E will have the F414 engines. That first aircraft is primarily an aerodynamic performance aircraft, so there are some avionics that are not in it. For instance, it doesn’t have a radar. What else is it missing? Some of the avionics do not go in there, and, of course, it’s loaded with test equipment.
There are several hundred pounds of test equipment in the aircraft. But other than that, as far as an overall performance aircraft, yes, it will be very representative. And then they get progressively more operational, as you go down the line. We’re building ten aircraft altogether, three ground test articles and seven flight tests.
By the time you get to our F2, which is the last flight test article, that’s fundamentally an operational aircraft. There always is a certain amount of instrumentation that goes with them, but that is a total avionics suite aircraft by the time we get to F2.
Proceedings: Are the avionics and the software on schedule?
Daniels: Yes. The avionics is on schedule. The software is on schedule. You know there’s really not a whole lot of new avionics in the -E/F. We’ve typically said 90% of the avionics is common with the -C/D [models]. The good news is that the -C/D has been maintained technologically current. The Navy has maintained that avionic suite and the software net, so technologically we are not losing a thing by doing that.
The new parts for the -E/F are really the three new displays that go in the aircraft—an up-front control display, a multipurpose color display, and a new engine fuel display. We’re actually developing and testing the flight program right now, and we just started the iron bird testing. That’s actually taking place out at Northrop, so the subsystem testing in that portion of flight control testing just started the first week in March.
Proceedings: The Air Force deals in blocks of aircraft, changing airplanes all the time coming off the line so configuration control can become a big problem. The Navy uses blocks now. There’s a block 12C. Is that the one you’re talking about?
Daniels: Yes. The Navy updates the software in the Hornet every two years. The flight program software that’s in the fleet right now is 91C. And you’re right, the -Cs and -Ds use the same upgrade of software.
For whatever reason, we’re not numbering them by fiscal year anymore, so we’re going to confuse everybody at first by shifting numbers here. We’re going to go to a series — the first one for the -C will be what’s called 9C. That is the basis for what becomes the flight program for the -E/F, so we lift that software and basically use it as our baseline and modify it for the -E/F.
Then there will be an 11C and an 1 IE and then a 13C and a 13E. So there is the same type of upgrade approach as we go through it, but our starting point is the software program that’s in the -Cs today as modified for our flight controls and for the new displays.
Proceedings: Has there ever been any idea of retrofitting in the later -Cs and -Ds?
Daniels: No, we really haven’t given it a whole lot of discussion. Part of that would be tied into future procurement of the -Cs, because right now in the President’s budget, fiscal year 1996 would be the last procurement year of the-Cs. There are 12 -Cs and -Ds that year and the projection is zero in 1997. There’s a
Fuel capacity increased by 33%, endurance increased to 2hr 15 mm
Additional muW^MMien weapon station (total stores carnage . increased to 6.050kg)
New rectangular croas-section air intakes to increase mass flow and reduceo radar cross-section
New wtng-bon. with simplified structure, and outer panels Skin stdtness/strengtb improved (wing area increased by 25%)
tess/strengtfi
lot of discussion as to whether or not that’s the way the Navy wants to go, but, no, there hasn’t been a whole lot of discussion about retrofitting.
Proceedings: We ’ve heard the F404 engines in the fleet have some problems. Now, the F414 is based somewhat on the 404—would it be compatible with -Cs and -Ds? Could they retrofit engines?
Daniels: No, it’s a bigger engine [with] a lot more thrust. It demands a lot more air flow. Basically, the 414 got its herbage from the work that was going on Primarily on the 412 that was the engine being designed for the A-12.1 can’t speak for General Electric, but I’m sure a lot of Hie basic technology and knowledge that went into the 404 feeds that food chain loo. But—primarily—the 414 picked up "'hat was developed under the 412.
Proceedings: / wondered if the problems they’ve had in the fleet might have any implications for the F4I4. Are the new engines on schedule?
Daniels: Yes. They’re in good shape. General Electric has seven of the 414 de- "elopment engines in test and has completed more than 4,300 test hours. The e0gines are meeting all their specifica- hon requirements in terms of thrust and sPecific fuel consumption. The engine looks pretty good. I was at the GE program review they just held a few weeks ago. They’re in real good shape.
Proceedings: Flow much testing has there been? Is this all modeling so far? Daniels: Well, the engines themselves, as I mentioned, have more than 4,300 worth of testing. As far as the overall aircraft, we have over 20,000 hours of wind tunnel tests already on the -E/F; we’ve done about 95% of the planned testing.
We have done a trial fit of an engine mockup into a center-aft fuselage mockup, so we are through that. The next big event really will be to get the engines in the aircraft, and then, of course, do some ground testing. After that, probably the big event is a high-speed taxi run.
Proceedings: Sometimes engines and inlets are very sensitive things. When will you begin to know [if they are compatible]. . . [during] the flight test? Daniels: Yes. Analytically, right now, we consider that whole area a very low risk, but the proof, of course, is flying the airplane. We’ll fly in December, and then we’ll keep those aircraft in St. Louis. The El will stay in St. Louis until probably near the end of January, and then go to Patuxent River.
All the initial flights for each of the aircraft will be in St. Louis, and then we keep them [for awhile]. It varies from aircraft to aircraft, but I think we keep El for, say, six weeks or so in St. Louis. We do a few more flights, and then we take it to Pax River. It will stay there for the duration of what’s basically a three-year test program—other aircraft join it almost
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL
monthly. I think the aircraft deliveries are spread out over about roughly a 12-month period there.
I’ve been with McDonnell for over 15 years and this is the first cost-plus program I’ve ever worked on. We’re largely on schedule and on cost because of the way the program has been managed, both within the government and within industry. It’s a development program. We have new issues every day, as you can imagine. Something pops up every day.
But we’ve had a tremendous amount of teamwork. Organizationally, we’re aligned by teams. If you look at the Navy, NavAir [Naval Air Systems Command] has basically changed its organizational structure to align with integrated product teams, and, of course, we and Northrop— our principal subcontractor—and GE are all organized by product teams.
[There has been] a tremendous flow of information and openness in data that has, in my experience, really been unparalleled. We use a system called IMICS-ln- tegrated Management Information Control System, a mainframe computer system with terminals everywhere. We’ve loaded something in the neighborhood of 7,000 different screens that contain all the costs, schedule, technical data, about the program, and it’s the same information that I look at to manage the program by. It sits right on the program manager’s desk up here in Washington and other key individuals [have it], so we’re all looking at the same parameters, the same
(Right) General Electric’s F414-GE- 400 afterburning turbofan engine for the F/A-18E/F is shown operating at maximum power on the test stand at Lynn, Massachusetts. (Opposite) The forward fuselage of the F/A-18E/F static test article is lowered into the laser-alignment system.
things at the same time, so there’s no guessing about where we are. We know where we are.
Proceedings: What have you done, if anything, to make the aircraft stealthy? Daniels: Because the E/F is a major structural upgrade, we’ve been able to incorporate a number of structural enhancements that reduce its signature considerably over that of the -C/D. I can’t go into details, but let me assure you that the enhancements are extensive.
Proceedings: You 've sold a number of F/A-]8s abroad and I assume you anticipate selling this model eventually. How much is exportable?
Daniels: All those things are being discussed by the Navy right now. I’ll tell you the truth, my plate has been full getting this airplane built and I quite honestly haven’t really worried about it. But, obviously, we do believe there will be an international market for the airplane. At the moment, we are focused on getting the -E in flight.
Proceedings: I saw a recent figure— and costs are difficult—but F-22 flyaway costs—engines, airframe, avionics—are about $73 million. Where would the F/A-18E come in?
Daniels: We’re going to be a lot cheaper than that. I don’t know anything about the F-22 costs. There is Congressional language that says that the -E/F cannot exceed the cost of a -C/D by more than 25%. Effectively, what it says is that the -E/F can’t be more than 1.25 times the cost of the -C/D.
Where will we really be? When we get into full production, -E and -F flyaway costs are going to run somewhere in the low to mid-30s. As you said, cost is hard because it depends on which unit you want to pick and what the rates are. But if you compare apples to apples, we’ll be in about the low to mid-30s for flyaway cost.
Proceedings: That’s kind of interesting, because these will be in the fleet by ' 2005. And the F-22 should be in the fleet by then, and if their figures are anywhere right, they ’re paying twice as much. That’s an interesting figure. Daniels: Yes, but, again, you never know
if you’re comparing apples to apples. We’re giving you the base dollars for the F/A-18E/F program in fiscal year 1990. I don’t know what the base is for the other airplane. But the [-E/F] is basically going to be competitive with the -C/D in terms of its price. It’s been designed that way. It’s not an accident.
If you look at it, the -E/F is 25% bigger than a -C/D, and most standard estimating methodologies would lead you say, it’s going to cost 25% more. On the other hand, it also has about 30% fewer parts. It’s bigger—but we’ve got a lot fewer parts. That tends to drive your costs in the other direction.
Then, we’ve gone into what we think are some innovative things to try to keep costs out of the airplane. Keeping parts out is one of them. We’ve [also] gone to some tooling approaches that are fairly [innovative]. We call it low-rate expandable tooling. If you were to tour a -C/D production line today, you would see that we build up one panel here, another part over there, splice them together—and then splice that to something that was built somewhere else. If you came out to our [-E/F line], you’d see a mainframe tool—a big, heavy structure where we build the entire forward fuselage. The tool is roughly 20 feet wide and 50 feet long—but that forward fuselage stays in it from the very first piece to the very last.
The only time we move it is when the forward fuselage is done. We reach down and pick it up, and it’s a complete forward fuselage. It moves one time instead of many times. Not only do we think that is going to prove to be an efficient way to build them, we think that is more immune to rate fluctuations than our standard method. Here, you can have one crew working on one airplane while it’s in the jig.
It also saved money on tools—about 28% over conventional methods. We built the mainframe tool, and then we built what we called auxiliary tools or locator tools, so when we bring in big-boned pieces of the aircraft, we load them in with a locating tool, a smaller tool that gets them properly positioned within this mainframe; once that part is loaded, we pull that locator tool out, and it becomes available to go downstream to the next mainframe. We built three mainframes, and only one set of these locator tools.
Proceedings: What production rate do you anticipate?
Daniels: Right now, all we tooled up for in engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) was to meet our EMD requirements, which is probably around one airplane a month. Could we make more than that? We probably could. Would it be an efficient way to do it? No, it probably wouldn’t be. In other words, we tooled to do EMD at about the rate we needed to do it, so as we get into low- rate initial production, which will start in fiscal year 1997, we will continue to add to the overall tooling concept, and that will address both rate and the efficiency of the operation. [When you develop something], you do a certain amount of stuff that is low-risk [but] a little more manpower-intensive—as opposed to making a big investment in tooling, which may have to be changed if the design changes.
[That is why] we went more toward a lower-risk, more manpower-intensive concept initially. As the design matures— and for all practical purposes it is mature right now—then we’ll round out that tooling to get ourselves into more of a production efficiency mode and also build ourselves up in rate.
In the classical approach, you assume a production rate and you build a whole bunch of tools to build it, and then if you don’t build at that rate, you have to say. ‘Well, wait a minute, I’m not building ll
at my most efficient rate.’ We’ve gone just the opposite direction. We’ve built the tooling we need [to support our] low- rate expandable concept and allows us to expand the rate without a huge investment in tools.
Another thing that has paid off is that the aircraft was designed using Unigraphics, a computer-aided design/com- puter-aided manufacturing (CADCAM) system that we, and Northrop, and GE use. Unigraphics [gives] us tremendous confidence in the quality of the design because we’ve got one electronic database. We all share it. We can look all over that aircraft simply by calling it up °n a tube. The proof of the pudding is when you walk out on the factory floor and you talk to the men and women who have to put the airplane together, and they aH tell you the same thing: the parts fit. That’s sort of the ultimate test in this Work.
Proceedings: The airplane has come in for its share of controversy, obviously, 0ver the years. Rather than talk about the past, when can we expect to see the numbers that would say you are meeting the range specification? If it flies in December 1995, how much beyond that—several years?
Daniels: Oh, no. We’re going to go immediately into the aerodynamic performance testing. Sometime in 1996 I’m sure we’ll have a good feel for what those numbers are.
Proceedings: One of the figures that has been used by McDonnell Douglas Aircraft is that it will beat the -C on an interdiction mission by about 40%. What’s the configuration for that—four bombs and a centerline tank?
Daniels: Let me tell you this: it will beat the -C. You can’t do a perfect configu- ration-for-configuration comparison because they have two different capabilities. The -C can’t carry the three 480-gallon external fuel tanks the way an -E can, for instance. (See Figure 1).
With two AIM-9 Sidewinders, a forward-looking infrared (FLIR), four Mk 83 1,000-pound bombs, and two tanks— 330-gallon tanks on the -C and 480-gallon tanks on the F/A-18E—the -E gives
you a 475-nautical-mile combat radius versus the -C’s 277-mile radius.
Proceedings: Are [the 480-gallon tanks] cleared now? Or will they be cleared?
Daniels: We’re going to have to go through a test program yet, but I don’t think there’s any question about them being used.
Proceedings: Do they bring the tanks back?
Daniels: Yes. This is coming back with tanks. We’ve done other comparisons. If you were to put three 330-gallon tanks on the -C and two 480-gallon tanks on the -E, the -E still outperforms it. We have high confidence in these numbers. For example, in a Desert Storm Hi-Hi-Hi mission with two Mk 84 2,000-pound laser-guided bombs, two Sidewinders, one AMRAAM [advanced medium-range air- to-air missile], and a targeting FLIR, the -C’s radius is 566 nautical miles and the -E’s is 621 nautical miles
Proceedings: How will the thrust-to- weight ratio on the -E compare with that of the later -Cs? How about wing loading?
Daniels: The -E, like the -C, can carry all of the Navy’s precision-guided munitions, including those in development— JSOW [joint standoff weapon], JDAM [joint direct attack munition] and SLAM- ER [extended-range standoff land attack missile]. It has two additional weapons stations for a total of 11. The thrust-to- weight ratio and wing loading are almost identical for the -C and -E at combat weight. Both have a slightly better than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio; the -C’s wing loading is 83 pounds per square foot and the -E’s is 84 pounds.
Proceedings: Take-off gross weight is about 66,000 pounds. Is the catapult weight any less than that? Other land- based airforces fly your airplane. Is there any difference in the maximum gross take-off weights ashore and shipboard?
Daniels: No. Maximum gross takeoff weight for the -E/F is the same shipboard or land-based—66,000 pounds. (See Figure 2.)
Proceedings: One of [your] brochures says that the -E’s bring-back capability is three times that of the -C: “The F/A- 18E/F will also have three times the bring-back capability of the C and D. ” Daniels: This is the number that we’ve always quoted, and this is an apples-to- apples comparison in bring-back. The -E will bring back 9,000 pounds—and that includes gas. The -C will bring back
F/A-18C
F/A-18C (Lot 19)
F/A-18C (Lot 19)
Figure 1
475 NM
420 NM
> F/A-18C uses (2) 330 gal.; F/A-18E uses (2) 480 gal.
277 NM
303 NM
1.8 hr
1 hr
F/A-18E
F/A-18E
F/A-18E
Combat Air Patrol Endurance-200 NM
(2) AIM-9, (4) AIM-120
Fighter Escort
(2) AIM-9, (2) AIM-120
Interdiction (Self Escort) (2) AIM-9, FLIR/NAVFLIR, (4) MK-83, (2) Tanks*
Figure 2
Max Catapult Payload Increases by 7,700 Lb
F/A-18C: Max Payload = 24,400 lb
F/A-18E: Max Payload = 32,100 lb
WOO <30 kts on C13-1
|
|
Figure 3 |
|
Max Come-Aboard Payload Increases By 3,500 lb
F/A-18C: Max Payload = 5,500 lb
Interdiction Return Loading, VPA=145 Kts for both A/C F/A-18C Data Reflects Lot 19 Aircraft
F/A-18E: Max Payload = 9,000 lb
5,500 pounds including gas. If you require both aircraft to have 4,000 pounds of gas, then the -C brings back 1,500 pounds of whatever and the -E brings back 5,000 pounds. Subtracting the 4,000 pounds of gas, is probably where you get three times. (See Figure 3.)
Proceedings: The Canadians had some structural problems with the vertical fins. Have you had to redesign the -E/F or did your wind tunnel tests indicate any problem ? Daniels: We’ve taken into account the -C/D experience, where we obviously did have vertical tail problems, in the way we designed the - E. Basically, we’ve beefed up that area significantly, but I wouldn’t want to overstress that one as compared to lots of others. That was, obviously, a biggie in the life of the F/A-18 program.
We took all of the design lessons learned on the -C/Ds, as well as inputs from the fleet, and we split those up among our product teams: airframe, wing, etc., and then intentionally went about designing all of that out. For issues like the vortex that was causing the vertical tail problem, we considered whether we would have the same thing or anything similar? And then we also looked at the overall structure in designing those types of lessons learned from the structure. I don’t think we’re going to have that type of problem at all on the -E, but the basic airframe shape is very similar.
Proceedings: You played around with the leading edge extensions a little bit. Daniels: Actually, the ultimate Fix was where they put what they called the “fence” up there. If you look at a -C or -D, there’s a little thing commonly known as a “fence” that breaks up that vortex and goes back and works on those tails. Now, on these tails though, we used the design fatigue criteria, and I’m going to say at least double what we used on the
-C/D to beef up that area. I don’t think we’re going to have that problem.
Proceedings: They had some problems with the roll rate on the earlier F/A- 18s. How’s the roll rate of the -E going to compare with the -C?
Daniels: Basically, if you take the overall handling characteristics of the E versus today’s -C, they’re very similar overall.
Proceedings: How much less fuel does the two-seat -F have than the singleseat -E?
Daniels: I think we lose about 900 pounds of fuel.
Proceedings: Only the Marine Corps currently flies the two-seat F/A-18Ds.
Is the Navy going to get any two-seat F/A-18Fs?
Daniels: There’s been a lot of discussion actually in the press recently about where does the Navy want to go with two-seat versus one-seat, and, yes, the Navy will get some -Fs. One role for the -Fs now under consideration is its use as a replacement for the EA-6Bs. We’ve done studies on behalf of the Navy that
show that the -F can be outfitted with the electronics that would make it highly effective in the com- mand-and-control warfare role. But exactly what the Navy is going to do with the -F and how many in a mix has yet to be decided.
Proceedings: Have you had to make
_____________ any modifications
to accommodate female aviators?
Daniels: Yes. We’ve addressed it both from the standpoint of maintainability as well as operationally. One of the things that we worked on hard for the main- tainers dealing with height—an - E sits higher off the ground than does a -C.
I had never had a chance to fly in one of these things, so last year about this time I managed to get myself a flight in a -D [two-seater]. It just so happened it was right at the time when we were having just this discussion about female aviators and main- tainers. We have a boarding ladder that goes up underneath the leading-edge extension and the latch was too high for smaller individuals to reach. Some thought we should put an actuator on there to drop that boarding ladder; and I thought, ‘Do we want this?’ I went down to Cecil Field, Florida, flew around in the airplane, got sick, landed, and who comes out to drop the boarding ladder but a small woman.
I don’t know if that was done for my benefit or not. Anyhow, we now have an actuator drop the boarding ladder.
Proceedings: How about ejection seats for the women?
Daniels: We are not changing the ejection seats. We are using the same seat that came out of the -C. Where we changed the design and had an opportunity to influence, maintainability, or operability, we’ve done that. Where we are picking up designs directly form the -C, we are not. So things like the ejection seat haven’t changed.
Proceedings: What about seat travel and rudder-pedal position?
Daniels: We did not have to meet the requirements specified for the JPATS [Joint Primary Aircrew Training System]. In the cockpit itself, where we took designs di-
rectly from the -C, such as seat travel and rudder-pedal position, we did very little. We took them as is, with the intent of keeping development costs down.
Even so, we have done a fair amount of work trying to meet them and the Navy clearly wants us to do as much as we can. We are investigating outside of the contract what can be done to the -E/F and other McDonnell Douglas aircraft to accommodate female aviators. We did do a fair amount of work in the area of maintainability to make things a little more accessible to the smaller individual.
Proceedings: What have you done to improve survivability?
Daniels: The -E/F is nearly two times as survivable as the -C/D. We have reduced the vulnerable area of the aircraft fairly significantly. We’ve done some live-fire testing to demonstrate that, and there will be more live-fire testing to as we go on >n the program.
Four elements contribute to the -E/F's ■ttiproved survivability: stealthiness, improved countermeasures, reduced vulnerability, and the capability to employ standoff weapons. Taken together, these significantly reduce the likelihood of the aircraft being detected or—if detected— being hit.
From an electronic countermeasure standpoint, we will be deploying the ALE-50 airborne expendable decoy, the ALE-47 programmable chaff-and-flare dispenser, and the ASR-enhanced ALR-
radar-warning receiver. All of these ultimately will become part of what is now called IDECMS [Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures Suite], 'vhich is being developed for use on several aircraft, including the -E/F.
Couple these with the use of standoff Weapons that allow it to stay outside the range of many threats, and its use of the high-speed antiradiation missile (HARM) to suppress enemy defenses, and we have a weapon system that will be highly effective.
Then there’s a macro-view of survivability—the overall improvements in range, payload, and additional weapon stations. If you look at it from the standpoint of how many aircraft do you have to send to a target how often, survivability—while difficult to quantify—will improve.
Proceedings: Is there anything you learned specifically from the Gulf War? Aircraft are going to get hit; we all know that. Is there anything you ’re doing to make it capable of absorbing a hit better?
Daniels: Yes. The aircraft is 25% larger than the -C/D, yet we’ve reduced the the total vulnerable area by 15%, basically in the structural design. Also, we’ve put in a dry bay fire-suppression system.
Proceedings: Anything to the fuel tanks themselves?
Daniels: Yes, the bladders are made of a polyurethane material that is lighter and more flexible than the material used in the -C/D. It reduces aircraft weight, increases internal fuel capacity, and will make the -E/F easier to maintain. We’re studying the material for possible use on the -C/D.
Proceedings: By mid-1996 then, as things go, you 're going to know something?
Daniels: Mid-1996. I don’t know the exact date. If you take a look at the broad flight test program, I think we’re going to do at least a couple of thousand flights. I think we’re trying to get about 10 to 12 flights per aircraft per month on an average in the flight test program. Each one of those has very specific flight objectives. But I would say, given the interest in the whole thing, we’ll be gathering data early on and it’s going to prove the range capability.
Proceedings: When will the first Navy pilots get a chance to fly?
Daniels: Actually, right away. They’re flying the simulator now. The flight test program at Pax River will be handled by an integrated team of five McDonnell Douglas pilots and five Navy pilots. This approach will shave a year off of what is normally a four-year program and cut at least 25% of the cost from the program.
Proceedings: Can you sum things up for us?
Daniels: Once the -E/F begins to fly, I think its performance is going to silence
The laser-aligned spliced static-test article begins to look like a real airplane. McDonnell used the technique on the Air Force’s C-17.
the critics who say this aircraft won’t have the capability to be a contender over the long term. They’re wrong—and we’re going to prove it.
We’re on schedule and on budget and meeting or beating all of the aircraft’s performance requirements. The aircraft is 1,000 pounds under spec weight and you know as well as I do that weight is the single biggest contributor to performance in the field. The Navy is getting a strike fighter with the kind of capability and growth potential it needs for missions well into the next century—and it’s getting it for one-third the cost of developing an aircraft from scratch. That makes a lot of sense, given tight budgets and the change in world threats.
Join us for the rollout in September; it’s going to be a great day.