In article , eponymous cowherd
wrote:

In article 0i0ih.948$Eo.624@trnddc08,
"Ski" wrote:

When considering the present wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where we seem
to need more Close Air Support (CAS) kind of machines that can both strafe

You complain that we need more CAS, and then say we don't need the -35, which
was designed for CAS. The -15,-16, and -18 were not originally designed
for CAS,
if you count the -17 as the start of the -18 program. The more CAS we
need, the
more -35s we need.

With all due respect, the-18 was designed with CAS as a mission from the outset.

and the occassional PGM Bomb, what does the JSF offer over just producing
more F-15 / F-16 / F-18 aircraft and if anything finding a follow-on for

It's cheaper than these aircraft and better suited to CAS.

Cost is open to question as the beast has not gone into production yet, so
any discussion of cost comparison is bogus: comparing projected cost
against an established serial production cost will not illuminate the issue.
There's too much BS involved to make it in any way a useful comparison.

It has stealth. It
uses the same engine as the -22 which will cut down on maintenance
costs. Using
the same plane cut down on maintenance. It is just as good a fighter as
the -16,
-18.

As above, it remains to be seen. F-35 is not in production yet.
When a production F-35 flies against a -15, -16, or -18 then a
judgement can be made. Before that is just idle hot air.

It has stealth. The Turd World seems to have given up on ever matching
Western air forces and are placing their faith in Russian SAMs. This makes
stealth even more important.

something more like an A-10 then a high performance fighter.

90% of the tank kills recorded by the A-10 during GW1 were made using the
Maverick missile. The value of the A-10s gun is overestimated due to
misinterpreting the number of tank kills credited to it during GW1.

Cogent comparisons are important.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur