"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about 27 Dec 2003 11:23:02 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb)
allegedly uttered:

Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
. ..
But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!

Nope, the most cost effective measure would be to cut the airframe
that will have the fewest built.

Can the F-35C and replace them 1-1 with F-35Bs.

Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

Err, the F-4 (which I assume you're referring to) is one of the more
successful aircraft ever fielded by the USAF - hell they only got rid
of the last ones a decade ago.

Thanks to Tel Aviv retrofits, the F-4 still rules certain parts of the sky.

If the -C gets canned, then the Marines have to rely on the USN for
all their airpower (e.g. the CAG may reserve a deck for defending the
battlegroup, meaning the Grunts can't get off their CAS missions -
currently not a problem with the LHDs), leaving them little point in
having their own fixed wing at all.

Except that the Brits want a Harrier replacement. What you are suggesting
obsoletes America's closest ally's carriers.

Of course, then the UK would have to have proper
carriers.........forget what I said - scrap the F-35C, it's obviously
a waste of money :-)

The USAF version would be lighter and cheaper, so I'd expect the Navy F-35
to be the most at risk. That taken together with the Navy's desire to use
some RPV for the F/A-18A mission, puts perhaps even more pressure on the
program to produce.