Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Paper airplanes always look good. I'll wait until they actually have
: the thing designed completely and are bending metal. Any bets that
: it's heavier and has shorter legs than the current paper says?
:
:Not really, but it's certainly not going to miss the target by enough to
:lose 1/3 of its range. Things have changed a bit for aircraft design
ver the last thirty or forty years - it's not that hard to get a close
:estimate of weight and performance for new aircraft now.

Want to bet? And what is that "over 600 nautical miles" combat range
(for ALL F-35, apparently) predicated on? The only range statements I
see on FAS for this aircraft are pretty much 'hand waving' sorts of
answers.

: Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then,
: wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy
: lift strike' and 'tanker' roles.
:
:It's a case of "well, we have these older strike planes with a lot of
:hardpoints on them, and we're not going to obsolete a five year old
:aircraft while it stil works in a lot of places."

I would not be surprised to see the F-35C fail to meet original design
targets for range and payload in a carrier environment.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney