View Single Post
  #12  
Old January 2nd 07, 08:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John Dallman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default New Carriers - Old refurbishments - New Navy Fighters that go FAR - FAST -

In article ,
(Paul J. Adam) wrote:
writes


(4) If we drop JSF STOVL and force only one configuration CTOL and
then slide the whole program to include a decade or so development


In half a sentence you lose most of the customers. The STOVL variant
was added because there was a user requirement (US-led and then
others bought in) and if you "slide a decade" then you lose your
export sales, who didn't sign up for an extra ten-year gap.


Just to agree some mo that route for the JSF programme also wastes a
large fraction of the money that's been spent so far, and leaves the
USMC with no Harrier replacement. Frankly, it gives BAe, Boeing and
Rolls-Royce a fine chance to produce a better Harrier, which is
perfectly possible, given enough market to pay for the engine
development - and there might be stuff to be lifted from JSF for that.

Maybe this isn't such a bad idea after all, actually... if you're
someone other than the USA.

--
John Dallman,
, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.