F35 cost goes up.

ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:

JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
that is more expensive than building three separate
designs.

I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
for the USMC and the RN.

I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.

If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model. The
Navy version's extended wings and sturdier structure wouldn't be a
huge detriment to AF operations, but it's a must-have for carrier use,
and the STOVL version isn't going anywhere since it's the most needed
layout of the program.

On 26 Dec 2003 09:41:18 -0800, Jeb Hoge wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:

JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
that is more expensive than building three separate
designs.

I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
for the USMC and the RN.

I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.

If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model.

Maybe, but ditching one would be done for cost purposes, and that's
the cheapest one.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On or about Sat, 27 Dec 2003 04:49:47 +0000,
ess (phil hunt) allegedly uttered:

On 26 Dec 2003 09:41:18 -0800, Jeb Hoge wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:

JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
that is more expensive than building three separate
designs.

I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
for the USMC and the RN.

I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.

If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model.

Maybe, but ditching one would be done for cost purposes, and that's
the cheapest one.

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!

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Sat, 27 Dec 2003 04:49:47 +0000,
ess (phil hunt) allegedly uttered:

On 26 Dec 2003 09:41:18 -0800, Jeb Hoge wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message
...
On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin
wrote:

JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
that is more expensive than building three separate
designs.

I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
for the USMC and the RN.

I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.

If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model.

Maybe, but ditching one would be done for cost purposes, and that's
the cheapest one.

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!

The Navy doesn't want the F-35, they want a robot to replace the "a" model
F-18s.

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.

-HJC

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote :

SNIPS


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.



Do you mean the F-4 Phantom?

-- Jim McLaughlin

Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.

************************************************** *************************

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.

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.

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 :-)
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"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.

In message , Peter Kemp
writes
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 :-)

And then Gordon Brown cancels CVF to fund the much more vital military
capability of more schoolsandhospitals.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

And then Gordon Brown cancels CVF to fund the much more vital military
capability of more schoolsandhospitals.

Then all they have to do is build a few thousand more doctors and
nurses...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.