F35 cost goes up.

On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:

In rec.aviation.military Steven James Forsberg wrote:

: I am shocked! What a surprise! A military program going over budget
: and running behind schedule? :-)

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. With the programme (inevitably)
going over budget, and government budgets firmly in the
red anyway, it will be too tempting.

You really have no idea how US politics/defense spending
operate, do you? The F-35 will be built in all three configurations,
and it will be the best strike fighter in the world. I realize that you
hate the US, but at least try to be rational.

Al Minyard

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:25:42 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:

In rec.aviation.military Steven James Forsberg wrote:

: I am shocked! What a surprise! A military program going over budget
: and running behind schedule? :-)

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. With the programme (inevitably)
going over budget, and government budgets firmly in the
red anyway, it will be too tempting.

You really have no idea how US politics/defense spending
operate, do you? The F-35 will be built in all three configurations,
and it will be the best strike fighter in the world. I realize that you
hate the US, but at least try to be rational.

Al Minyard

I'm not certain-- remember the A-12, or the A, B and C V/stol
programs of the 1970's? (Of course the fact that we have a flyable JSF
helps in this case )

On the other hand, I don't see a delation of any version-- perhaps a
reduction in production numbers (which never makes any sense-- you're
going to try to save money by reducing production and increasing per
hunit cost? But this is congress).
The fact of the matter is, given what the JSF is trying to do, and
hte traditional absolute failure of multi-service fighter aircraft, I
think the program is actually doing quite well, given the technical
challanges.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote:

:The "Super" Hornet isn't a stealth aircraft

For some definition of 'stealth'. It is billed as 'affordable
stealth'.

They did some airframe reshaping and added some radar absorbing
material, which takes the F-18 E/F out of the "barn door" category and
into something like the Eurofighter's RCS category.

Still an order of magnitude or so to go to get to the F-35 RCS range.

:and if they want stealth the F-35 is pretty much their only choice.
:Not only that the F-35 is suppose to have a significantly longer
:range than the Hornet.

But not longer range than the Super Hornet. Don't confuse the two
aircraft.

Um... the F-35 is going to have about a 50% better combat radius than
the F-18E/F, according to the Navy.

600 nm for the F-35 versus 410 nm for the Super Hornet versus about 290
nm for the older Hornets.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote:

:Um... the F-35 is going to have about a 50% better combat radius than
:the F-18E/F, according to the Navy.

Sources?

:600 nm for the F-35 versus 410 nm for the Super Hornet versus about 290
:nm for the older Hornets.

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?

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.

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

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.


The Super Hornet is in production right now which means the airframe
have low flight hours or no flight hours on them. Tankers really
don't require anything ground breaking and the Super Hornets wouldn't
be used in a "first day of combat" role as an attack aircraft against
a competent adversary. Once the F-35 is in service the Super Hornet
will be pretty much second-string.

Scott Ferrin wrote:

: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.
:
:The Super Hornet is in production right now which means the airframe
:have low flight hours or no flight hours on them. Tankers really
:don't require anything ground breaking and the Super Hornets wouldn't
:be used in a "first day of combat" role as an attack aircraft against
:a competent adversary. Once the F-35 is in service the Super Hornet
:will be pretty much second-string.

Frankly, I'm not holding my breath on this one.

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

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

:Um... the F-35 is going to have about a 50% better combat radius than
:the F-18E/F, according to the Navy.

Sources?

The fas.org website.

:600 nm for the F-35 versus 410 nm for the Super Hornet versus about 290
:nm for the older Hornets.

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
over the last thirty or forty years - it's not that hard to get a close
estimate of weight and performance for new aircraft now.

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."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

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.

Figuring out range estimates are fairly straightforward, since drag and
engine fuel flow are reasonably well defined. If they stuck better
engines into the F-18, they'd probably get better fuel efficiency, too
(the modified versions they're using are nice, but not *that* nice).

The F-18 also has to deal with the increased drag of all of those
external stores and fuel tanks. That makes a *huge* difference in range.

I'm just wondering why you think it's so outrageous to expect a much
newer fighter to have much better fuel efficiency...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Schelkunchik" wrote:

But Belgian military guys are usually high on LSD, Crack or weed. And since
they are all gay, the rest of their time is spent bending over in the shower
to pick up the soap or dressing up in women's clothes. If you are expecting
a Belgian to fight for anything, you are making a mistake.


Certainly a ****-poor attempt at trolling son, this your first
attempt?. Much better to make little digs at people's use of
English or their spelling, or better still at their ability in
their chosen field. So please get some practice on other ng's, We
don't encourage beginner trolls on our military ng's
--

-Gord.