F35 cost goes up.

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Oh, just as a 'by the way', *NO* Navy combat aircraft can recover
: from an abort with max load without dumping. F-35C will not be any
: different in this regard.
:
:Actually, that's one of the design parameters for the aircraft.

They'll never make it. If that's one of the design parameters (trap
with full fuel and weapons load (16,000 pounds of fuel and 17,000
pounds of ordnance on an airframe with a 24,000 pound dry weight), it
must also be one of their design parameters that you routinely snap
gear off the airplane. I also find it interesting that they
apparently think it takes only three quarters of a ton of extra
structure to go from an Air Force 'light fighter' to doing arrested
landings.

Citation, please?

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

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: You've claimed several different provenances for your numbers. The
: only explicit one was FAS.
:
: Is English your second language? Are you part of that generation that
: never actually learned how to read? Those are the only two excuses I
: can find for your preceding statement.
:
:Funny you should mention this.
:
:In what part of English is "twice" the same as "50% higher?"
:
:That's what *you* claimed to have read off of that FAS site.

Ah, my apologies. I did misread that one. Now, funny how you still
avoid any self-commentary on all YOUR misread (and, apparently,
outright made up) numbers.

--
"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:
:
: Oh, just as a 'by the way', *NO* Navy combat aircraft can recover
: from an abort with max load without dumping. F-35C will not be any
: different in this regard.
:
:Actually, that's one of the design parameters for the aircraft.

They'll never make it. If that's one of the design parameters (trap
with full fuel and weapons load (16,000 pounds of fuel and 17,000
pounds of ordnance on an airframe with a 24,000 pound dry weight),

It's not, since a full fuel load precludes a full weapons load. The
plane tops out at about 50,000 pounds.

With partial weapons and full fuel, it's quite doable.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Ah, my apologies. I did misread that one. Now, funny how you still
avoid any self-commentary on all YOUR misread (and, apparently,
outright made up) numbers.

Because most of what you've been calling "misread" is due to very
selective reading on your part, or a refusal to actually look at the
numbers.

What it comes down to is that you think the F-35 will miss its
performance targets by a huge amount, and that you haven't got a reason
for it other than pure paranoia.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

I am not contradicting the Navy, I am quoting them.

No, you're claiming that they said something they didn't, then going off
on an incorrect rant about a post of mine that you didn't read
correctly.

No, I am quoting the real Navy, from their statementsto the WSJ.

I'm sorry the facts don't agree with your cyber reality, Chad.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

We'll see what the real operational range is with the bays full of
weapons and no external tanks. So far, all the numbers I've seen
amount to hand waving.

The Navy just bought another 210 F/A-18s, so they may agree with you,
Fred.
(EW)

The contract for 210 more Super Hornets is just for part of the original
plan, not an additional buy.

It is an the second option and a very nice product recomendation for
McDonnell.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:

:My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
:about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.

Even the source you gave (FAS) doesn't claim that. What they say is
combat range about 50% higher than the F/A-18C/D (not Super Hornet) ON
INTERNAL FUEL. Note that the Super Hornet has about 40% more range
than the Hornet. Now, would you like to rethink that remark?

No, Chad would rather talk out his ass, like all his other posts.

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Ah, my apologies. I did misread that one. Now, funny how you still
: avoid any self-commentary on all YOUR misread (and, apparently,
: outright made up) numbers.
:
:Because most of what you've been calling "misread" is due to very
:selective reading on your part, or a refusal to actually look at the
:numbers.

No, most of what I've been calling 'misread' is due to you not reading
what is written to you. Have you answered ANY questions put to you
with regard to your claims? Sources for your 'official' numbers?
Source for claimed 'bring back' of the F-35C? Of course not. That
would require actually being responsive rather than just flaming over
this imaginary strawman you keep attributing to me.

:What it comes down to is that you think the F-35 will miss its
erformance targets by a huge amount, and that you haven't got a reason
:for it other than pure paranoia.

No, what it comes down to is you've selected your strawman argument to
get impassioned about and are simply disregarding anything that is
said to you.

I'm sure you'll understand if I return the favour. So, which part of
LockMart marketing do you work for, by the way?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Chad Irby wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: : Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :
: : Oh, just as a 'by the way', *NO* Navy combat aircraft can recover
: : from an abort with max load without dumping. F-35C will not be any
: : different in this regard.
: :
: :Actually, that's one of the design parameters for the aircraft.
:
: They'll never make it. If that's one of the design parameters (trap
: with full fuel and weapons load (16,000 pounds of fuel and 17,000
: pounds of ordnance on an airframe with a 24,000 pound dry weight),
:
:It's not, since a full fuel load precludes a full weapons load. The
lane tops out at about 50,000 pounds.
:
:With partial weapons and full fuel, it's quite doable.

Trapping at max take off weight is not the usual thing. I would think
that the ability to do so would indicate that either the max take off
weight was held unrealistically low or it's going to be difficult to
trap.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

No, I am quoting the real Navy, from their statementsto the WSJ.

Nowhere close.

Again.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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