F35 cost goes up.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:36:13 GMT, "Shchelkunchik"
wrote:


"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
. ..
Scott Ferrin wrote:
Heh, heh. Guess that means there' no way in hell Russia will be able
to afford an equivalent LOL

But Scott,
Conspicuous consumption, is not what it's all about.
Perhaps an equivalent or better, doesn't need to cost
so much ??
What is the problem that needs this gadget to be built?
Perhaps there is/are other solutions!
--
Rostyk


Surrender? Running away? Those are European solutions.

Hope you aren't including Great Britain in that statement! If so
please apologize forthwith.

When war is suddenly thrust upon you, there is no time to decide about
manufacturing war materials to defend yourself. Perhaps Poland and France,
etc learned something about this earlier?

The US did learn from Pearl Harbor.

The US is always evaluating how to spend its defense dollars. This is one of
the reasons why UAVs and UCAVs are being developed at a feverish pace.
Lots of new things on the horizon like smart bombs that can loister over a
battlefield and return to base if not needed.

UCAVs will be a part of a strike package with many UCAVs flying in the
formation and controlled from a master aircraft. UCAVs will also have A/A
capabilities as well as recon, ecm and ground attack.

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 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.

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.

In article ,
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

I am being rational. The US federal government will have
to make large budget cuts over the next years, as it cannot
indefinitely sustain a 300 billion-a-year deficit.

You *do* know that a lot of that deficit came from the trashed economy
in the wake of 9/11, right? A year or so of increased revenues from
economic growth will make up for most of that, and a lot of the rest is
from one-time expenditures.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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.

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