F35 cost goes up.

"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...

snip
Canceling the USAF JSF version forcing the USAF to buy the USN version
and perhaps some more F-22:s saves money now and will perhaps make the
procurement more expensive when the aeroplanes are in production. But
perhaps not much more expensive since the production runs will be
longer.

Except that USN does not wish to participate in the F-35 procurement, in
favor of replacing the F/A-18As with robots. The USAF, however needs the
F-35 to hedge their bet that the F-22 will ever be produced in any numbers.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Except that USN does not wish to participate in the F-35 procurement, in
favor of replacing the F/A-18As with robots. The USAF, however needs the
F-35 to hedge their bet that the F-22 will ever be produced in any numbers.

Oddly enough, the only person who seems to believe that the Navy wants
to give up on piloted planes in the near future is... well, Tarver.

Sure, you can find one or two odd folks who think robots are the way to
go in the short term (in the long run it's not so chancy, but the tech
is nowhere *near* what we need right now), but most folks agree that we
need a near-future manned Navy attack plane to replace the ones we have
right now.

The new carriers in the pipeline - the CVN-21 series - are planned to be
primarily F-35 equipped (with F-18 and E-2 for the near term), with UCAV
to supplement on high-risk missions - once they figure out how to use
UCAVs on a crowded flight deck with manned planes (not a trivial feat).

As far as the F-22, we're buying them, they're working fine, and we all
know Tarver's delusions on that particular airframe...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

Except that USN does not wish to participate in the F-35 procurement, in
favor of replacing the F/A-18As with robots. The USAF, however needs
the
F-35 to hedge their bet that the F-22 will ever be produced in any
numbers.

Oddly enough, the only person who seems to believe that the Navy wants
to give up on piloted planes in the near future is... well, Tarver.

Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for several
years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at production. The reason the
Navy stays is for the USMC version, to support fixed wing Marine air.

As to the Navy giving up piloted aircraft, I have already posted to this
thread the 526 F/A-18 Super Bugs in the Navy pipeline; as well as noting how
very successful the Navy's integration of COTS for reliability has been.
The Super Bug is already battle tested.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for several
years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at production.

Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly
contradicts everything they've said to the public, right?

Oh, wait. You can't. As usual.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for several
years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at production.

Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly
contradicts everything they've said to the public, right?

In what way do you feel I have contradicted myself, Chad? What I wrote
there is identical to what I have written before. It it some lack of data,
or a reading and comprehension problem, you have?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for
several years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at
production.

Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly
contradicts everything they've said to the public, right?

In what way do you feel I have contradicted myself, Chad?

Okay, here's a reading comprehension tip:

When I mentioned "the Navy" and how *you* contradicted *them*, you
weren't contradicting *yourself*, you were contradicting "the Navy."

What I wrote there is identical to what I have written before.

Yes, and it's still wrong.

It it some lack of data,
or a reading and comprehension problem, you have?

No, it's the same old one you've been demonstrating here and in other
newsgroups since about the first day you discovered Usenet.

Once again, "the Navy" is not "you."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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.

(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

: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.

Not acceptable to the Navy, so they take their cash and go buy their
own airplane. Your costs for the remaining airframes go up.

: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 have ANY clue how long the F-4 was in Air Force service? Let's
just say that having the Navy design and build an airplane and making
the Air Force use it has historically been a lot more successful than
attempts to do it the other way around.

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

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.