F35 cost goes up.

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

In message , Henry J.
Cobb writes

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.

Yes, it was _embarrassing_ when the Navy was so much more able to turn
"met MiG" into "killed MiG" than the Air Force, even when the Air Force
put guns in their F-4s and the Navy was only using those ineffective,
useless, can't-hit-a-thing "missile" gizmos.

It's a large and extremely complicated subject, but your analysis is
badly off the mark: the F-4 was a very competent aircraft and very few
forces who flew it, regretted doing so: with or without gun fit.

--
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

"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.

Cutting back the overall number of aircraft? Something could
be done, but JSF is needed too much to replace other types,
and the result would be a reduction in overall strength.
Cancelling the USAF JSF and make the USAF use the naval
version instead? The naval version is 25% more expensive
than the land-based model, so that would hardly be a cost-
saving measure. Cancelling the naval version? That would
make the USN a second-rate airforce. The STOVL version
is the least needed one, with the lowest warload/range
performance. A clear candidate for cancellation, IMHO.


The thing is, there are 12 amphibous warships in the inventory that
operate Harriers. If attack aircraft were eliminated from those ships
it would have a significant impact.

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

And commissaries! Don't forget the vital commissaries.... ;-)

regards,
------------------------------------------------------

On or about Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:37:25 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
allegedly uttered:

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.

IF those moreschoolsandhospitals actually emerged from that, then I
might think it's a good deal, but I think ut's more likely the CVF
would be canceled in favour of.....getting Labour reelected by
lowering taxes at the next budget.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
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.


Shouldn't that read;-

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

--

Brian

Hi!

"Emmanuel Gustin" writes:
Cutting back the overall number of aircraft? Something could be
done, but JSF is needed too much to replace other types, and the
result would be a reduction in overall strength. Cancelling the USAF
JSF and make the USAF use the naval version instead? The naval
version is 25% more expensive than the land-based model, so that
would hardly be a cost- saving measure. Cancelling the naval
version? That would make the USN a second-rate airforce. The STOVL
version is the least needed one, with the lowest warload/range
performance. A clear candidate for cancellation, IMHO.

Canceling a major version saves development money. This works
regardless of wich version is canceled. The easiest to live withouth
version is probably the USAF one. The naval one is more expensive to
build but a larger series means lower per unit cost. The extra cost
will be lower then todays extra cost for a USN version and the goal of
commonality is easier with two major versions instead of three. Any
unique USAF requirements can probably be met by a few more wings of
F-22:s for zero development cost.

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.

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046