A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 21st 10, 02:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million

"Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
JSF continues to slip."

See:

http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/js...o-135-million/

How expensive is the JSF going to get?
Ads
  #2  
Old March 21st 10, 03:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Arved Sandstrom[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million

wrote:
"Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
JSF continues to slip."

See:

http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/js...o-135-million/

How expensive is the JSF going to get?


It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's
acceptable.

What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.

AHS
  #3  
Old March 21st 10, 05:15 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Sunny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million


"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
wrote:
"Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
JSF continues to slip."

See:

http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/js...o-135-million/

How expensive is the JSF going to get?


It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's
acceptable.

What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.

AHS


Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the
thing.
As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough first,
to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-)


  #4  
Old March 21st 10, 10:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million

On Mar 20, 11:19*pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
wrote:
"Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
JSF continues to slip."


See:


http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/js...o-135-million/


How expensive is the JSF going to get?


It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's
acceptable.

What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.

AHS


I ask the question: why do you need stealth to attack a ground target
in the first place? Isn't there someone with enough foresight to
create an aircraft that would duplicate the A-10 in 21st century form?
  #5  
Old March 21st 10, 12:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Arved Sandstrom[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million

Sunny wrote:
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
wrote:
"Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
JSF continues to slip."

See:

http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/js...o-135-million/

How expensive is the JSF going to get?

It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's
acceptable.

What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.

AHS


Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the
thing.
As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough first,
to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-)


One of the points being, not so long ago (20 years at most) there were
plenty of targets that the infantry needed air for, because the
artillery didn't quite pack enough punch. The only artillery PGM we had
was Copperhead, and you'd never use one of those unless you were
fighting Soviet tanks in Germany, and probably not even then. And if you
happened to be in a military that had heavier artillery, like 8 inch,
there were never that many of those either.

So for a long period of time, for a considerable variety of target
types, aircraft-delivered ordnance, mainly bombs, has been the weaponry
of choice. Now, leaving out those situations where artillery is simply
not in range anyway, this reality led to lots and lots of scenarios
where you wanted aircraft-delivered bombs, but the target area was
nevertheless covered by tube artillery...hence SEAD. Might as well
suppress AAA and SAMs if you can, and hopefully that plane might get
through.

The intent back then was not so much to protect the plane because it
cost the entire GDP of a small country, but simply because its firepower
influenced the mission so much.

Now we are in a situation where if tube artillery hasn't become so much
more accurate it damned well ought to be - we've been ****ing around
delaying or stopping PGM programs for artillery and naval guns for
decades, and yet the necessary money would be easily found if we just
didn't build such insanely expensive CAS aircraft. The intent of SEAD
now most certainly will be to protect the bloody plane for the sake of
protecting the plane, and I wouldn't be surprised if missions get turned
down because the risks of losing a plane in order to blow up a bunker
are just too great.

Take some of the money and address deficiencies in tube and rocket
artillery that still make it necessary to request CAS in the first
place. Much better use of money.

AHS
  #6  
Old March 21st 10, 12:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million

On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
* Sunny wrote:
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
wrote:
"Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
JSF continues to slip."


See:


http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/js...o-135-million/


How expensive is the JSF going to get?
It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's
acceptable.


What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.


AHS


Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the
thing.
As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough first,
to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 *:-)


One of the points being, not so long ago (20 years at most) there were
plenty of targets that the infantry needed air for, because the
artillery didn't quite pack enough punch. The only artillery PGM we had
was Copperhead, and you'd never use one of those unless you were
fighting Soviet tanks in Germany, and probably not even then. And if you
happened to be in a military that had heavier artillery, like 8 inch,
there were never that many of those either.

So for a long period of time, for a considerable variety of target
types, aircraft-delivered ordnance, mainly bombs, has been the weaponry
of choice. Now, leaving out those situations where artillery is simply
not in range anyway, this reality led to lots and lots of scenarios
where you wanted aircraft-delivered bombs, but the target area was
nevertheless covered by tube artillery...hence SEAD. Might as well
suppress AAA and SAMs if you can, and hopefully that plane might get
through.

The intent back then was not so much to protect the plane because it
cost the entire GDP of a small country, but simply because its firepower
influenced the mission so much.

Now we are in a situation where if tube artillery hasn't become so much
more accurate it damned well ought to be - we've been ****ing around
delaying or stopping PGM programs for artillery and naval guns for
decades, and yet the necessary money would be easily found if we just
didn't build such insanely expensive CAS aircraft. The intent of SEAD
now most certainly will be to protect the bloody plane for the sake of
protecting the plane, and I wouldn't be surprised if missions get turned
down because the risks of losing a plane in order to blow up a bunker
are just too great.

Take some of the money and address deficiencies in tube and rocket
artillery that still make it necessary to request CAS in the first
place. Much better use of money.

AHS


The excuse is "there are civilians at the target".
  #7  
Old March 21st 10, 01:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Jim Wilkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million

On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
*...


How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
smoke, or is that still relevant?

jsw

  #8  
Old March 21st 10, 01:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million

On Mar 21, 9:02*am, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

*...


How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
smoke, or is that still relevant?

jsw


GPS and lasers
  #9  
Old March 21st 10, 01:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Arved Sandstrom[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:00 am, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
...


How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
smoke, or is that still relevant?

jsw

Well, I guess if you don't know where you are there's always that
problem. Of course, if you don't know where you are then you've got
bigger problems.

AHS
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VNAF Huey pilot jumps into the sea near USS Midway Dave Kearton[_3_] Aviation Photos 0 June 5th 09 02:17 AM
Got $22 million? Bob Piloting 16 September 18th 05 02:30 AM
Value vs asking price vs selling price Casey Wilson Piloting 4 July 16th 05 04:56 AM
If only I had $2.5 million... Journeyman Piloting 11 May 17th 04 07:13 PM
B-17 Jumps at Pepperell Sept 22-23 Peter Military Aviation 0 August 14th 03 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.