USAF to trim F-35A purchase

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5350514
But Christopher Bolkcom, a military aviation analyst at the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said any cutbacks in
planned F-35 purchases would harm confidence in the program by virtue
of boosting flyway costs per unit.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5350514
But Christopher Bolkcom, a military aviation analyst at the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said any cutbacks in
planned F-35 purchases would harm confidence in the program by virtue
of boosting flyway costs per unit.

-HJC

Any reason why you shortchanged the subject line?

"Fewer of the so-called CTOL versions are needed because the Air Force has
opted to buy significant numbers of the short take-off, vertical landing
model, or STOVL, said Marvin Sambur, the assistant secretary for
acquisition."

Brett wrote:

"Henry J Cobb" wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5350514
But Christopher Bolkcom, a military aviation analyst at the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said any cutbacks in
planned F-35 purchases would harm confidence in the program by virtue
of boosting flyway costs per unit.

-HJC


Any reason why you shortchanged the subject line?

"Fewer of the so-called CTOL versions are needed because the Air Force has
opted to buy significant numbers of the short take-off, vertical landing
model, or STOVL, said Marvin Sambur, the assistant secretary for
acquisition."

Note that they didn't deny there might be some cutback in the overall
numbers.

No decision had been made yet on the scope of the scale-back, Sambur
said. But asked whether the Air Force might wind up paring its overall
F-35 purchase by as much as one-third because of a cash crunch, as
predicted by some analysts, he said: "I don't know about the third."

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote:
Brett wrote:

"Henry J Cobb" wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5350514
But Christopher Bolkcom, a military aviation analyst at the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said any cutbacks in
planned F-35 purchases would harm confidence in the program by virtue
of boosting flyway costs per unit.

-HJC


Any reason why you shortchanged the subject line?

"Fewer of the so-called CTOL versions are needed because the Air Force
has
opted to buy significant numbers of the short take-off, vertical landing
model, or STOVL, said Marvin Sambur, the assistant secretary for
acquisition."

Note that they didn't deny there might be some cutback in the overall
numbers.

With an increase in the numbers of F-35B's purchased which should result in
a cheaper VTOL version for the Marines and RAF and you still didn't answer
the original question I asked "Any reason why you shortchanged the subject
line?"

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Henry J Cobb" wrote:
Brett wrote:

"Henry J Cobb" wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5350514
But Christopher Bolkcom, a military aviation analyst at the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said any cutbacks in
planned F-35 purchases would harm confidence in the program by
virtue
of boosting flyway costs per unit.

-HJC


Any reason why you shortchanged the subject line?

"Fewer of the so-called CTOL versions are needed because the Air Force
has
opted to buy significant numbers of the short take-off, vertical
landing
model, or STOVL, said Marvin Sambur, the assistant secretary for
acquisition."

Note that they didn't deny there might be some cutback in the overall
numbers.

With an increase in the numbers of F-35B's purchased which should result
in
a cheaper VTOL version for the Marines and RAF and you still didn't answer
the original question I asked "Any reason why you shortchanged the subject
line?"

Not an unusual practice in Henry's case--a blurb is often taken out of
context, then often expanded upon with his own flights of fancy.

Brooks