F35 cost goes up.

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.com...

The contract for 210 more Super Hornets is just for part of the
original plan, not an additional buy.

It is an the second option and a very nice product recomendation for
McDonnell.


It's apparently going to be the *last* option, and represents a
*cutback* from the reduced buy order. It was going to be 1000+, then
538, and now it's going to be a total of less than 450.

I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...


USA has already scaled back planned F-35 orders.

"The cutbacks in future buys most heavily affect the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter program, which will lose 409 aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet program will have 88 fewer airplanes."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...le.cfm?Id=1047

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Chad Irby wrote:
:
: :It's apparently going to be the *last* option, and represents a
: :*cutback* from the reduced buy order. It was going to be 1000+, then
: :538, and now it's going to be a total of less than 450.
: :
: :I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...
:
: So when do they start delivering F-35C aircraft and how much for each?
:
on't know, but if the schedule were slipping (or if the costs were
:getting out of hand), they'd be buying more of the F-18 models, instead
f rolling back on production numbers on the E/F version.

Want to bet? You don't know much about what gets involved in all
these decisions, do you? It's not like the Navy can just decide these
things on its own hook, you know. There is still, after all, a fairly
strong lobby to kill the program outright (so the Air Force can buy
more F-22s - guess where that lobby originates?).

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Chad Irby wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: : Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :
: : Trapping at max take off weight is not the usual thing. I would think
: : that the ability to do so would indicate that either the max take off
: : weight was held unrealistically low or it's going to be difficult to
: : trap.
: :
: :Max takeoff weight for the F-35 is about five tons lower than the
: :F-18E/F *normal* attack mission takeoff weight. They get huge weight
: :savings from not having to haul around an extra two or three tons of
: :fuel (plus tanks).
:
: And you obviously miss the point of my original remark.
:
:No, I got it.
:
:You might be right - I've seen "recovery weights" for the F-35 ranging
:from 33,000 pounds all the way up to 50,000 pounds, looking around the
:Web tonight.
:
:But there's a big difference between "most likely" and "possible." The
:big limiter is certainly the landing gear, and the airframe needs more
:reinforcement, but it's not an extreme engineering challenge, and it
:adds a *lot* to aircraft survivability and life.

But doing that without making the airframe unnecessarily heavy
(impacting range, payload, and energy maneuverability) is a quite
large engineering challenge. It assumes that structure weighs little
or nothing, no matter how much of it you have. With only a 1500 lb
difference between the base aircraft (which USAF is going to want to
be as 'lively' as possible) and the Navy version, I think getting a
GTW trap weight is a HUGE engineering challenge.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

: So when do they start delivering F-35C aircraft and how much for each?
:
on't know, but if the schedule were slipping (or if the costs were
:getting out of hand), they'd be buying more of the F-18 models, instead
f rolling back on production numbers on the E/F version.

Want to bet? You don't know much about what gets involved in all
these decisions, do you?

Yes, I *do* know what gets involved. And if there were something going
wrong with the F-35, they'd be hedging their bets on a much wider basis.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
noname wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...

USA has already scaled back planned F-35 orders.

"The cutbacks in future buys most heavily affect the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter program, which will lose 409 aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet program will have 88 fewer airplanes."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...le.cfm?Id=1047

When you're cutting back from 2,800 to 2,400 (F-35), it's not quite as
bad as cutting back from 1000+ to 538 to 400 or so (F-18)...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Chad Irby wrote:
:
: : So when do they start delivering F-35C aircraft and how much for each?
: :
: on't know, but if the schedule were slipping (or if the costs were
: :getting out of hand), they'd be buying more of the F-18 models, instead
: f rolling back on production numbers on the E/F version.
:
: Want to bet? You don't know much about what gets involved in all
: these decisions, do you?
:
:Yes, I *do* know what gets involved. And if there were something going
:wrong with the F-35, they'd be hedging their bets on a much wider basis.

Or everyone would be being directed to move money into it to save it,
since it's a 'must have' program. This would lead to downsizing buys
of other aircraft (See F/A-18E/F and F-22 buy sizes now and then),
since there's only a finite amount of money available.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: noname wrote:
:
: Chad Irby wrote:
:
: I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...
:
: USA has already scaled back planned F-35 orders.
:
: "The cutbacks in future buys most heavily affect the F-35 Joint Strike
: Fighter program, which will lose 409 aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super
: Hornet program will have 88 fewer airplanes."
:
: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...le.cfm?Id=1047
:
:When you're cutting back from 2,800 to 2,400 (F-35), it's not quite as
:bad as cutting back from 1000+ to 538 to 400 or so (F-18)...

Let's wait and see what numbers are being talked when the F-35 program
is where the Super Hornet program is now (IOW, several fielded
squadrons), shall we?

I still want to know which part of LockMart marketing you work for, by
the way.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Or everyone would be being directed to move money into it to save it,
since it's a 'must have' program. This would lead to downsizing buys
of other aircraft (See F/A-18E/F and F-22 buy sizes now and then),
since there's only a finite amount of money available.


The F-22 buy size is damn depressing. First it was 750 and now it's
down to 224. Of course then some dumbass will say "look how much they
cost compared to five years ago". I guess they've never figured out
that the fewer you buy the more they cost.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

I still want to know which part of LockMart marketing you work for,
by the way.

Funny - I was wondering which F-18 system subcontractor you worked for.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:32:23 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
noname wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

I guess the F-35 must be doing even better than we thought...

USA has already scaled back planned F-35 orders.

"The cutbacks in future buys most heavily affect the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter program, which will lose 409 aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet program will have 88 fewer airplanes."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...le.cfm?Id=1047

When you're cutting back from 2,800 to 2,400 (F-35), it's not quite as
bad as cutting back from 1000+ to 538 to 400 or so (F-18)...


IIRC the unit but price of the JSF will not be affected until the
number purchase goes below 1800, the economies of scale for military
aircraft become virtually flat after this 'magic' figure..

ie 2000 x JSF's may cost $50m each, but increasing the buy to 5000,
won't drop the price by much.
but drop the total to 1200 will push the price up considerably..

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk