PENTAGON SEEKS F-22A COST PROPOSALS TO EXTEND PRODUCTION INTO FY-10

On Mar 8, 11:27 pm, Andrew Swallow wrote:
Australia has problems with a little place called China.

F-22s launched from Australia can't attack China, because they lack
the refueling capability.

And China's few long range bombers would get jumped by Australia's
Super Hornets.

-HJC

On Mar 9, 10:34*am, hcobb wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:27 pm, Andrew Swallow wrote:

Australia has problems with a little place called China.

F-22s launched from Australia can't attack China, because they lack
the refueling capability.

And China's few long range bombers would get jumped by Australia's
Super Hornets.

-HJC

Oh?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/

http://www.militaryglobal.com/forum/...ic,5723.0.html

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 07:30:21 -0700 (PDT), hcobb
wrote:
What potentially hostile powers can put jet fighters within range of
the population centers of UK

For the UK, the unification of Europe has reduced the threat greatly,
but the logical extension of that reasoning is that UK needs no
defenses at all now.

There's also the point that we find ourselves operating away from home
rather often these days, and thus rather closer to potentially or
actually hostile air arms.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

On Mar 9, 11:09 am, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
There's also the point that we find ourselves operating away from home
rather often these days, and thus rather closer to potentially or
actually hostile air arms.

Which is why the perfect fighter for the UK is the F-35C, operating
off Nuke carriers. (Place an order for two with the Americans and
pocket to lower price to pay off the Scottish yard workers.)

-HJC

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 07:30:21 -0700 (PDT), hcobb
wrote:
What potentially hostile powers can put jet fighters within range of
the population centers of UK

For the UK, the unification of Europe has reduced the threat greatly,
but the logical extension of that reasoning is that UK needs no
defenses at all now.

There's also the point that we find ourselves operating away from home
rather often these days, and thus rather closer to potentially or
actually hostile air arms.

That implies Britain needs the ability to construct army, navy and
airforce bases quickly anywhere in the world. Living in tents 5
years after the war started is a bad idea. Runways and piers have
to appear within days.

The logistical load needs minimizing, so actions like saving
transported oil by heating water using solar power in hot
countries. Generating electricity by wind turbines.

Andrew Swallow

In message
,
hcobb writes
On Mar 9, 11:09 am, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
There's also the point that we find ourselves operating away from home
rather often these days, and thus rather closer to potentially or
actually hostile air arms.

Which is why the perfect fighter for the UK is the F-35C, operating
off Nuke carriers. (Place an order for two with the Americans and
pocket to lower price to pay off the Scottish yard workers.)

You're not really up to speed on the costs of current kit, are you?

(There's a hint - if we could afford CVNs we'd be buying them. Since we
can't, we're not)

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

On Mar 9, 7:46*pm, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message
,
hcobb writes

On Mar 9, 11:09 am, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
There's also the point that we find ourselves operating away from home
rather often these days, and thus rather closer to potentially or
actually hostile air arms.

Which is why the perfect fighter for the UK is the F-35C, operating
off Nuke carriers. *(Place an order for two with the Americans and
pocket to lower price to pay off the Scottish yard workers.)

You're not really up to speed on the costs of current kit, are you?

(There's a hint - if we could afford CVNs we'd be buying them. Since we
can't, we're not)

For those following along at home, the pair of CVs the Royal Navy is
currently buying is slated to run somewhere around 4 to 5 billion
pounds, which is around $8-10 billion US. The most recent Nimitz
class CVN cost about $6 billion, meaning that a pair would be much
more expensive than the Queen Elizabeth program.

And that doesn't even get into issues like manning, O&M costs, &c.
Note that even at the current program cost there's some doubt as to
whether the RN will actually finish the program- they've had to
downsize the _Astute_ and _Daring_ classes by quite a bit to afford
the them and there's some speculation that the Treasury will wait
until a "main gate" decision has to be made and then announced that
the carriers have to be canceled since there's nothing to escort them
with.

And I imagine that the people in the UK who squawk about Henry Hyde's
antics with the JSF source code would have a collective stroke if a
move like that were announced.

-JTD

On Mar 9, 9:03 pm, Jeff Dougherty wrote:
For those following along at home, the pair of CVs the Royal Navy is
currently buying is slated to run somewhere around 4 to 5 billion
pounds, which is around $8-10 billion US. The most recent Nimitz
class CVN cost about $6 billion, meaning that a pair would be much
more expensive than the Queen Elizabeth program.

The costs will rise and the design already is not worth the current
fib of a price.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured
bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the
design in order to comply with cost limitations.

Did they learn nothing from McCain's tour on the Forest Fire?

-HJC

hcobb wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:03 pm, Jeff Dougherty wrote:
For those following along at home, the pair of CVs the Royal Navy is
currently buying is slated to run somewhere around 4 to 5 billion
pounds, which is around $8-10 billion US. The most recent Nimitz
class CVN cost about $6 billion, meaning that a pair would be much
more expensive than the Queen Elizabeth program.

The costs will rise and the design already is not worth the current
fib of a price.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured
bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the
design in order to comply with cost limitations.

Did they learn nothing from McCain's tour on the Forest Fire?

-HJC

Wait, don't you usually tell us how perfect the U.S Navy is? Are you
blaming the fire on McCain?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Mar 9, 10:37 pm, Dan wrote:
Wait, don't you usually tell us how perfect the U.S Navy is? Are you
blaming the fire on McCain?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It takes quite a jinx to keep The Navy down. ;-)

-HJC