F35 cost goes up.

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