F35 cost goes up.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:36:13 GMT, "Shchelkunchik"
wrote:


"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
. ..
Scott Ferrin wrote:
Heh, heh. Guess that means there' no way in hell Russia will be able
to afford an equivalent LOL

But Scott,
Conspicuous consumption, is not what it's all about.
Perhaps an equivalent or better, doesn't need to cost
so much ??
What is the problem that needs this gadget to be built?
Perhaps there is/are other solutions!
--
Rostyk


Surrender? Running away? Those are European solutions.

Hope you aren't including Great Britain in that statement! If so
please apologize forthwith.

When war is suddenly thrust upon you, there is no time to decide about
manufacturing war materials to defend yourself. Perhaps Poland and France,
etc learned something about this earlier?

The US did learn from Pearl Harbor.

The US is always evaluating how to spend its defense dollars. This is one of
the reasons why UAVs and UCAVs are being developed at a feverish pace.
Lots of new things on the horizon like smart bombs that can loister over a
battlefield and return to base if not needed.

UCAVs will be a part of a strike package with many UCAVs flying in the
formation and controlled from a master aircraft. UCAVs will also have A/A
capabilities as well as recon, ecm and ground attack.

ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:

JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
that is more expensive than building three separate
designs.

I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
for the USMC and the RN.

I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.

If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model. The
Navy version's extended wings and sturdier structure wouldn't be a
huge detriment to AF operations, but it's a must-have for carrier use,
and the STOVL version isn't going anywhere since it's the most needed
layout of the program.

On 26 Dec 2003 09:41:18 -0800, Jeb Hoge wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:

JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
that is more expensive than building three separate
designs.

I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
for the USMC and the RN.

I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.

If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model.

Maybe, but ditching one would be done for cost purposes, and that's
the cheapest one.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On or about Sat, 27 Dec 2003 04:49:47 +0000,
ess (phil hunt) allegedly uttered:

On 26 Dec 2003 09:41:18 -0800, Jeb Hoge wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:

JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
that is more expensive than building three separate
designs.

I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
for the USMC and the RN.

I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.

If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model.

Maybe, but ditching one would be done for cost purposes, and that's
the cheapest one.

But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Sat, 27 Dec 2003 04:49:47 +0000,
ess (phil hunt) allegedly uttered:

On 26 Dec 2003 09:41:18 -0800, Jeb Hoge wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message
...
On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin
wrote:

JSF, like TFX before it, is attempting to be a perfect
solution for a set of very diverse problems... Usually
that is more expensive than building three separate
designs.

I always doubted that all three versions of JSF would
go into production. Probably Congress will delete at
least one at some stage, most likely the STOVL version
for the USMC and the RN.

I expect this would **** off the RN somewhat.

If they kill one, it would most likely be the USAF "basic" model.

Maybe, but ditching one would be done for cost purposes, and that's
the cheapest one.

But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!

The Navy doesn't want the F-35, they want a robot to replace the "a" model
F-18s.

Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message . ..
But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!

Nope, the most cost effective measure would be to cut the airframe
that will have the fewest built.

Can the F-35C and replace them 1-1 with F-35Bs.

Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

-HJC

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote :

SNIPS


Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.



Do you mean the F-4 Phantom?

-- Jim McLaughlin

Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.

************************************************** *************************

On or about 27 Dec 2003 11:23:02 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb)
allegedly uttered:

Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message . ..
But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!

Nope, the most cost effective measure would be to cut the airframe
that will have the fewest built.

Can the F-35C and replace them 1-1 with F-35Bs.

Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

Err, the F-4 (which I assume you're referring to) is one of the more
successful aircraft ever fielded by the USAF - hell they only got rid
of the last ones a decade ago.

If the -C gets canned, then the Marines have to rely on the USN for
all their airpower (e.g. the CAG may reserve a deck for defending the
battlegroup, meaning the Grunts can't get off their CAS missions -
currently not a problem with the LHDs), leaving them little point in
having their own fixed wing at all.

Of course, then the UK would have to have proper
carriers.........forget what I said - scrap the F-35C, it's obviously
a waste of money :-)
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

In message , Henry J.
Cobb writes

Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

Yes, it was _embarrassing_ when the Navy was so much more able to turn
"met MiG" into "killed MiG" than the Air Force, even when the Air Force
put guns in their F-4s and the Navy was only using those ineffective,
useless, can't-hit-a-thing "missile" gizmos.

It's a large and extremely complicated subject, but your analysis is
badly off the mark: the F-4 was a very competent aircraft and very few
forces who flew it, regretted doing so: with or without gun fit.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

:Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message . ..
: But it's the only one that can be canceled without leaving a service
: without aircraft. The USAF can use the USN version without giving up
: too much in performance. Fiddle with the refueling point and presto!
:
:Nope, the most cost effective measure would be to cut the airframe
:that will have the fewest built.
:
:Can the F-35C and replace them 1-1 with F-35Bs.

Not acceptable to the Navy, so they take their cash and go buy their
own airplane. Your costs for the remaining airframes go up.

:Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
:didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

Do you have ANY clue how long the F-4 was in Air Force service? Let's
just say that having the Navy design and build an airplane and making
the Air Force use it has historically been a lot more successful than
attempts to do it the other way around.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn