F35 cost goes up.

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:33:44 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
airframe and the production model.

I beg your pardon? Can you point to any place where I said that there
would be a 33% change or a difference between the pre-production model
(that's what we call "the early flying airframe") and the production
model?

My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.

If it misses its range by as much as five or ten percent, it will still
have a *much* higher unrefueled range than the F-18.

Since I've already *agreed* that it could miss by a small amount, and
since you keep *arguing* about it, that means you must disagree with
those numbers.

So pick a number. What's the *worst* you think it could be?

If it's not more than about five or ten percent, then you're arguing
with Fred on this one, not me...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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