If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:
In rec.aviation.military Steven James Forsberg wrote: : I am shocked! What a surprise! A military program going over budget : and running behind schedule? :-) 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. With the programme (inevitably) going over budget, and government budgets firmly in the red anyway, it will be too tempting. You really have no idea how US politics/defense spending operate, do you? The F-35 will be built in all three configurations, and it will be the best strike fighter in the world. I realize that you hate the US, but at least try to be rational. Al Minyard |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:25:42 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote: On 25 Dec 2003 22:41:36 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote: In rec.aviation.military Steven James Forsberg wrote: : I am shocked! What a surprise! A military program going over budget : and running behind schedule? :-) 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. With the programme (inevitably) going over budget, and government budgets firmly in the red anyway, it will be too tempting. You really have no idea how US politics/defense spending operate, do you? The F-35 will be built in all three configurations, and it will be the best strike fighter in the world. I realize that you hate the US, but at least try to be rational. Al Minyard I'm not certain-- remember the A-12, or the A, B and C V/stol programs of the 1970's? (Of course the fact that we have a flyable JSF helps in this case ) On the other hand, I don't see a delation of any version-- perhaps a reduction in production numbers (which never makes any sense-- you're going to try to save money by reducing production and increasing per hunit cost? But this is congress). The fact of the matter is, given what the JSF is trying to do, and hte traditional absolute failure of multi-service fighter aircraft, I think the program is actually doing quite well, given the technical challanges. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote: I am being rational. The US federal government will have to make large budget cuts over the next years, as it cannot indefinitely sustain a 300 billion-a-year deficit. You *do* know that a lot of that deficit came from the trashed economy in the wake of 9/11, right? A year or so of increased revenues from economic growth will make up for most of that, and a lot of the rest is from one-time expenditures. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. ************************************************** ************************* |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:17 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |