WT Forums

Ah.....it's just starting to get interesting.

Boy stress called this DEAD ON two years ago. LOL...

"In this latest review of the Joint Strike Fighter program, GAO recommends that the Pentagon delay investing in production until flight testing shows that the JSF performs as expected. This is being resisted by the Pentagon, as flight tests of a fully-configured aircraft would not begin until 2011 – by which time Low-Rate Production is now scheduled to be well-advanced.
GAO makes a persuasive case, noting that since initial estimates, program acquisition unit costs have increased by 28 percent, or $23 million. Development costs have increased 84 percent, planned purchases have decreased by 535 aircraft, and the completion of development has slipped 5 years, delaying delivery of capabilities to the warfighter. Yet, the Pentagon plans to produce 424 low-rate initial production aircraft, at a total estimated cost of more than $49 billion, by 2013, which GAO says “increases the likelihood of design changes that will lead to cost growth, schedule delays, and performance problems.”

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06356.pdf

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

_________________
????

In an armchair taxpayers analysis of this procurement situation. I would reccomend that the F-35 STOVL variant be axed before its dead weight brings down the whole program. The F-35C is the linchpin for the future of US Naval Aviation.

The USN retired the F-14 early, to help free up more money for NAVAIR. The Navy can simply not field a dominant airforce beyond the next 5 years or so without the F-35C.

These are simplistic points of views, without good gouge of the complete situation but...

Sell, or lease the Royal Navy several of our refurbished conventional carriers (eg) the John F. Kennedy, Forrestal, Saratoga (if they haven't been used as target practice yet), so forth...The added value of those ships to our endeavors; as to have an ally that could field a Naval Air Arm as capable as our own would invaluable, and relieve an already a strained USN CVN resource. Then develope a joint Royal Navy, USN F-35C concept. Ideally we would have all three variants, but I don't believe that we should allow the least capable (F-35B) compromise the whole program.



Edited by - chadrewsky on Mar 17 2006 08:52 AM

That AINT the worst idea in the world. But Italy, and Spain would be SOL for NAVAIR but that's an idea I, for one, could get behind.
Would giving a CV to Isreal cause World War 3? Probobly lololol.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

The irony is that <i>we can</i> afford all three variants. It's the whole political gun's vs. butter argument...We just need a bogey man, and the whole program is back in the Cadillac mode.



Edited by - chadrewsky on Mar 17 2006 12:24 PM

I dont think we should keep funding the B. It offers the least, costs the most, and is the most technically challenging.

I'd nix B right now.



<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Roger that, but the prototype still is the only aircraft to take off horizontally, accel to supersonic, return, and land vertical. It's got that goin' for it, if you like that show biz.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yet how often will that be employed in combat? Harriers are almost always deployed to the same concrete runways the Hornets deploy from. On the LHDs you'll have a space problem due to the larger size of both the Osprey and the F35B. Not to mention that you have a magazine designed for helicopter munitions that was taxed by the harriers let alone JSFs. You'd need an escort carrier or a 100ft hull extention to take full advantage of the aircraft. An ARG really isn't going in without a carrier anyway. Sure, it's a nice capability to have, is it really needed?

My motto: pacis per vires