Dumbest question ever!
And why not pink? That's how the Brits painted their aircraft for Desert Storm.
Posted on 05/08/2006 12:42:36 AM PDT by dagnabbit
ping.
ping
Norway decision regarding JSF v. Eurofighter ping.
'ever shagged one' , a technical article i see
LOL!
"Does the Eurofighter only come in grey, or do you deliver other colours as well? Anyway, I think the plane is cool!"
- - - - - - - - -
Boy, I bet all the bean counters on the JSF team are kicking themselves for letting them get talked into all the latest technology stuff. All they needed was a few gallons of yellow paint and a "cool" emblem up front and sales would have gone through the roof.
"Sir! I am an aircraft enthusiast on my neck, and i have followed the Eurofighter project over many years."
Yeah, me too. The part about your neck, I mean.
This posting, without a doubt, was the single most difficult to follow set of exchanges that I've ever read.
One of the more salient factors that could affect the JSF is cost .....it will be interesting what its final cost will be.
the cost will be more.it will be able to do more.
Sorta reminds me of the Monty Python skit with the screwed up English/Hungarian phrasebook: here.
STFU
what do you think about norwegian women? Ever shagged one? Innsendt av: tobbe I think they will make excellent Eurofighter pilots David Hamilton
Features
Features: You can always tell a Norwegian woman--but you can't tell her much!
Some of them are quite attractive, I hear tell...
Cheers!
The JSF's target price was originally supposed to be around 29-35 million bucks. It then went to 45 million. Then it went to around 60 million per plane, and if the USAF cuts down on the number it wants that price will go up higher. The plane is still being worked on, and thus that provides more opportunity for costs to go north. Add to this that there have been cost blowouts, and in 2004 it was reported that the total projected cost had gone up by 23%.
Anyways, the F-35 will hopefully have smooth sailing. And I hope that there are no cuts in the number the various US forces (in particular the USAF's purchase of the F-35C), otherwise the JSF may suffer a similar experience to the F-22 Raptor (the first President Bush's administration wanted 750 Raptors, which would have had the Raptors costing around 50 million dollars a pop ......cheap compared to what they are going for now. By the end of his administration he had cut the number to 648. Then during Clinton's tenure that number was progressively cut to 339 airframes. During the current Bush's administration this number was further cut to 277, and then further snipped to the current 183 airframes. Now a single F-22 Raptor goes for around 330 million dollars a pop. From 750 planes to 183, and from 50 million a plane to 330 million. The rule of numbers).
If the JSF doesn't watch its waistline, and if enough of them are not purchased, then expect the price to go up. One thing that is for sure is that it will definitely not be going at the price it was originally slated to sell for, and that the final figure will definitely be greater than anything currently stated.
The question then becomes how cost-effective the stealth provided by the plane is when compared to the cost. Especially for nations like Norway that are not exactly going to be hunting Sukhois anytime soon (and which can get Western planes capable of doing that for a cheaper price).
"The answer from the Eurofighter programs representative is as interesting as the question"
It's a deadpan response to a daft question.
May 8, 2006: The new U.S. F-35 fighter is coming under a lot of criticism as its price keeps rising. Currently, each one will cost, on average, about $113 million. Prices of less than half that are often mentioned, but that's just manufacturing cost. It's the development expense that is going up the most. Congress is so incensed that they are threatening to prevent the construction of the first five F-35s this year. That would delay flight testing, and drive up development costs even more. The F-35 is the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) that would be used by the air force, navy and many allied nations. It would replace the F-16, F-18 and Harrier. It's a stealthy aircraft, using a lot of new technologies. But most of this new stuff has not been tested, and that's usually a sign that costs are going up even more.
The F-22 is already in service, and costs $170 million each just to build. Add in development costs, and you more than double that.
Dumbest question ever!
And why not pink? That's how the Brits painted their aircraft for Desert Storm.
In a long conversation, this was the sentence that mattered most.
I have a lay person's ignorant [yet honest] academic question for which I may be using inappropriate terminology: If aircraft X costs $300 mil per copy and there is reasonable certainty that it can achieve a kill ratio of 3:1 over aircraft Y which costs $200 mil per copy, wouldn't X be more cost effective?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.