So F-18s it is then if the Septics want to save more money?


F-35 cuts 'could slash US budget': report
By Stephen Trimble

The US government could save about $58 billion by slashing four major aerospace and defence accounts, a presidential commission advises in a draft proposal released on 10 November.

Cancelling Lockheed Martin's short take-off and vertical landing F-35B (below) would save $41 billion alone, the panel says. By substituting Lockheed F-16s and Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornets for F-35A/Cs, the Department of Defense would save another $9.5 billion, it says.
Re: So F-18s it is then if the Septics want to save more mon

lol wonders if the same ironclad contract that is screwing us over the cva will do the same for our order of f35s
One small difference wrt Skybolt. If they sh1tcan F35, the US fighter aircraft industry (already down to LM and Boeing) is stuffed. The last tactical aircraft to be designed and built was F-22 and that design element was 10 years ago. Naval aviation in particular would be in trouble as the SuperBug itself is a fairly old design and doesn't do penetration of a undegraded IADS. On top of the A12 fiasco (the last time the USN tried to get a new attack aircraft, I suspect this would be a fatal blow.

One of the (few) things learnt under the Brownite junta was that long gaps between new designs is invariably counter-productive, because the expertise ages, retires or is made redundant. The "lets save cost by building an existing design" approach inevitably ends in tears (not least in terms of logistic supportability / sustainment.

Astute would not be the disaster it is now, had there not been an interregnum of 15 years between design of Vanguard and design of Astute. Similar arguments can be made wrt T23 (1986) and T45 (2002) and don't get me started on how difficult people are finding it to design and build a relatively straightforward (ie lots of space) aircraft carrier.

Unfortunately, these arguments are not always obvious - particularly to new bunches of pollies and CS (and military for that matter - the well-known case of a navy 2* who pronounced that FSC designs were unaffordable solely on the basis that they were 1000te heavier than a T23 is a case in point!). This results in further delay in the budget and approvals process where the same old arguments must be rehashed and updated every couple of years.

Similar threads