Cry me a river, ignore me if you like. I know you dislike being told that 99.99% of the speculations are – just as I said – worthless.

From what is clear and undeniable, there’s no one in their right mind who would suggest the F-35 is a better overall aircraft than the T-50.

There are areas that the T-50 will have advantages, but the question is whether or not the areas that the F-35 has advantages are more important areas. We know that the T-50 is faster, and has a longer range. The F-35 has a lower RCS(vs. the T-50 in its current form) and more advanced avionics. The F-35 will likely have a lower cost of ownership/easier to maintain.

The Navy also says it favors killing the F136 engine. The F135 is 2b over budget, and has pretty much maxed out in thrust. There is hope that the F136 will offer additional thrust over the F135 – something that the Charlie needs – since it is 15% heavier than the A model.

This paragraph makes no sense. Apparently the Navy doesn’t share your opinions about the F-135(or the F-136 for that matter).

Well you also have to compare peacetime spending and wartime spending, which will skew matters.

:confused: Left governments show strong tendence to increase government spending.. That also includes military.

Actually the military budgets tend to go down, as spending on other programs are of higher priority.

Your assumptions to stay polite. To stay serious LM simply missed to inform the public that the test shedule was revised and delayed to keep it more in line with the present situation. It is a lot of chuzpe to claim to keep the time-line without noting that details. When LM gives the real cost, there is no chance to toss around other numbers. A general claim to be lower than that is reached by a nominal Dollar below only or what cost are covered by that. We even got prices for fighter without engine. 😉
All the marketing tricks to hide the real cost or make fighters comparable.

Everyone’s making assumptions. I offered some possibilities, nothing more nothing less. I’ve said on multiple occasions that I think the price will be somewhere in between LM’s figures and the others being tossed about.

Ok, i can see a point innit, but with shrinking budget, it looks like a very redundant luxury that can be mitigated with an improved command structure.

It’s not the command structure that’s the issue though, in terms of needing improvement.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/magtf.htm

The next core competency is combined arms operations. As specifically demanded by Congress, the nation’s naval crisis response force must be capable of acting on short notice and without immeditate support from Army and Air Force warfighting forces. In other words, such a force in readiness requires an organic, combined arms capability. For over half a century, MAGTFs have trained so that their ground combat, air combat, and combat service support capabilities are directed by a single commander

Organic air assets are key to the way the USMC fights, and how the command element understands the needs of his ground forces. Additionally, other Naval air assets might not be available in a timely manner to support Marine forces, or.. they might have other target sets that they have to hit.

when you read the last part of the article:
one understands how it is “on schedule”.. if you schedule less than a 1/3rd of the planned flights, you can say it’s on schedule… only not the promised one.

One important point to consider though is why the number of flights was reduced, as raw numbers don’t necessarily tell the whole story.

same for the costs. still from the article:

As for costs, the figures that are being used, are based in part off of legacy aircraft. LM says they’re too high. I suspect the real cost will be in between LM’s figures and the other sources.

The F-35C is replacing the F-18A-D models, and operating alongside the E-G models. The FA-XX would be Super Hornet replacement.