the other goal is a massive off-the-shelf parts availability. Sure, there will be differences between the F-35A,B & C model, but the majority of parts will be the same. Once a strong benchstock is achieved, repair times will be reduced across the globe due to high parts availability. If a plane breaks in England, we'll know thyat they have compatible parts. catch my drift?

 

It just seems that there are fundamental differences between an F16 and an A10, to the degree where it's not just armament and software. It's like saying the Corvette and H2 could be built on the same platform, but with different tires and seats.

Or maybe I'm just a moron...

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zoechops
There

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WestSideBilly
It just seems that there are fundamental differences between an F16 and an A10, to the degree where it's not just armament and software.

 

exactly, The A-10 was built on a cheaper platform with one purpose in mind- ground attack. In fact, most if not all 'A' designated planes have no air-air attack capability. The F-22 and the F-35 can take off, knock out a plane on its way to the ground target, and maybe a few more on the way home. Less planes for the same mission equals fewer lost lives and saves $$$.

 

Yep...I could see the cost savings advatage that these could provide. You'll have one air-to-air fighter...the F-22, one low payload bomber/ground support aircraft...the F-35, and one attack/recon chopper...the Comanche. And then of course other various high payload bombers and transport aircraft. Less parts to keep around and easier to train techs/pilots. Plus all of the new birds are stealthy.

 

I sleep in drawer.

 

the government is aware of that, Wick.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chazmo

 

I thought we won the war on the moon already??