<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: F35 for $60 million each (batteries not included :)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.planecrazydownunder.com/2010/06/22/f35-for-60-million-each-batteries-not-included/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.planecrazydownunder.com/2010/06/22/f35-for-60-million-each-batteries-not-included/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=f35-for-60-million-each-batteries-not-included</link>
	<description>News &#38; Views from the PCDU Team</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 02:20:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant</title>
		<link>http://blog.planecrazydownunder.com/2010/06/22/f35-for-60-million-each-batteries-not-included/comment-page-1/#comment-82</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.planecrazydownunder.com/?p=19#comment-82</guid>
		<description>There is a lot to be said about training over systems quality. I know I can&#039;t craft great furniture no matter how good the tools are :)

The other approach is volume. A RAND corporation had a US missile kill ratio set to about 50% and with a couple of waves of aircraft that were inferior to the F22/F35, enough got through that they could take out the AWACS &amp; tankers. As a result, the F22/F35 aircraft ran out of gas on the way home. Oooops.

It was a very interesting scenario.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a lot to be said about training over systems quality. I know I can&#8217;t craft great furniture no matter how good the tools are :)</p>
<p>The other approach is volume. A RAND corporation had a US missile kill ratio set to about 50% and with a couple of waves of aircraft that were inferior to the F22/F35, enough got through that they could take out the AWACS &#038; tankers. As a result, the F22/F35 aircraft ran out of gas on the way home. Oooops.</p>
<p>It was a very interesting scenario.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bas Scheffers</title>
		<link>http://blog.planecrazydownunder.com/2010/06/22/f35-for-60-million-each-batteries-not-included/comment-page-1/#comment-74</link>
		<dc:creator>Bas Scheffers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:18:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.planecrazydownunder.com/?p=19#comment-74</guid>
		<description>I still think the F35 is a maximum overkill aircraft. Stick with Super Hornets and use the change to properly train the pilots and keep them current and they&#039;ll eat the next generation Russian hardware for breakfast when flow by Australia&#039;s poorly trained possible foes. We&#039;re simply not going to get into a fight with the US, a Western European country or even China. Let&#039;s be realistic here.

And if you want a combat proven dogfighter, how many F-16E&#039;s can you buy for the price of one F-35? Did I mention they look a lot cooler too?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still think the F35 is a maximum overkill aircraft. Stick with Super Hornets and use the change to properly train the pilots and keep them current and they&#8217;ll eat the next generation Russian hardware for breakfast when flow by Australia&#8217;s poorly trained possible foes. We&#8217;re simply not going to get into a fight with the US, a Western European country or even China. Let&#8217;s be realistic here.</p>
<p>And if you want a combat proven dogfighter, how many F-16E&#8217;s can you buy for the price of one F-35? Did I mention they look a lot cooler too?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

