On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:35:24 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Lyle" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:37:19 -0700, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On 26 Mar 2004 10:17:09 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote:

Has the configuration and mission been publicized for the FB-22 as
contrasted
to the F/A-22? The press has written of the two, but I don't recall the
descriptions and differences of the bomber aspect.
Thx in advance,
VL


So far from what I've read it's becoming a PR disaster. The USAF
needs to be crystal clear what they are talking about as the clueless
politicians are already getting the whole mess confused and whining
that in order to put the "A" in "F/A-22" it's going to cost $11
billion additional dollars.
even the F-15A and F-14A were able to drop bombs from the start, even
though they may not have had the best delivery system in the world.
How hard would it be to design a external stealthy bombay to put under
the wings, i mean if your going to spend $11 billion dollars you might
as well design a replacement for the F-15E. And you could also put the
external weapons bay on the JSF.

And at only $329 million each, the fighter version is such a bargain.
(GAO)


And most that sky high price is because they keep slashing numbers.
You'd think the politicians would have figured that out by now but
noooooooo. "We can't afford 1000 $100 million planes, cut it to 500.
WHAT??? We can't afford 500 $170 million planes. Cut it to 250.
WHAT!!!!! What the hell is the matter with them, we can't afford 250
$300 million planes." They'll never figure out that R&D and EMD are
fixed costs. Even Fisher Price couldn't get it through their heads.
They haven't seemed to figure out that the current flyaway cost is FAR
less than the $300 million figure being tossed around.