View Single Post
  #1  
Old March 28th 04, 08:52 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
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.


It is because of the Peter Principle that Lockmart's F-22 is so expensive.
If the buy is cut another 1/3 as I expect, your favorite fighter will cost
over $400 million a copy. It is what I wrote in '98 and I have been
attacked at ram for some years on the issue, but I am, unfortunately for the
American tax payer, completely correct again.

Kopp = Ferrin