And most that sky high price is because they keep slashing numbers.

No, most of the sky high price is a direct result of losing configuration
control; the excessive R&D is Peter Principle driven. Did you know that
Lockheed's winning entry to be the YF-22 would not even fly? I think the
taxpayer would have been better off to have let the contract to GD.


ROTFLMAO!!! So you do read my posts huh?



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.

The airplane has no mission and even if we bought 1000 of them the flyaway
price with no R&D is $110 million a copy.

Key phrase "with no R&D" Unfortunatley there is a word called
"amortization". And if you think the airforce wouldn't be giddy and
have missions for 1000 F-22s you're not living on the planet Earth.







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.

A La B-2 no doubt......

Right now we could have had 50 conventional B-2s for the same price, if the
F-22 had been cancelled before the prototype.


Yeah they'd have been real useful for air defense.