Raptor vs Eagle

In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/

Well, *I'm* astounded at a $200M fighter that was supposed to cost
$90M (which would have been bad enough), how about you?

The point was that it is disingenuous for Congress to be surprised
at cost growth. Congress itself causes cost growth through funding
profiles that are idiotic for both development and production, through
reduction in total production numbers, and the acceptance of unrealistic
initial cost estimates. If you want to be even more astounded, check
out the federal acquisition regulations. An adeversary would be severely
challenged to make our acquisition system less efficient and more wasteful
than it is currently.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote:

The point was that it is disingenuous for Congress to be surprised
at cost growth. Congress itself causes cost growth through funding
profiles that are idiotic for both development and production, through
reduction in total production numbers,

The reductions in total production numbers for the F-22 came from the
Air Force's attempting to keep total project cost below ever-advancing
limits. They started out at 750 airplanes; it's less than half that
now.

and the acceptance of unrealistic initial cost estimates.

No question that many absurd weapons programs get farther than the
should. There appears to be no accountability for Defense Dept.
"salesmen" who tout these systems to Congress at bait-and-switch prices.

Accountability for congressmen who keep these balls of money rolling is
in the hands of the voters, so we ultimately have ourselves to blame.
Of course, many people stay in congress precisely because they are able
to keep the defense pork flowing to their states and districts.

If you want to be even more astounded, check
out the federal acquisition regulations. An adeversary would be
severely
challenged to make our acquisition system less efficient and more
wasteful
than it is currently.

I've done many contracts administered by the Navy and the Corps of
Engineers. Believe me, I understand the incredible ways they can find
to make everything more expensive and difficult.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor, which
has gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane.

Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/

Bear in mind it's all about quantities. If you spend a billion, and only one
plane, that one plane is $1Billion. If you build 1,000 of 'em, the cost per
unit goes down. True, the costs have escalated (as have most government
projects) but, shortly after contract award in 1991 (with go-ahead in
October 1991), congress initiated three contract change proposals (CCPs)
before 1996. Each one stretched the contract a bit more. Stretch a contract,
and you add $$$. What are you going to do - fire everyone for awhile then
try to hire them back? Training / retraining is a big chunk of change. As
is starting / stopping subcontractors. If you marginalized a subcontractor
during the initial contract, and you give them a chance to re-bid it as part
of a contract extension, what do you think they're going to do? ;-)

Carl Orton wrote:

What are you going to do - fire everyone for awhile then
try to hire them back?

Congress used to try that at the nuke plants at Oak Ridge every election. My
father was an atomic health physicist there. We almost wound up moving to
California just before one election and to Brazil during another. Union Carbide
(the contractor there) would try to have very public layoffs at one of the
plants and very private rehires at others to let the congresscritters get their
points for cost control and keep their people at the same time.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Well,

I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft, then
it means the US needs fewer of them.

What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?

Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if they
do cost more.


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
8 versus 1! And this against arguably the best fighter (and pilots) in
the world.

Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last
manned fighter aircraft...)

Impressive, but...

One must remember that it is politically important for military brass to
ensure that their latest toys get good press. Not saying the dogfight was
faked, but I would not be surprised to learn that the exercise was
designed to show the F-22 to maximum advantage.

Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor, which has
gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane. At one
point in 1999, conservative Republicans Jerry Lewis of California and Bill
Young of Florida, and conservative Democrat John Murtha of Pennsylvania,
all key figures on the House Appropriations Committee, attempted to zero
production funding because of skyrocketing costs and procurement
"irregularities." To keep that from happening again, the Air Force will
make every effort to make sure the F-22 is perceived as the uber-fighter
it was touted to be.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dave wrote:

Well,

I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft, then
it means the US needs fewer of them.

What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?

Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if they
do cost more.


That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You cannot
count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.





--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

"gregg" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Well,

I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft,
then
it means the US needs fewer of them.

What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?

Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if
they
do cost more.


That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
cannot
count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.


The 8-1 was against an F-15 that is at least as capable as anything anyone
else has and more capable than what we will probably up against.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:yHrOe.2879$Ix4.713@okepread03...

"gregg" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Well,

I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft,
then
it means the US needs fewer of them.

What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?

Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if
they
do cost more.


That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
cannot
count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.


The 8-1 was against an F-15 that is at least as capable as anything anyone
else has and more capable than what we will probably up against.


Oh, and that IS a good thing.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


"gregg" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Well,

I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft,
then
it means the US needs fewer of them.

What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?

Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if
they
do cost more.


That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
cannot
count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.


The 8-1 was against an F-15 that is at least as capable as anything anyone
else has and more capable than what we will probably up against.


Today, yes. But it won't always be so. I believe that in time there will be
other superpowers and they will be technologically equal - maybe even
superior.

Won't be right away. Which is exactly why I wonder if it's smart to buy
dozens of squadrons of F-22's. (I exxagerate the numbers but you get my
point I trust)


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

gregg wrote:

That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You cannot
count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.

Well, at the present time, you can count on them flying something inferior to
the F-15/F-16. Given the economic situation in Russia, it doesn't look like
Sukhoi or MiG is going to be changing that anytime soon.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.