F/A-22 vs. FB-22

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.

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

"EB Jet" 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.

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.

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.

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.

"EB Jet" 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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed...Maybe even more.

Man, this attribution fell apart.

"EB Jet" wrote in message
...



"EB Jet" 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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed...Maybe even more.

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.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

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?

No Ferrin, I consider you to be an outsider with little to no knowlege of
actual airplanes or the process which produces them. Back in the days when
ram's cut and paste trolls were marginal it is possible you served a purpose
here, but that is no longer the case.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:21:10 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

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?

No Ferrin, I consider you to be an outsider with little to no knowlege of
actual airplanes or the process which produces them. Back in the days when
ram's cut and paste trolls were marginal it is possible you served a purpose
here, but that is no longer the case.


Seeing how you practically cut-and-pasted "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." from one of my previous posts I guess you'd know huh?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:21:10 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

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?

No Ferrin, I consider you to be an outsider with little to no knowlege of
actual airplanes or the process which produces them. Back in the days
when
ram's cut and paste trolls were marginal it is possible you served a
purpose
here, but that is no longer the case.


Seeing how you practically cut-and-pasted

Bull****.

Now that you are trying to write what I have been posting since 1998 you
have a lot of nerve pretending you have any original thoughts on the matter,
Ferrin.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:11:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:21:10 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

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?

No Ferrin, I consider you to be an outsider with little to no knowlege of
actual airplanes or the process which produces them. Back in the days
when
ram's cut and paste trolls were marginal it is possible you served a
purpose
here, but that is no longer the case.


Seeing how you practically cut-and-pasted

Bull****.

Now that you are trying to write what I have been posting since 1998 you
have a lot of nerve pretending you have any original thoughts on the matter,
Ferrin.



Gotta love dejanews

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...com%26rnum%3D1


Goddamn, now THAT'S a link.


The only thing *your* name brings up is some gibberish about the YF-22
having canards until late in the design process. It N-E-V-E-R had
canards at A-N-Y point in the design process. You obviously got it
confused with Lockheed's early X-32 (which was switched to X-35 when
JAST became JSF). Looks like your "experience" is helping you out
loads.

Why don't you give us a relavant link that supports your claim of
saying the Lockheed ATF couldn't fly. I'll even help you. Go to
http://www.dejanews.com Good luck though I expect you'll resort to
childish badmouthing instead of any evidence. As always.