F/A-22 vs. FB-22

"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?

snip of unqualified opinion


Why don't you tell us what YOUR qualifications are specifically.

"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.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...


snip of unqualified opinion


Why don't you tell us what YOUR qualifications are specifically.

You first.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:15:44 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


snip of unqualified opinion


Why don't you tell us what YOUR qualifications are specifically.

You first.


I'm not the one knocking others' qualifications. You are. So let's
hear what yours are. If you have any.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

I'm not the one knocking others' qualifications. You are. So let's
hear what yours are. If you have any.

I figured you to be nothing, 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.

"Henry J Cobb" wrote
Paul F Austin wrote:
"Scott Ferrin" wrote
And yet you still don't get that it's because of the fixed R&D etc.
Flyaway cost is quoted at about $150 million. The fixed stuff has to
be paid whether we buy ten or a thousand.

ITYM "has already been paid". Cancelling F22 now runs all that money
down
the drain.

None of these developments will apply to the F-35?

A lot of the F-35 subsystems are being developed from F-22 kit, the engines
most noticeably. The AESA antenna is a later generation (or will be) than
the F-22 antenna but for instance, the IFDL antenna are active PAs while the
F-22 ones are switched beam antennas. The computer system is brand new and
may be back-fitted into F-22s since the baseline Intel processors went out
of production years ago.

The short answer is that F-35 would cost lots more without the F-22
investment so to that extent you can say that some of the investment would
be recovered. None of the structures and airframe design costs would be
recoverable and little of the software costs, which are substantial.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message news:iM3ac.27092

The short answer is that F-35 would cost lots more without the F-22
investment so to that extent you can say that some of the investment would
be recovered. None of the structures and airframe design costs would be
recoverable and little of the software costs, which are substantial.

It was the intention of the F-22 program that F-22 technology would be
transfered to the F-35, but I do not believe that has happened to any great
extent. The F-35 is much more COTS based and therefore would not find the
F-22's obsolete "mil-spec" component electronics useful. The F-22 now
straddles two different basis of reliability itself. (2000 procurement
production break)