F/A-22 vs. FB-22

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

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

See

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviatio...262063,00.html
and
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/fb-22.htm

-HJC

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.

Scott Ferrin wrote:
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.

The Air Force needs to sell the $11 billion investment as a "Super
Weasel" that will be needed in the future and not part of the current
development project to deliver the Air-to-Air abilities.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Scott Ferrin wrote:
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.

The Air Force needs to sell the $11 billion investment as a "Super
Weasel" that will be needed in the future and not part of the current
development project to deliver the Air-to-Air abilities.

See Dr. Laurence Peter's book for a clear understanding of what is
happening.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 09:47:39 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote:
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.

The Air Force needs to sell the $11 billion investment as a "Super
Weasel" that will be needed in the future and not part of the current
development project to deliver the Air-to-Air abilities.

-HJC


What $11 billion investment?

"As a contributing factor, the GAO report contends that adding an
air-to-ground attack capability to the F/A-22 will cost $11.7 billion.
(The GAO serves as Congress' investigative arm.)

"I would like to know what they're adding to the account that suggests
that [additional cost]," Roche said. "The biggest thing we are doing
is changing the radar. In changing the radar, the price falls 40%. We
have some technology we're trying to integrate for catching moving
targets that we're pressing. That may require more computing power . .
.. at some point in the growth of the airplane. That's all within the
budget."

The huge F/A-22 cost increase suggested by the GAO has many in the
Pentagon searching for its origins. "

Scott Ferrin wrote:
What $11 billion investment?

"As a contributing factor, the GAO report contends that adding an
air-to-ground attack capability to the F/A-22 will cost $11.7 billion.
(The GAO serves as Congress' investigative arm.)

"I would like to know what they're adding to the account that suggests
that [additional cost]," Roche said. "The biggest thing we are doing
is changing the radar. In changing the radar, the price falls 40%. We
have some technology we're trying to integrate for catching moving
targets that we're pressing. That may require more computing power . .
. at some point in the growth of the airplane. That's all within the
budget."

The huge F/A-22 cost increase suggested by the GAO has many in the
Pentagon searching for its origins. "

The origins are in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, not the GAO.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf Page 8.
The Air Force has a modernization program to improve the capabilities
of the F/A-22 focused largely on a new robust air-to-ground
capability. It has five developmental spirals planned over more than
a 10-year period, with the initial spiral started in 2003. Table 2
shows each spiral as currently planned. In March 2003, the Office of
Secretary of Defense’s Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG)
estimated that the Air Force would need $11.7 billion for the planned
modernization program. The CAIG estimate included costs for
development, production, and the retrofit of some aircraft.
As of March 2003, the Air Force F/A-22 approved program baseline did
not include estimated costs for the full modernization effort.
Instead, the Air Force estimate included $3.5 billion for
modernization efforts planned through fiscal year 2009.

-HJC

Henry J Cobb wrote:
Scott Ferrin wrote:

The huge F/A-22 cost increase suggested by the GAO has many in the
Pentagon searching for its origins. "

The origins are in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, not the
GAO.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf Page 8.
The Air Force has a modernization program to improve the
capabilities of the F/A-22 focused largely on a new robust
air-to-ground capability. It has five developmental spirals
planned over more than a 10-year period, with the initial spiral
started in 2003. Table 2 shows each spiral as currently planned.
In March 2003, the Office of Secretary of Defense’s Cost Analysis
Improvement Group (CAIG) estimated that the Air Force would need
$11.7 billion for the planned modernization program.

Note that this cost is for all five "spirals" which include a lot more than
just air-to-ground modifications and run well past the current budget cycle.
It's not clear that this is an increase per se, since life-cycle
modernization is always planned and seldom part of the initial budget.


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

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.

"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)