F/A-22 vs. FB-22

"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)

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 08:45:32 -0800, Lyle wrote:

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.


Which part of "it's not going to cost an extra $11 Billion" did you
miss?

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.

"Scott Ferrin" 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.

It is because of the Peter Principle that Lockmart's F-22 is so expensive.
If the buy is cut another 1/3 as I expect, your favorite fighter will cost
over $400 million a copy. It is what I wrote in '98 and I have been
attacked at ram for some years on the issue, but I am, unfortunately for the
American tax payer, completely correct again.

Kopp = Ferrin

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 08:45:32 -0800, Lyle wrote:

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.


Which part of "it's not going to cost an extra $11 Billion" did you
miss?

Which part of your ongoing ignorance WRT the F-22 do you hope he missed,
Ferrin?

All of the abuse you have given me on the subject of the F-22 is a lot of
crow for you to eat, my idiot.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:55:11 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 08:45:32 -0800, Lyle wrote:

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.


Which part of "it's not going to cost an extra $11 Billion" did you
miss?

Which part of your ongoing ignorance WRT the F-22 do you hope he missed,
Ferrin?

All of the abuse you have given me on the subject of the F-22 is a lot of
crow for you to eat, my idiot.



Why don't you give us a source for that extra $11 Billion? It's
probably in the same place as all of those strakes photos.

This week's AW&ST

"USAF officials also rejected the forecast that the service will need
to spend $11.7 billion to introduce air-to-ground capabilities in the
F/A-22. Roche says planned upgrades, including a new radar and
small-diameter bomb, are budgeted and would cost less than $3.5
billion. The $11.7-billion figure is an artificial tabulation of all
F/A-22-related air-to-ground wish-list items and doesn't represent a
defined program, says Lt. Gen. Ronald E. Keys, the service's deputy
chief of staff for air and space operations."

But hey, let's not confuse the issue with facts right?

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:52:52 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" 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.

It is because of the Peter Principle that Lockmart's F-22 is so expensive.
If the buy is cut another 1/3 as I expect, your favorite fighter will cost
over $400 million a copy. It is what I wrote in '98 and I have been
attacked at ram for some years on the issue, but I am, unfortunately for the
American tax payer, completely correct again.


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. As for it being my
favorite, that would be the F120 / YF-23. IMO they picked the *worst*
airframe/engine combination. At this point though it's the F-22 or
NOTHING. Unless you think those F-15s will last forever? I can't wait
to hear the first imbecil suggest we cancel the F-22 and wait until
the F-35 comes along. If they think aircraft are falling apart and
wasting money to be kept flying they ain't seen nothin' yet. And you
can bank on the fact that ten yeasrs from now dumbass politicians will
be slashing the number of F-35s purchased and then being surprised
when the cost skyrockets.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


It is because of the Peter Principle that Lockmart's F-22 is so
expensive.
If the buy is cut another 1/3 as I expect, your favorite fighter will
cost
over $400 million a copy. It is what I wrote in '98 and I have been
attacked at ram for some years on the issue, but I am, unfortunately for
the
American tax payer, completely correct again.


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.

As for it being my
favorite, that would be the F120 / YF-23. IMO they picked the *worst*
airframe/engine combination. At this point though it's the F-22 or
NOTHING. Unless you think those F-15s will last forever? I can't wait
to hear the first imbecil suggest we cancel the F-22 and wait until
the F-35 comes along. If they think aircraft are falling apart and
wasting money to be kept flying they ain't seen nothin' yet. And you
can bank on the fact that ten yeasrs from now dumbass politicians will
be slashing the number of F-35s purchased and then being surprised
when the cost skyrockets.

The "New Airplane" is always the pig you haven't kissed yet. You know all
about the pig you've already kissed and how foul its breath is while the New
Pig is so pretty and pink. Outyear costs_always_increase to the point that
building the Old Pig will save tons of money. And get you hardware sooner.

I do think the F-22 SPO could use a Chinese Refrigerator Factory Incentive
Program. Twenty years from ATF to LRIP is absurd.

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?

-HJC

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......