F/A-22 vs. FB-22

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
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.

I get it just fine and always have, Scott. You on the other hand have been
a rude about something you know little to nothing about.

Flyaway cost is quoted at about $150 million.

Geeze, you can't even keep any nu,mber straight.

The next issue of F-22s is $110 million each.

The fixed stuff has to
be paid whether we buy ten or a thousand.

The fixed part has been driven by the Peter Principle, someything Ken
Garlington demonstrated to beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
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?

They were supposed to, but I am pleased the F-35 is different.

"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 yet you still don't get that it's because of the fixed R&D etc.

I get it just fine and always have, Scott. You on the other hand have been
a rude about something you know little to nothing about.

Flyaway cost is quoted at about $150 million.

Geeze, you can't even keep any nu,mber straight.

The next issue of F-22s is $110 million each.

This week's AW&ST:

"The service and Lockheed Martin negotiated the price for Lot 4,
meeting the established cost target of about $110 million. The F/A-22
actually is more expensive, since that figure doesn't include engines
and other costs. The so-called fly-away cost is around $150 million,
Sambur says, which doesn't amortize the fighter's huge development
cost. "




The fixed stuff has to
be paid whether we buy ten or a thousand.

The fixed part has been driven by the Peter Principle, someything Ken
Garlington demonstrated to beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Which doesn't change the fact that it has to be paid *regardless* of
how many are purchased. The fewer aircraft you buy the less you take
advantage of all that was spent on developement. EVERY aircraft from
here on out is going to cost a ton to develope unless they change the
way they do business. I agree with what was said in another post
about 20 years from program definition to in service is insane and
goes a LONG ways toward answering why the thing costs so much. Back
in the day the "A" model would be relatively plain but it would get it
in the hands of those who needed it and then they'd introduce
goodies/fixes as time went on. Now they won't settle for anything
less than going from YF-16A to F-16E Block 60 before they allow it
into full scale production and they wonder why it takes so long and
costs them so much.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:21:27 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
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?

They were supposed to, but I am pleased the F-35 is different.

You are pleased that it's going to cost them even more because they
haven't learned anything? And maybe you haven't looked very close but
the only real difference in aerodynamics between the two is the intake
and the back end of the vertical stabs. Everything else is very
similar. The engine incorporates F-22 experience as does the radar
and I'm sure any stealth goodies Lockheed developed for the F-22 will
help.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

And yet you still don't get that it's because of the fixed R&D etc.

I get it just fine and always have, Scott. You on the other hand have
been
a rude about something you know little to nothing about.

Flyaway cost is quoted at about $150 million.

Geeze, you can't even keep any nu,mber straight.

The next issue of F-22s is $110 million each.

This week's AW&ST:

"The service and Lockheed Martin negotiated the price for Lot 4,
meeting the established cost target of about $110 million. The F/A-22
actually is more expensive, since that figure doesn't include engines
and other costs. The so-called fly-away cost is around $150 million,
Sambur says, which doesn't amortize the fighter's huge development
cost. "

Geeze, another $40 million.

What a rip-off the F-22 is.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:21:27 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
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?

They were supposed to, but I am pleased the F-35 is different.

You are pleased that it's going to cost them even more because they
haven't learned anything?

I am pleased that the F-35 has a good probability of actually working.

The F-22's electric systems remain a high risk problem.

snip of unqualified opinion

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.