On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:06:28 -0800, Hobo > wrote:

>
>The F-22 and the F-35 are similar planes that share at least the engine
>and maybe more. How do the R&D costs get divided between the two
>programs? If the F-22 gets killed, will its R&D get moved over to the
>F-35 and increase its price?

There is very little that the planes actually have in common. The F-22 is not
going to be "killed", but if the program was terminated it would have very
little effect on the F-35 program

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:06:28 -0800, Hobo > wrote:
>
> >
> >The F-22 and the F-35 are similar planes that share at least the engine
> >and maybe more. How do the R&D costs get divided between the two
> >programs? If the F-22 gets killed, will its R&D get moved over to the
> >F-35 and increase its price?
>
> There is very little that the planes actually have in common. The F-22 is
not
> going to be "killed", but if the program was terminated it would have very
> little effect on the F-35 program

tic toc ...

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...

> > There is very little that the planes actually have in common. The
> > F-22 is not going to be "killed", but if the program was terminated
> > it would have very little effect on the F-35 program
>
> tic toc ...

Funny, you were claiming back in 1998 that it was just a matter of a
couple of years.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > There is very little that the planes actually have in common. The
> > > F-22 is not going to be "killed", but if the program was terminated
> > > it would have very little effect on the F-35 program
> >
> > tic toc ...
>
> Funny, you were claiming back in 1998 that it was just a matter of a
> couple of years.

Yes and Lockheed is stall facing the same structural and avionics issues
they were then as well. At least now there seems to be a tendancy to admit
there was a problem, if not a little lie about now.

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:

> > Funny, you were claiming back in 1998 that it was just a matter of a
> > couple of years.
>
> Yes and Lockheed is stall facing the same structural and avionics issues
> they were then as well.

Well, according to *you*, anyway. Not according to anyone sane.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>
> > > Funny, you were claiming back in 1998 that it was just a matter of a
> > > couple of years.
> >
> > Yes and Lockheed is stall facing the same structural and avionics issues
> > they were then as well.
>
> Well, according to *you*, anyway. Not according to anyone sane.

Acording to Congress.

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> >
> > > > Funny, you were claiming back in 1998 that it was just a matter of a
> > > > couple of years.
> > >
> > > Yes and Lockheed is stall facing the same structural and avionics issues
> > > they were then as well.
> >
> > Well, according to *you*, anyway. Not according to anyone sane.
>
> Acording to Congress.

Not according to the fantasy Congress in your head, Tarver.

If you were even right about the F-22, the whole program would have been
gone before Bush even took office.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Funny, you were claiming back in 1998 that it was just a matter of
a
> > > > > couple of years.
> > > >
> > > > Yes and Lockheed is stall facing the same structural and avionics
issues
> > > > they were then as well.
> > >
> > > Well, according to *you*, anyway. Not according to anyone sane.
> >
> > Acording to Congress.
>
> Not according to the fantasy Congress in your head, Tarver.

Are you hearing voices you believe are comming from my head, Irby?

Congress threatened the program with cancellation, when they gave them this
year's budget. That is what the whole "F-22 turned around in 2003" thing is
about.

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Are you hearing voices you believe are comming from my head, Irby?

No, it's just observation. Nothing else could explain where you get
your "information."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Are you hearing voices you believe are comming from my head, Irby?
>
> No, it's just observation.

What are these voices telling you, Irby?

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > Are you hearing voices you believe are comming from my head, Irby?
> >
> > No, it's just observation.
^^
> What are these voices telling you, Irby?

What part of "no" did you not understand?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you hearing voices you believe are comming from my head, Irby?
> > >
> > > No, it's just observation.
> ^^
> > What are these voices telling you, Irby?
>
> What part of "no" did you not understand?

Why are the voices you believe are comming from my head telling you, "no"?

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
> > There is very little that the planes actually have in common. The F-22
is not
> > going to be "killed", but if the program was terminated it would have
very
> > little effect on the F-35 program

> Thank you for being the only person who even tried to answer my question.

Well, actually, Alan just posted complete bull****.

Nearly all the electronics systems in the F-35 were supposed to be tabbed
from the F-22. Right now the F-35 is undergoing cost increases, because
those systems are not functioning properly on the F-22.

Glad to educate you.