F/A-22 vs. FB-22 [Archive]

Scott Ferrin

March 26th 04, 10:37 PM

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.

Henry J Cobb

March 27th 04, 05:47 PM

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

Tarver Engineering

March 27th 04, 05:52 PM

"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.

Scott Ferrin

March 27th 04, 08:48 PM

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. "

Henry J Cobb

March 27th 04, 11:55 PM

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

Thomas Schoene

March 28th 04, 12:02 AM

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

Henry J Cobb

March 28th 04, 12:10 AM

Thomas Schoene wrote:
> 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.

Which is why The Force should sell this as an additional feature set
with a new designation (is F/A-22C already taken still?) and then make
the case for the three versions of the F/A-22 separately.

Air to Air dominator.
Close Air Support expert.
and Super Weasel.

And then they can lay out the development cost for each and the refit
costs to bump each plane up to the new versions.

-HJC

Lyle

March 28th 04, 05:45 PM

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.

Tarver Engineering

March 28th 04, 06:35 PM

"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)

Scott Ferrin

March 28th 04, 08:29 PM

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?

Scott Ferrin

March 28th 04, 08:35 PM

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.

Tarver Engineering

March 28th 04, 08:52 PM

"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

Tarver Engineering

March 28th 04, 08:55 PM

"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.

Scott Ferrin

March 29th 04, 01:26 AM

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?

Scott Ferrin

March 29th 04, 01:35 AM

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.

Paul F Austin

March 29th 04, 02:20 AM

"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.

Henry J Cobb

March 29th 04, 05:21 AM

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

EB Jet

March 29th 04, 05:59 AM

Tarver Engineering

March 29th 04, 06:20 AM

"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.

Tarver Engineering

March 29th 04, 06:21 AM

"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.

Tarver Engineering

March 29th 04, 06:27 AM

"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

March 29th 04, 06:48 AM

"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.

Tarver Engineering

March 29th 04, 06:57 AM

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.

Scott Ferrin

March 29th 04, 06:59 PM

>> 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.

Scott Ferrin

March 29th 04, 07:03 PM

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.

Tarver Engineering

March 29th 04, 07:05 PM

"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.

Tarver Engineering

March 29th 04, 07:07 PM

"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>

Scott Ferrin

March 29th 04, 07:07 PM

>> 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.

Tarver Engineering

March 29th 04, 07:21 PM

"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.

Scott Ferrin

March 29th 04, 10:10 PM

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?

Scott Ferrin

March 29th 04, 10:11 PM

>
><snip of unqualified opinion>

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

Tarver Engineering

March 29th 04, 10:11 PM

"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.

Tarver Engineering

March 29th 04, 10:15 PM

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> ><snip of unqualified opinion>
>
>
> Why don't you tell us what YOUR qualifications are specifically.

You first.

Scott Ferrin

March 30th 04, 01:08 AM

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.

Tarver Engineering

March 30th 04, 01:13 AM

"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.

Scott Ferrin

March 30th 04, 01:32 AM

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=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=h59nvv0kvohc2nc47femguht5psr3t3ohb%404ax.c om&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2B%2522couldn%27t%2Bfly%2522%2Bgroup :rec.aviation.military%2Bauthor:ferrin%26hl%3Den%2 6lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dh59nvv0kvohc2nc47femguht5psr3t3ohb%2540 4ax.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.

Paul F Austin

March 30th 04, 02:09 AM

"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.

Tarver Engineering

March 30th 04, 02:18 AM

"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)

Scott Ferrin

March 30th 04, 03:48 AM

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:13:21 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"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.
>

'bout what I thought. You must be about three foot five and suffer
from a terminal case of little-**** syndrom. You remind me of the
little kid in grade school who calls everybody names and then gets his
ass kicked on a regular basis. Come on Tarver, you tell everybody you
are an "expert" despite the kwality of your posts but you won't tell
us what you're an "expert" at. You can't even say you're an expert at
bull**** because your's never fools anybody.

Henry J Cobb

March 30th 04, 04:59 AM

Paul F Austin wrote:
> "Henry J Cobb" wrote
>>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.

I thought that the F/A-22 was planned to get a new antenna down the road
from the F-35 work in order to handle the "Super Weasel" mission?

Also wouldn't the F/A-22 software need to be completely replaced to run
on the new processors which aren't binary compatable with the i960s?

-HJC

Tarver Engineering

March 30th 04, 05:53 AM

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Paul F Austin wrote:
> > "Henry J Cobb" wrote
> >>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.
>
> I thought that the F/A-22 was planned to get a new antenna down the road
> from the F-35 work in order to handle the "Super Weasel" mission?
>
> Also wouldn't the F/A-22 software need to be completely replaced to run
> on the new processors which aren't binary compatable with the i960s?

What Paul wrote was the original plan, but of course you point out rather
obvious flaws.

Tarver Engineering

March 30th 04, 06:18 AM

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> 'bout what I thought.

You thought you'd run a pathetic troll?

Keith Willshaw

March 30th 04, 07:33 AM

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

>
> Also wouldn't the F/A-22 software need to be completely replaced to run
> on the new processors which aren't binary compatable with the i960s?
>

Only if the people who wrote it used assembler which seems unlikely.

Keith

Henry J Cobb

March 30th 04, 07:45 AM

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Also wouldn't the F/A-22 software need to be completely replaced to run
>>on the new processors which aren't binary compatable with the i960s?
>
> Only if the people who wrote it used assembler which seems unlikely.

http://www.f-22raptor.com/af_avionics.php
> The software that provides the avionics system's full functionality is
> composed of approximately 1.7 million lines of code. 90% of the
> software is written in Ada, the Department of Defense's common
> computer language. Exceptions to the Ada requirement are granted only
> for special processing or maintenance requirements.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avf22.html
> The Raptor is run by 2.5 million lines of software, with about 90% of
> it written in the Department of Defense's Ada language. Ada was not
> used for all the software because some functions required
> optimizations, and so waivers were granted.

So only around 10 percent is written in assembler?

-HJC

Scott Ferrin

March 30th 04, 04:06 PM

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:18:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 'bout what I thought.
>
>You thought you'd run a pathetic troll?
>

????

Looks like your "expertise" is as mythical as the strakes.

Tarver Engineering

March 30th 04, 04:40 PM

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:

>
> So only around 10 percent is written in assembler?

In the ralm of machine perception the source language doesn't matter WRT
timing as much as the processor. Suffice it to say that you are correct
Henry and our retired McDermitt rigger is as usual clueless. Willshaw is a
cut an paste troll and any other information he provides is generally
fatally flawed.

John Weiss

March 31st 04, 05:52 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> In the ralm of machine perception the source language doesn't matter WRT
> timing as much as the processor.

Hmmm... Try writing an app for the same processor in Assembler, C, and Java;
and maintaining the Assembler timing and efficiency with the others...

"In the r[e]alm of machine perception," a different processor often describes a
different machine; a new programming language usually does not.

Henry J Cobb

March 31st 04, 03:34 PM

John Weiss wrote:
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>>In the ralm of machine perception the source language doesn't matter WRT
>>timing as much as the processor.
>
> Hmmm... Try writing an app for the same processor in Assembler, C, and Java;
> and maintaining the Assembler timing and efficiency with the others...

The problem is "maintaining the Assembler timing and efficiency"
throughout a large Assembler program.

Humans as compilers are so slow and buggy that they're only used for a
tiny fraction of the program where they're really needed.

Go count the lines of Assembly in the Linux kernel and note how they're
used only to get the C program up and running and deal with hardware
details that cannot be expressed in C.

That they had to program 10 percent of the F/A-22 in Assembler gives me
pause as to how portable the rest of it might be.

-HJC

Tarver Engineering

March 31st 04, 04:08 PM

"John Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > In the ralm of machine perception the source language doesn't matter WRT
> > timing as much as the processor.
>
> Hmmm... Try writing an app for the same processor in Assembler, C, and
Java;
> and maintaining the Assembler timing and efficiency with the others...
>
> "In the r[e]alm of machine perception," a different processor often
describes a
> different machine; a new programming language usually does not.

Is any of the gibberish you wrote supposed to mean something?

Tarver Engineering

March 31st 04, 04:13 PM

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> John Weiss wrote:
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >>In the ralm of machine perception the source language doesn't matter WRT
> >>timing as much as the processor.
> >
> > Hmmm... Try writing an app for the same processor in Assembler, C, and
Java;
> > and maintaining the Assembler timing and efficiency with the others...
>
> The problem is "maintaining the Assembler timing and efficiency"
> throughout a large Assembler program.
>
> Humans as compilers are so slow and buggy that they're only used for a
> tiny fraction of the program where they're really needed.
>
> Go count the lines of Assembly in the Linux kernel and note how they're
> used only to get the C program up and running and deal with hardware
> details that cannot be expressed in C.
>
> That they had to program 10 percent of the F/A-22 in Assembler gives me
> pause as to how portable the rest of it might be.

None of that will matter if you use a different processor. In the case of
the F-22, it was discovered that the variation in timing between different
runs of the same part number Motorola processors have signifigant
differences in instruction cycle time. These differences in time were
addressed with "patches", but then the program lost tracability for the
processors and had to surplus the entire lot. Which brought the program
back to writing a big check to Intel so that they would guarantee i960
supplies.