How does R&D $$$ get assigned between F-22 and F-35?

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
news
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.