[RFEngineer]

"Apparently those on congress that cut and cut the numbers and then fuss about how much it costs per jet have no clue about nonrecurring costs."

I agree that it would certainly lower the unit cost, but to get to the lower unit cost we'd have to spend a LOT more money.....It's kind of like this.... have you ever had your wife come back from the mall and immediately tell you how much she "saved"? If so, did you start worrying?

I think the F-22 is like this, unfortunately. It's good, but it's not good enough to justify the cost of a "big" 500+ unit buy. They are going to be silver bullets, like the F-117/B-2, because we can't afford anything more.

For those that want to kill the program - they will use the unit cost with NRC factored in, for those that want a big buy, they'll use the incremental cost of the next aircraft, ignoring the NRC.

[Gunrunner2]

Actually, due to program acquisition processes, the cost of the program actually ROSE after it was cut a number of times.

The cost-per-unit issue is just that---cost per unit and I've had enough of the uninformed harping on the cost-per-unit when it is much more than that. You have to understand that even a single May-Tag washer would cost a million bucks if it was a completely new design and had to have new tooling, composites, electrical boards, etcc, and manufacturing. . .and only a few were made. The cost-per-unit, driven by the nonrecurring R&D would make it a million bucks for a dozen or so.

This is way more complicated that most people understand.

Change the law, don't fuss about the results of the law as the cost per-unit is a non-issue and non-starter.

>>It's good, but it's not good enough to justify the cost of a "big" 500+ unit buy.<<

We disagree.

>> They are going to be silver bullets, like the F-117/B-2, because we can't afford anything more. <<

Hardly. The F-22 will be operational and replace front-line aircraft.

Enough of this thread.

Have a nice day.

Buh-bye.