Shuttle unit cost

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Ian Stirling wrote:
You'rr in the ballpark. I seem to recall the originals cost a billion and
the Endeavor came in at about $2B.

Anyone else find it kind of surprising that this is pretty close to what
a stealth fighter costs.

You're confusing stealth fighters and stealth bombers. The B-2 is indeed
up in the billion-dollar category, due to extreme technology and very
small production run. Fighters, even stealth ones, cost a lot less.

Apparently, the B-2 has about the same production costs
as the B-52 did. With the same production run it would
cost about the same per unit. Though there won't be the
same production run so the B-2 will cost more.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:56:10 +0000, Henry Spencer wrote:

You're confusing stealth fighters and stealth bombers. The B-2 is indeed
up in the billion-dollar category, due to extreme technology and very
small production run. Fighters, even stealth ones, cost a lot less.

Of course despite the designation, the F-117 is REALLY a bomber. as far as
I know it's got no air-to-air capability.

"Rick DeNatale" wrote in message
news
Of course despite the designation, the F-117 is REALLY a bomber. as far as
I know it's got no air-to-air capability.

Missiles. Doesn't it carry Sparrows or Phoenix?

In article ,
Rick DeNatale wrote:
You're confusing stealth fighters and stealth bombers...

Of course despite the designation, the F-117 is REALLY a bomber. as far as
I know it's got no air-to-air capability.

I expect you could fit it with Sidewinders if you really wanted to --
Sidewinders can clip onto almost anything. But that's hardly definitive,
for precisely that reason...

Multi-role aircraft do officially go under F. But even so, it's a bit of
a strain to fit this one in.

It really ought to go under either B or A. But the strategic-bomber mafia
has exclusive rights to B, and A is for inferior :-) aircraft -- either
Navy aircraft, or ones forced on the Air Force by interservice politics,
like the A-10 -- and couldn't possibly be used for the USAF's pride and
joy.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:10:49 -0500, Rick DeNatale
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:56:10 +0000, Henry Spencer wrote:

You're confusing stealth fighters and stealth bombers. The B-2 is indeed
up in the billion-dollar category, due to extreme technology and very
small production run. Fighters, even stealth ones, cost a lot less.

Of course despite the designation, the F-117 is REALLY a bomber. as far as
I know it's got no air-to-air capability.

Yeah, but it's a tactical, or strike, bomber, not a strategic bomber.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:41:36 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

"Rick DeNatale" wrote in message
news
Of course despite the designation, the F-117 is REALLY a bomber. as far as
I know it's got no air-to-air capability.

Missiles. Doesn't it carry Sparrows or Phoenix?

You know, a little Googling would save me having to explain that it
doesn't because it relies on its stealthiness to keep it safe. And
even if it did carry missiles, they'd probably be Sidewinders, not
Sparrows or Phoenix.

What's the sense of emitting radar when you're trying to be invisible?
Have you ever heard of EMCON, emissions control.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rick DeNatale wrote:
You're confusing stealth fighters and stealth bombers...

Of course despite the designation, the F-117 is REALLY a bomber. as far
as
I know it's got no air-to-air capability.

I expect you could fit it with Sidewinders if you really wanted to --
Sidewinders can clip onto almost anything. But that's hardly definitive,
for precisely that reason...

Multi-role aircraft do officially go under F. But even so, it's a bit of
a strain to fit this one in.

It really ought to go under either B or A. But the strategic-bomber mafia
has exclusive rights to B, and A is for inferior :-) aircraft -- either
Navy aircraft, or ones forced on the Air Force by interservice politics,
like the A-10 -- and couldn't possibly be used for the USAF's pride and
joy.

I've always been more bothered by the 117 designation in any case. :-)


--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
It really ought to go under either B or A. But the strategic-bomber mafia
has exclusive rights to B, and A is for inferior :-) aircraft -- either
Navy aircraft, or ones forced on the Air Force by interservice politics,
like the A-10 -- and couldn't possibly be used for the USAF's pride and
joy.

I've always been more bothered by the 117 designation in any case. :-)

Well, speculation has it that it was originally supposed to be the F-19.
There is a suspicious gap in the designation sequence there, at about the
right time.

As for the 117 part... Apparently, in a certain area of the Southwest,
there was an informal use of F designations beyond 111 for air-ground
radio traffic concerning test flying of ex-Soviet aircraft, to avoid
advertising exactly what was being flown. And the stealth fighter was
fitted into that to conceal *its* testing. Somehow that unofficial
designation ended up sticking.

(At least, that was the story last I checked. This isn't a topic I follow
regularly.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
You know, a little Googling would save me having to explain that it
doesn't because it relies on its stealthiness to keep it safe.

Y'know, after I sent it, I realized that I should have check it out first.

Momentarily afterwards, I remembered the radar...

I should have guessed Hellfire or Maverick, but better than guessing, I
should have looked it up first.
spank, spank

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
It really ought to go under either B or A. But the strategic-bomber
mafia
has exclusive rights to B, and A is for inferior :-) aircraft -- either
Navy aircraft, or ones forced on the Air Force by interservice
politics,
like the A-10 -- and couldn't possibly be used for the USAF's pride and
joy.

I've always been more bothered by the 117 designation in any case. :-)

Well, speculation has it that it was originally supposed to be the F-19.
There is a suspicious gap in the designation sequence there, at about the
right time.

Yeah, I know the story. Still don't like it. :-)

Of course the RS-71, err, I mean SR-71 was redesignated by a Presidential
mistake. ";-)



As for the 117 part... Apparently, in a certain area of the Southwest,
there was an informal use of F designations beyond 111 for air-ground
radio traffic concerning test flying of ex-Soviet aircraft, to avoid
advertising exactly what was being flown. And the stealth fighter was
fitted into that to conceal *its* testing. Somehow that unofficial
designation ended up sticking.

(At least, that was the story last I checked. This isn't a topic I follow
regularly.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |