Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: animal@isis.rice.edu (Carl Rosene)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Bat Plane Bux
Summary: I have a thesis to write
Message-ID: <13315@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 19 Jan 90 02:30:15 GMT
References: <12850@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12981@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13218@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 50
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: animal@isis.rice.edu (Carl Rosene)

You know, I hadn't realized that I'd said anything so *controversial*.
Since I am waiting for my thesis to print, I will reply...
In article <13218@cbnews.ATT.COM> cmr@cvedc.Prime.Com (Chesley Reyburn) writes:
>
>From: cmr@cvedc.Prime.Com (Chesley Reyburn)
>In article <12981@cbnews.ATT.COM> animal@isis.rice.edu (Carl Rosene) writes:
>>Sec. of Defense Cheney...
>>...indicated that the incremental cost ... is 300 million dollars.
>>...you) have already paid roughly 200 million per plane
>
>Wait a minute...
>
>Your assertions may work in Washington, but where I live all of the money
>spent on a project is charged against that project.
>
>If I spend $200 million designing and developing something I would
>expect to include that cost in the total project cost.
>
My comment concerning the quality of debate in Congress on whether to 
build the B2 was meant to highlight the fact that much of the money on
the B2 has already been spent. In debating whether to buy additional
aircraft I think the proper number to consider is the incremental cost
of each aircraft--regardless of the project cost. We have already spent
the rest of the money(at this point in the project). It is gone. I do not
think that it is completely honest to quote the price of a single
B2 as 500 million. We do not avoid spending 500 million dollars by buying one
less B2. This is true regardless of the accounting, or where the accounting
is done. Perhaps Mr. Reyburn and I could reach common ground by separating
the costs of buying the ability to build a B2 and the costs of building B2s.

Whether an additional B2 is worth 300 million is another question. Whether
we should ever have embarked on the project is still another. My comments do
not reflect on these questions at all. 

In my original posting I stated my belief that the B2 was the first military
prototype off the production line. Mr. Spencer stated that, in fact, most
prototypes actually come off a production line. I'll concede the point and
blame my mistake on the media. But, I believe he might agree that it has not
been common practice to put the production line at full production before
a flight test program can be completed. And I think Mr. Spencer
would agree that this has been done with the B2. Again, it indicates a
whole lot of confidence in a pretty complex piece of software. I am
not at all sure I would do it.

Carl Rosene
Rice University