Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Phil Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Expensive fighters
Message-ID: <1991Jun7.072341.8523@amd.com>
Date: 1 Jun 91 04:24:12 GMT
References: <1991May31.061422.13627@amd.com> <1991Jun1.012857.28133@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern LA, Lafayette
Lines: 25
Approved: military@amd.com


From: dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Phil Fraering)


stevenp@kodak.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) writes:
>   The numbers they quoted were that the 60 attack aircraft and 15 tankers
>cost $6.5 billion, as opposed to the F-117 strike grouping costing $1.5
>billion, and "only" $1.3 billion for two B-2s.

I wonder what the cost would be for real attack aircraft and not
converted supersonic dogfighters.

Do you think they could get the costs for doing it with A-10s with
Lantirn pods instead of Maverick missles for night guidance, and maybe
some 'stretched' A-7s as well?

Has anyone seen how the Air Force has been saying how much of a success
the F-16 is over the A-10 when the former gets the night vision pods
and navigating equipment, while the latter gets to use the camera on
the wing-mounted Maverick missles as a guidance system?

Has anyone here heard of 'self-fufilling prophecy?'

Phil Fraering
dlbres10@pc.usl.edu