"John Cook" wrote in message
...


You forgot your infamous, "Can't do ground attack as is" garbage.

I like the bit about the end user myself.... capability...
functionality.... can't be done on existing avionics architecture...
Sounds familier to me....

Cite please, where the evidence?.

USAF. Do your own Google.



Gee, he notes that the F-15 and F-16 faced the same kind of problems.
When I
pointed this out to you, you scoffed--but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he
is)
says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing
my
point.

Take a good look at who he is...its at the beginning,

At the beginning of what? Your last post provided no site info, just
launches int a "Mr. Ogg says..."

The difference is those systems have been fielded and used, the F-22
is still in development and test (and not doing too well at the mo) So
you now have an obsolete and flakey system, Hmm. spend money trying to
rectify it or hide the fact till the new system arrives..

You keep coming up with the "obsolete" kitsch. Anybody else out there (or at
least anyone with *some* kind of credibility) claiming the F/A-22 is
"obsolete"?


Nope again. Cost is a major concern, which is why the choice of the right
number of aircraft to procure is critical. Reliability is a key
concern--but
then again, reliability during the initial fielding phase is usually none
too great--witness the F-15 when it was first fielded. Where do you
purchase
your blinders--over the counter, or are they specially fitted?


Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
that just can't be feilded in its present form.

Which is your claim. Apparently the USAF does not share your view, as they
are fielding the F/A-22--the first ones have already gone to the folks at
Tyndall. Odd how that system that "can't be fielded"...is being fielded. And
even non-USAF senior leaders support the program: "The F/A-22 Raptor will
deliver quantum air power improvements with great relevance in the Pacific
theater. Combining stealth, high speed, and precision weaponry, Raptor will
buy back battlespace and increase warfighting options for the joint force
commander. We need your support to fund and field this aircraft." ADM Thomas
Fargo, USPACOM, speech before HASC, March 31, 2004. Seems he thinks this
"obsolete" system is pretty neat and valuable--but you know more than he
does, right?



The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

Talk to the USAF; they are the ones saying it is indeed capable of
carrying
it. Not that this would be much of a surprise. And unlike you, I
understand
that the mating of JDAMS with a stealthy penetration platform like the
F/A-22 means increased lethality and increased survivability, not to
mention
versatility--kind of hard to have the F-117 switch from a pure strike
role
to taking out an air-to-air threat that pops up unexpectedly.

They state its going to be one of its weapons, I couldn't find a
reference that it had been cleared, I only found that dummies had
been dropped, and the weapons bay had been enlarged to accomodate
them...

Perhaps you can find something....

"In addition, the F/A-22 has inherent ground attack capability, as it can
carry two 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions (JDAM)
internally. The F/A-22 will also have provisions to carry other weapons in
the future." You'll note the difference in how they address *current* versus
future capabilities.

www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ combat_air/f-22/weapons.html

Or, as the USAF puts it: "Two AIM-9 Sidewinders; six AIM-120C Advanced
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one 20mm Gatling gun; and two,
1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)."

www.af.mil/airpower/features.asp




http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops...Handel_FA22Rap
tor.pdf

Page eleven- 2.1 for the airframe 3.1 for the engines.

This gives an overall score to the airframe development ie 1 lowest
to 5 highest.

Did you bother to read the entire slideshow, and what it is aimed at
accomplishing? Geeze, talk about taking things out of context... This is
NOT
a rating of the aircraft itself, but of the development *approach* and
methodology. Think of it as internal critical analysis--a good thing, by
the
way.

Exactly right, the development approach!, did you note the score, or
what that score actually meant?

I tell you... 2.1 for the airframe equates to :-

2 = General awareness, informal approach deployed in a few areas with
varying degrees of effectiveness and sustainment

3 = a systematic approach/methology deployed in various stages in
most areas: facilitated with good metrics; good sustainment.

You'll need level 4 to make real progress, or level 3 to get by...

No, you don't; stop trying to read stuff into it that is just not there. It
is an internal review of how they think they *are* doing (at present; note
the different "past" results), and how they can improve. You are
*******izing it to suit your own narrow-minded view.


The engine has actually slipped from 3.2 in 2002 to 3.1 in 2003.

but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he is)
says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing
my
point.

Rember were talking about two seperate things in service aircraft that
have grown obsolete and in development aircraft that shouldn't be in
the pickle there in right now.

And thanks again for mentioning that most aircraft development programs have
experienced similar development problems.


BTW Mr Ogg was chief engineer for the F-22 Program for nearly a decade
and now a director in the ASC, bio as follows:-

snip *fascinating* bio sketch, but...

Wonderful. Note he does not claim that the F/A-22 is "obsolete", nor does he
indicate it is incapable of ground attack operations, as you have done. So
your point would be...?

You really need to get off of your "Typhoon is wonderful in all regards, and
all US advanced aircraft are trash" kick; it is getting monotonous, and as
we have seen, you neither fully comprehend what these aircraft are capable
of ("What?! The F/A-22 *can* conduct precision attacks against ground
targets?! With JDAM?! Well, that *really* doesn't mean anything..."), nor
the nature of the normal development hurdles that modern aircraft have to
negotiate. You continue to bury your head in the sand when it is pointed out
to you that other past programs, now very successful indeed, have
demonstrated similar early fielding challenges. And to top it all off, you
have now told us that we "can't" field an aircraft...that is being fielded
even as you compose your next biased attack.

Brooks


Cheers
John Cook