"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

"Fighter Mafia" is generally associated with the group that promoted
the Light Weight Fighter back in the day. As far as the F-22 being
pork, it's only pork if it's the *politicians* fighting for the
program against the will of the services. Well I guess that could
be
"pure pork" vs different degrees but so far I've not seen anywhere
where the USAF has said they DIDN'T want the F-22.

The F-22 defines the careers of many senior grade officers in the
USAF.
It
doesn't get much more political than that. The F-22 became Georgia
pork
when a certain California congressman tried to cancel it in '98. When
Newt
was first out it was actually possible to end the mysery.

There are going to be politicians out there who are going to fight the
cancelation of ANY weapon system because it's being built in their
domain.

Non-sequitur.

The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel"
is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be so
they keep those jobs and get those votes.

All aviation is politics.

Because you say so?

Aviation is too much money to be anything but politics. From the choosing
of a vender all the way to operational missions, the aircraft is politics
driven. In the civilian world, every 747 crossing the Pacific is politics,
every Country allowing small GA is doing so for ploitical reasons.

There are quite a few that
fit that description (V-22) but when it's the people who will be using
it who are clamoring for it it isn't "pork barrel". There is more to
the definition of "pork barrel" than simply "not loved by all". The
simplest test is who wants to buy it and who wants to cancel it.

I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand
you
being confused.

I have to go by whether the end user thinks it works or not. Not by
the opinion of a wannabe.

I hadn't really elevated you to the level of wannabe, Scott; but a little
self deprecation is a good sign on your part.

If
the politicians had forced the Sgt. York on the Army that could be
called pork pure and simple. The USAF doing everything in their power
to buy as many F-15s as they could was not pork even though the
politicians would have preferred more cheap F-16s and fewer F-15s.

Dude, the F-15 was built in Gephardt's District; pure pork. It is the
same
as when Newt did it.

You could claim that no matter *where* it was built because it was
bound to be built in *somebody's* disctrict. The fact is you don't
know what the term "pork barrel politics" means plain and simple.

Pork barrel politics means reelection and perhaps a speakership.

The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep.

Define good?

Good as is better than what it replaced. Good as in cost effective.
How do you define good? Whether you like the paint job or not?

I'd say the new engines are a disapointment without the new wing and the
derating provides little bang for the buck. The warbird eliminates a crew
member, which is at best a questionable tactic. The incompatability with
the fleet adds to the question of why anyone would replace their already
good C-130H.

Did the Air Force want it? Nope.

The C-130J was a risk management driven design based on the possibility
of a
failed C-17 program.

The USAF didn't want it. Period.

What you want and what you get are sometimes different things.

Which part of that don't you understand? The C-17 is an obvious success
yet the USAF was still forced by politics to buy the J.

There was no obvious success when the C-17's wing broke well below
specification, exactly as predicted by the Nyquist shake.