"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:21:48 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:45:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:39:17 +0100, ess
(phil
hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, Harry Andreas

wrote:

Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF
with
the
F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the
F-22 to conclusion.

What's wrong with the F/A-18?

The context was that the F-22 program was badly flawed and the
Tarver
assertion was the the program should be cancelled and the USAF
supplied with F/A-18s.

The F/A-18E works very well.

There is nothing per se wrong with F/A-18, but for USAF, what can
the
Bug do that an F-15E, F-15C or F-16C can't do?

The F-15 option no longer exists, but I can see the F-16 getting a
bump.


What planet do you live on that the F-15 isn't an option? Care to
tell us WHY it is not an option?

Gephardt is retiring.



So? Does that mean the USAF is all of a sudden going to want to start
buying a derivative of a derivitive of the LOSER in the LWF
competition instead of a fighter with FAR higher performance (F-15)?

I expect that now that the F-15 option is off the table that some F-16
version is what USAF will select, in the event of an F-22 cancellation.
Keep in mind as you rant at me over the political facts, that 90% of all
your F-22 posts are now revealed as bull hockey, Ferrin.