"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:38:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
"They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.


The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
fighter business.

For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the F-22
cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the
Pentagon
can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.

Well it's official. The broompusher knows more than a fighter pilot
who worked on the ATF program and flew several hundred missions.
also smarter than Mary who works for NASA. All bow and hail the
broompusher Tarver.

Hmmm, Ed took the article as critical of the F-22 and now Ferrin attacks me
with the opposite conclusion. Perhaps Scott should suspend his posting,
until he has enough cognitive ability to understand that a fighter pilot and
a PE agreeing about an article pretty well blows out whatever Scot is
smoking.

Perhaps there will be some future turnaround for the F-22, but 2003 was not
the year.