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?.


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,
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..





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.


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....


http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops...FA22Raptor.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...

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.

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:-

"Ogg is a member of the Senior Executive Service and director,
Engineering and Technical Management Directorate, Aeronautical Systems
Center (ASC), Air Force Materiel Command, Dayton, Ohio. He provides
overall management guidance for the development of systems engineering
programs for ASC with annual expenditures of more than $10 billion. He
ensures the proper allocation and expenditure of fiscal and personnel
resources and provides engineering tools to the program offices.

Ogg entered federal civil service as a project engineer with the
Flight Systems Directorate in 1975. He is recognized as the Air
Force's leading authority on integrity for programs propulsion and
power systems. He spent 15 years in propulsion and has been involved
with every phase of a system's life cycle on nearly all gas turbine
engines in the Air Force inventory. In addition, Ogg has provided
technical and programmatic support to many ASC weapon system programs,
including as chief engineer for the F-22 Program for nearly a decade.
He has led numerous reviews spanning acquisition strategies, request
for proposal preparation, independent cost estimates, technical risk
assignments, and flight certification. He helped pioneer the current"
integrated product process development and product team approach on
the F-22 program."

Thats whoever he is...

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk