"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message ink.net...
robert arndt wrote:
http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm


Why yes, POGO has been known to lie on ocasion.

Compared to Lockheed-Martin/Boeing and the USAF, that's nothing!

Not what I'd call a great
source.

It's not the source that I'm pointing to, just the subject matter
which makes a hell of a lot of good old common sense. We were promised
something that is a LIE and face it- it needs to be accepted at face
value.

And Colonel Riccioni is far from unbiased.

The Col. paints an accurate picture and is well respected.

Rob

p.s. IMO (which is well known concerning this program) the F-22 is no
Raptor, it's a huge money-pit that we taxpayers are forced to accept.
Some of us don't accept such obscene wastes of money lightly. Every
year I keep hoping the F-22 will get the budget axe.
As for the F-35 Griffin (the most popular name so far & rumored to be
the best candidate for official title), well that's OK. A true
multi-service aircraft with excellent export potential able to perform
a variety of missions and less expensive overall. The F-22 by
comparison is a single service dog that has had to be redefined from
dedicated air-superiority(F-22) to multirole(F/A-22) and now (with
more people questioning the wisdom of purchasing both the F-22 and
F-35) all sorts of proposals are coming in: naval F-22, dedicated
strike F-22, and ridiculous bomber FB-22.
Get rid of it, it's a piece of crap anyway. R&D is fine, Threat
Analysis is fine, but wasting taxpayers money on a $150-200 mil per
unit aircraft is insane.
Europe can produce a rival at $75 mil and Russia $50 mil.