Question about the F-22 and it's radar.

"John Cook" wrote in message
...

The whole avionics suite of the F-22 is now obsolete, and will cost
another $3.5 Billion to 'upgrade' thats the cut from the $11.7
Billion
thats been bandied about.

Do you have anything to support that contention? There is a bit of a
difference between wanting to improve the computers during the spiral
development process and claiming that the "whole avionics suite is
*obsolete*", isn't there?

I quote the GAO-04-597T report directly

"The basic mission of the F/A-22, initially focused on air-to-air
dominance,has changed to include a significantly greater emphasis on
attacking ground targets. To accomplish this expanded mission, the
Air Force will need additional investments to develop and expand
air-to-ground attack capabilities for the F/A-22. Moreover, the
efforts to expand its capability will also add risks to an already
challenged program. To accommodate planned changes will also require a
new computer architecture and processor to replace the current less
capable ones."

There is where you go wrong--accepting the GAO report at face value. Don't
you know they have a well known reputation for shading things in the
direction they want, or just plain ol' incompetency in some cases? What they
are describing is the spiral development program that the USAF has already
articulated--nothing new about it, and nothing shocking.



Now thats hardly ambiguous is it.....

Well, either it is being ambiguous, as the USAF has decidedly stated that
the F/A-22 is already capable of conducting ground attack missions, or you
are slanting it to your purposes. IIRC this is the same GAO report that ol'
Henry used when he began trumpeting the $11 billion claim--until it was
pointed out to him that the small print explained that cost was for a whole
range of spiral developments, from air-to-air, to ISR, to *improving*
(note--NOT *creating*) its ground attack capabilities, etc.




Let's see, 155 out of a possible total buy of some 269 aircraft, or a
more
likely buy of 200-220, would seem to indicate that the first few *years*
of
production are covered. Nor has it been conclusively demonstrated that
these
processors are incapable of handling the aircraft's air-to-ground strike
needs during it's initial gestation; more in the form of not being able
to
handle the *ultimate* (post spiral) capability that is envisioned.


Conclusivly demonstrated!!!!, it can't demonstrate stability yet

Uhmm..you missed the USAF statement that it can indeed carry and deliver
JDAM's? What, you think JDAM is some kind of air-to-air weapon?! And that is
with the current processors--I believe Harry Andreas has already addressed
that particular issue much better than I can...and oddly, you don't seem to
have replied to his comments...


The Glabal Strike Ehanced program is slated to start in 2011, thats
when the Raptors system architecture is officially obsolete,

Uh, what?! "Officially obsolete"? And where do you come up with *that*
little factoid? never heard of any US program going forward with an already
"officially" established date of obsolescence...

the
Global strike Basic is due (with current cpu architecture + systems)
in 2007(read end of development cycle for the old stuff), one might
well ask is 2007 too ambitious for a system that still a tiny bit
'buggy', Thats four years of use from your 'its not obsolete its
proccessor challenge' system. providing its reliable enough to pass
the review.....

I quote again the GAO-04-597T report directly

You just never learn, do you? GAO does not equal either competence or
accuracy in terms of military developments, organizations, etc.



"The stability and performance of F/A-22 avionics has been a major
problem causing delays in the completion of developmental testing and
the start of IOT&E. Because the F/A-22 avionics encountered frequent
shutdowns over the last few years, many test flights were delayed. As
a result, the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center wanted
assurances that the avionics would work before it was willing to start
the IOT&E program. It established a requirement for a 20-hour
performance metric that was to be demonstrated before IOT&E would
begin. This metric was subsequently changed to a 5-hour metric that
included additional types of failures, and it became the Defense
Acquisition Board's criterion to start IOT&E. In turn, Congress
included the new metric, known as Mean Time Between Avionics Anomaly
or MTBAA, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004.5 As of January 2004, the Air Force had not been able to
demonstrate that the avionics could meet either of these criteria.
Testing as of January 2004 showed the program had achieved 2.7 hours-
54 percent of the 5-hour stability requirement to begin IOT&E. While
the Air Force has not been able to meet the new criteria, major
failures, resulting in a complete shutdown of the avionics system,
have significantly diminished. These failures are occurring only about
once every 25 hours on average. This is the result of a substantial
effort on the part of the Air Force and the contractor to identify and
fix problems that led to the instability in the F/A-22 avionics
software. However, less serious failures are still occurring
frequently."

You know, this reminds me a bit of the early MBTF problems with the F-15, in
particular its radar IIRC. What all of this says is that we have a new
system with typical new system teething problems. Thank goodness neither you
nor the GAO were making the decisions at that time--we'd still be trying to
keep F-4E's in the air, no doubt, as y'all would have undoubtedly cancelled
that obviously deficient F-15 program...




Now the Raptor can't run the software to do its air to ground mission
for the same reasons what would you call it?. "processor
challenged???"

"Can't run the software" to do the air-to-ground mission? Odd, as the
USAF
claims that at present, "The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface
capability." It can already lug a couple of JDAM's. So how does that even
*require* an optimized ground mapping radar to allow it to strike ground
targets with significant precision?


Dropping a couple of JDAMS whohooooo!!!,
Cutting edge that... well worth the money of investing in a system
thats equivelent of a couple of cray supercomputers.

All of that computing power helps it get to the target area so it can drop
those "whohooo" JDAM's. And last i heard the JDAM was judged a particularly
accurate and lethal munition. Now, I do believe you were crowing that the
F/A-22 is incapable of performing the ground attack mission? How do you like
your crow, rare or well done?


one wonders what there using that processing power for?. must be a
very nice graphical interface....


what the USAF have stated they want is, but cant have because of the
limitations of the system are :-

2011
Improved radar
capabilities to seek and destroy advanced surface-to-air missile
systems and integrate additional air-to-ground
weapons.

2013
Increased capability to suppress or
destroy the full range of air defenses and improve speed and
accuracy of targeting.

2015
Capability for full intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
integration for increased target sets and lethality.

Gee, can't have any of that, huh? And why not?



Out of curiousity, why do you have this visceral hatred of the F/A-22?
Does
it perhaps stem from the fact that you know your own nation can never
afford
it, or what?

I don't hate it, I just think its not worth the money, if it had been
half the price and worked as advertised I would be impressed.
As it is the price is $150M and development is not mature, production
has started, How would you describe the F-22 process?.

LOL! By your definition, no aircraft would ever enter service, as
"development is not mature". I guess you have kind of missed out on the
*continuing* development of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, huh? I'd describe
it
as about par for the course, especially when viewed against
contemporaries
like the Typhoon and Raptor,

Difference is they have demonstrated their requirements and have been
accepted, now they are in production.

Have they now? rafale was in production while its ground attack capability
was in the pure ghostware stage--which is why the French Navy went to sea
with them being capable *only* of performing air-to-air missions. The RAF
wants to retune the Typhoon to perform in the multi-role strike manner
before they had originally planned--meaing that their aircraft were not
optimized for that mission when Typhoon went into production. Sounds a bit
like the F/A-22, doesn't it?


compare the F-22 which is in production and hasn't demonstrated it

You don't think it has successfully dropped a JDAM?


Do you see the difference?.

I'll ask you again How would you describe they F-22 process??

Like most current advanced aircraft projects--that you still can't see that
is hardly surprising, given your obvious bias and reliance upon the *GAO* as
your primary source.


If 10 is a perfect development program, and 1 is an utter fiasco that
results in over priced, marginalised product thats ripe to be
cancelled, whats the Raptors score?

which are also entering service while
development continues. You really need to get your head out of the WWII
era
in terms of fighter development--heck, even before that, as we saw with
how
both the P-47 and P-51 gestated (recall the original P-51's were
purchased
and produced with less-than-optimal engines, to boot).


Its not a model that every industry is adopting is it.

Looks an awful lot like the same model the Europeans are using, based
upon
where they are with Rafale and Typhoon.

Yes the Typhoons processors are old, but they work as advertised now
and are in production - tranche 2 models are being negotiated with
the updated systems included, as per the original plans, with a
federated architecture its relatively simple in comparison.


I do not doubt that Australia can't afford it, however its looking
increasing likely that the US may join us in that.

I think you can probably count on seeing that "Silver Bullet" force enter
into service...

You might be right, it may go into service, and if reports are to be
beleived - despite the cost, despite the reliability problems, despite
the obsolete architecture, the only credable justification is avoiding
an embarrising procurement fiasco, 200 odd hanger queens.....
astounding...

Yes, it is amazing--you, Cobb, and Tarver are the only ones gifted enough to
realize what a true dog it is, huh? All of those blue-suited folks being too
darned dumb to figure it out, right?

Again, thank goodness you are not in the decisionmaking chain.

Brooks



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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"John Cook" wrote in message
...

snip


You might be right, it may go into service, and if reports are to be
beleived - despite the cost, despite the reliability problems, despite
the obsolete architecture, the only credable justification is avoiding
an embarrising procurement fiasco, 200 odd hanger queens.....
astounding...

Yes, it is amazing--you, Cobb, and Tarver are the only ones gifted enough
to
realize what a true dog it is, huh? All of those blue-suited folks being
too
darned dumb to figure it out, right?

Oops--spoke too soon; looks like you can add Denyav to your rabidly
anti-F/A-22 cohort! My, what a fine, reputable group you have there... :-)

Brooks


Again, thank goodness you are not in the decisionmaking chain.

Brooks



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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


Oops--spoke too soon; looks like you can add Denyav to your rabidly
anti-F/A-22 cohort! My, what a fine, reputable group you have there... :-)

I was on my own here at ram in '98, but now GAO says I was always correct.

We must now all bow to the Kevin Brooks troll.

Fifty B-2s that never were ...

Kevin,

Ye doth protesteth too much...

F-22 is not a 'dog.' But its clear that absent SIGNIFICANT upgrades to its
avionics suite it will have nowhere near the AG capability of the F35.
That's why the USAF is spending the money, and for their efforts, they
should get a nice capability to go with the signature, speed and other
attributes possesed by the airframe.

Remember, that's a capital 'B' behind that $ sign. These are not trivial
amounts. You remember that line -- a billion here, a billion there, before
you know it we're talking real money...


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"John Cook" wrote in message
...

snip


You might be right, it may go into service, and if reports are to be
beleived - despite the cost, despite the reliability problems, despite
the obsolete architecture, the only credable justification is avoiding
an embarrising procurement fiasco, 200 odd hanger queens.....
astounding...

Yes, it is amazing--you, Cobb, and Tarver are the only ones gifted
enough
to
realize what a true dog it is, huh? All of those blue-suited folks being
too
darned dumb to figure it out, right?

Oops--spoke too soon; looks like you can add Denyav to your rabidly
anti-F/A-22 cohort! My, what a fine, reputable group you have there... :-)

Brooks


Again, thank goodness you are not in the decisionmaking chain.

Brooks



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

"Frijoles" wrote in message
ink.net...
Kevin,

Ye doth protesteth too much...

F-22 is not a 'dog.' But its clear that absent SIGNIFICANT upgrades to
its
avionics suite it will have nowhere near the AG capability of the F35.
That's why the USAF is spending the money, and for their efforts, they
should get a nice capability to go with the signature, speed and other
attributes possesed by the airframe.

Actually, any protestations "too much" are due to trying to correct the
ridiculous assertion that it has *no* air to ground capability as is. I
understand fully that the optimization of that capability requires
money--which is why there is a spiral development plan in place. Recently in
this NG we have seen folks try to claim the $11 billion estimate was solely
directed at turning the F/A-22 into a strike platform; not the case, as it
also includes air-to-air upgrades, ISR upgrade, etc. IMO, the F/A-22 does
indeed have its share of problems, chief among them being the change in the
nature of the threat it was originally intended to counter; I went on record
supporting a 180 aircraft buy before that number even became fashionable in
the DoD rumor mill. Currently I'd support a 200-220 number. Nobody has (with
any factual basis) accused me of being a rabid supporter of the program--but
I don't think there is any point in making up negative points about it
either, which is largely what we have been seeing of late.

Brooks

snip

Kevin Brooks wrote:
Actually, any protestations "too much" are due to trying to correct the
ridiculous assertion that it has *no* air to ground capability as is. I
understand fully that the optimization of that capability requires
money--which is why there is a spiral development plan in place. Recently in
this NG we have seen folks try to claim the $11 billion estimate was solely
directed at turning the F/A-22 into a strike platform; not the case, as it
also includes air-to-air upgrades, ISR upgrade, etc. IMO, the F/A-22 does
indeed have its share of problems, chief among them being the change in the
nature of the threat it was originally intended to counter; I went on record
supporting a 180 aircraft buy before that number even became fashionable in
the DoD rumor mill. Currently I'd support a 200-220 number. Nobody has (with
any factual basis) accused me of being a rabid supporter of the program--but
I don't think there is any point in making up negative points about it
either, which is largely what we have been seeing of late.

So let's make lemonade here.

Give the F/A-22 as close to the same sensors, computers and software as
the F-35 as possible so that not only is the JSF kickstarted but also
the F/A-22 will have an upgrade path in the future as improvements are
made to the JSF.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Actually, any protestations "too much" are due to trying to correct the
ridiculous assertion that it has *no* air to ground capability as is. I
understand fully that the optimization of that capability requires
money--which is why there is a spiral development plan in place.
Recently in
this NG we have seen folks try to claim the $11 billion estimate was
solely
directed at turning the F/A-22 into a strike platform; not the case, as
it
also includes air-to-air upgrades, ISR upgrade, etc. IMO, the F/A-22
does
indeed have its share of problems, chief among them being the change in
the
nature of the threat it was originally intended to counter; I went on
record
supporting a 180 aircraft buy before that number even became fashionable
in
the DoD rumor mill. Currently I'd support a 200-220 number. Nobody has
(with
any factual basis) accused me of being a rabid supporter of the
program--but
I don't think there is any point in making up negative points about it
either, which is largely what we have been seeing of late.

So let's make lemonade here.

Give the F/A-22 as close to the same sensors, computers and software as
the F-35 as possible so that not only is the JSF kickstarted but also
the F/A-22 will have an upgrade path in the future as improvements are
made to the JSF.

Yah, and just restart the development prgram for the F/A-22 all over again
while you are at it, too, huh? I don't think so.

Brooks


-HJC

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Actually, any protestations "too much" are due to trying to correct
the
ridiculous assertion that it has *no* air to ground capability as is.
I
understand fully that the optimization of that capability requires
money--which is why there is a spiral development plan in place.
Recently in
this NG we have seen folks try to claim the $11 billion estimate was
solely
directed at turning the F/A-22 into a strike platform; not the case,
as
it
also includes air-to-air upgrades, ISR upgrade, etc. IMO, the F/A-22
does
indeed have its share of problems, chief among them being the change
in
the
nature of the threat it was originally intended to counter; I went on
record
supporting a 180 aircraft buy before that number even became
fashionable
in
the DoD rumor mill. Currently I'd support a 200-220 number. Nobody has
(with
any factual basis) accused me of being a rabid supporter of the
program--but
I don't think there is any point in making up negative points about it
either, which is largely what we have been seeing of late.

So let's make lemonade here.

Give the F/A-22 as close to the same sensors, computers and software as
the F-35 as possible so that not only is the JSF kickstarted but also
the F/A-22 will have an upgrade path in the future as improvements are
made to the JSF.

Yah, and just restart the development prgram for the F/A-22 all over again
while you are at it, too, huh? I don't think so.

Although F-35 hardware may be rolled into F-22 production as a block change
later. F-35 benefits from F-22 development and vice versa.

There is where you go wrong--accepting the GAO report at face value. Don't
you know they have a well known reputation for shading things in the
direction they want, or just plain ol' incompetency in some cases? What they
are describing is the spiral development program that the USAF has already
articulated--nothing new about it, and nothing shocking.

OK don't like the GAO? ..... fine! How about Lockheed or the
USAF who have a IPT team to find the obsolete items, and find Form Fit
and Function replacements using 'commercial products' where they can
(Note the COTS reference).

General Musala lamented in 1998 that non of the 339 F-22 will be
built the same because at least 500 parts are already obsolete!!!
(As quoted in 1998!! use your imagination in regard to that number
today, Oh thats right! in your world its probabley been dealt with
already and only minor issues remain like coffee cup holders etc. )







Let's see, 155 out of a possible total buy of some 269 aircraft, or a
more
likely buy of 200-220, would seem to indicate that the first few *years*
of
production are covered. Nor has it been conclusively demonstrated that
these
processors are incapable of handling the aircraft's air-to-ground strike
needs during it's initial gestation; more in the form of not being able
to
handle the *ultimate* (post spiral) capability that is envisioned.


Conclusivly demonstrated!!!!, it can't demonstrate stability yet

Uhmm..you missed the USAF statement that it can indeed carry and deliver
JDAM's? What, you think JDAM is some kind of air-to-air weapon?! And that is
with the current processors--I believe Harry Andreas has already addressed
that particular issue much better than I can...and oddly, you don't seem to
have replied to his comments...

Its all very well that it can drop a couple of JDAMs around a target
area, but it does need to have a running system to perform this
rudimentary function, something which is not happening at present.

You are sytil avoiding the question of how you rate the F-22
development? well whats it to be..... paragon of industrial/military
cooperation or balls up......

how would you describe it....?
..







The Glabal Strike Ehanced program is slated to start in 2011, thats
when the Raptors system architecture is officially obsolete,

Uh, what?! "Officially obsolete"? And where do you come up with *that*
little factoid? never heard of any US program going forward with an already
"officially" established date of obsolescence...

The current processors can't handle the workload, they need to be
replaced before the F/A-22 can do the job, from the data supplied by
the USAF they expect it to be able to 'do the Job' from 2011.

what would you call a system that can't do the job, come on its an
easy question!!




I quote again the GAO-04-597T report directly

You just never learn, do you? GAO does not equal either competence or
accuracy in terms of military developments, organizations, etc.

At least there getting their figures from the team thats testing the
F-22, where are you getting your figures from?.

What figures are you putting into this debate, whats your assesment of
MTBAA??, Go on I'm interested.



"The stability and performance of F/A-22 avionics has been a major
problem causing delays in the completion of developmental testing and
the start of IOT&E. Because the F/A-22 avionics encountered frequent
shutdowns over the last few years, many test flights were delayed. As
a result, the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center wanted
assurances that the avionics would work before it was willing to start
the IOT&E program. It established a requirement for a 20-hour
performance metric that was to be demonstrated before IOT&E would
begin. This metric was subsequently changed to a 5-hour metric that
included additional types of failures, and it became the Defense
Acquisition Board's criterion to start IOT&E. In turn, Congress
included the new metric, known as Mean Time Between Avionics Anomaly
or MTBAA, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004.5 As of January 2004, the Air Force had not been able to
demonstrate that the avionics could meet either of these criteria.
Testing as of January 2004 showed the program had achieved 2.7 hours-
54 percent of the 5-hour stability requirement to begin IOT&E. While
the Air Force has not been able to meet the new criteria, major
failures, resulting in a complete shutdown of the avionics system,
have significantly diminished. These failures are occurring only about
once every 25 hours on average. This is the result of a substantial
effort on the part of the Air Force and the contractor to identify and
fix problems that led to the instability in the F/A-22 avionics
software. However, less serious failures are still occurring
frequently."


snip

claims that at present, "The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface
capability." It can already lug a couple of JDAM's. So how does that even
*require* an optimized ground mapping radar to allow it to strike ground
targets with significant precision?


Dropping a couple of JDAMS whohooooo!!!,
Cutting edge that... well worth the money of investing in a system
thats equivelent of a couple of cray supercomputers.

All of that computing power helps it get to the target area so it can drop
those "whohooo" JDAM's. And last i heard the JDAM was judged a particularly
accurate and lethal munition. Now, I do believe you were crowing that the
F/A-22 is incapable of performing the ground attack mission? How do you like
your crow, rare or well done?

Listen Matey don't put words in my mouth, the F-22 can drop JDAM's, it
can also strafe the ground with its cannon, But a ground attack
aircraft it ain't, and won't be until an upgrade to the avionics
occurs.

My point is the super duper cray like performance that has be repeated
touted can't hack a AtoG mission, don't you see anything wrong with
this??? why 11.7 billion what that for then? if everythings fine and
dandy why would you want to spend 11.7 billion on a perfectly capable
AtoG aircraft.


one wonders what there using that processing power for?. must be a
very nice graphical interface....


what the USAF have stated they want is, but cant have because of the
limitations of the system are :-

2011
Improved radar
capabilities to seek and destroy advanced surface-to-air missile
systems and integrate additional air-to-ground
weapons.

2013
Increased capability to suppress or
destroy the full range of air defenses and improve speed and
accuracy of targeting.

2015
Capability for full intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
integration for increased target sets and lethality.

Gee, can't have any of that, huh? And why not?

Because it would cost 11.7 billion to get it, If they pay they get it.
(or at least some of it, I'm not that confident of their cost
projections. Are you?.)



I don't hate it, I just think its not worth the money, if it had been
half the price and worked as advertised I would be impressed.
As it is the price is $150M and development is not mature, production
has started, How would you describe the F-22 process?.

LOL! By your definition, no aircraft would ever enter service, as
"development is not mature". I guess you have kind of missed out on the
*continuing* development of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, huh? I'd describe
it
as about par for the course, especially when viewed against
contemporaries
like the Typhoon and Raptor,

Difference is they have demonstrated their requirements and have been
accepted, now they are in production.

Have they now? rafale was in production while its ground attack capability
was in the pure ghostware stage--which is why the French Navy went to sea
with them being capable *only* of performing air-to-air missions. The RAF
wants to retune the Typhoon to perform in the multi-role strike manner
before they had originally planned--meaing that their aircraft were not
optimized for that mission when Typhoon went into production. Sounds a bit
like the F/A-22, doesn't it?

Planned being the operative word here, they planned to have an Ato G
capability for a number of years, they developed the systems as per
that plan, and produced them.

The fact that they can pull forward the requirements to an earlier
date seems to prove the systems are capable of doing the job,
Actually _Doing_the_Job_ and not - 'give us 11.7 billion and we will
see what we can do'..

I'll ask you again How would you describe they F-22 process??

Like most current advanced aircraft projects--that you still can't see that
is hardly surprising, given your obvious bias and reliance upon the *GAO* as
your primary source.


If 10 is a perfect development program, and 1 is an utter fiasco that
results in over priced, marginalised product thats ripe to be
cancelled, whats the Raptors score?

Your evading the question!!!, whats its score?.



Yes, it is amazing--you, Cobb, and Tarver are the only ones gifted enough to
realize what a true dog it is, huh? All of those blue-suited folks being too
darned dumb to figure it out, right?

Some of those blue suited folks are questioning its utility, stop
trying to evade the real question by comparing my opinion to others,
Is the F-22 program value for money? and if you think it is (why
bother to ask I thinks to myself) at what point in your mind does it
become too expensive to field?. dollar values are fine by me!.

Again, thank goodness you are not in the decisionmaking chain.

From your view point I can see why you said that, but that doesnt mean
your view point is correct.

The F-22 program is in trouble, the system is very very expensive,
the system has been so long in development that the ambitious system
it pioneered have become obsolete, the program needs addition funds
and also input from the JSF program to make it more reliable and
update its avionics.

I could equally say the Nimrod AEW project would have been the best in
the world if only the Software would run and the equipment had of
worked, But then again I know that having the software run and the
equipment work is the 'project'.......

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

"John Cook" wrote in message
...


There is where you go wrong--accepting the GAO report at face value.
Don't
you know they have a well known reputation for shading things in the
direction they want, or just plain ol' incompetency in some cases? What
they
are describing is the spiral development program that the USAF has
already
articulated--nothing new about it, and nothing shocking.

OK don't like the GAO? ..... fine! How about Lockheed or the
USAF who have a IPT team to find the obsolete items, and find Form Fit
and Function replacements using 'commercial products' where they can
(Note the COTS reference).

COTS is no longer optional, as it is the only game in town. Any reference
to mil-spec components is a reference to an obsolete basis.