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

"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.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"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.

God bless BAE Systems.