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

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

"John Cook" wrote in message
...


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?.

USAF. Do your own Google.



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,

At the beginning of what? Your last post provided no site info, just
launches int a "Mr. Ogg says..."

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..

You keep coming up with the "obsolete" kitsch. Anybody else out there (or at
least anyone with *some* kind of credibility) claiming the F/A-22 is
"obsolete"?


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.

Which is your claim. Apparently the USAF does not share your view, as they
are fielding the F/A-22--the first ones have already gone to the folks at
Tyndall. Odd how that system that "can't be fielded"...is being fielded. And
even non-USAF senior leaders support the program: "The F/A-22 Raptor will
deliver quantum air power improvements with great relevance in the Pacific
theater. Combining stealth, high speed, and precision weaponry, Raptor will
buy back battlespace and increase warfighting options for the joint force
commander. We need your support to fund and field this aircraft." ADM Thomas
Fargo, USPACOM, speech before HASC, March 31, 2004. Seems he thinks this
"obsolete" system is pretty neat and valuable--but you know more than he
does, right?



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....

"In addition, the F/A-22 has inherent ground attack capability, as it can
carry two 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions (JDAM)
internally. The F/A-22 will also have provisions to carry other weapons in
the future." You'll note the difference in how they address *current* versus
future capabilities.

www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ combat_air/f-22/weapons.html

Or, as the USAF puts it: "Two AIM-9 Sidewinders; six AIM-120C Advanced
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one 20mm Gatling gun; and two,
1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)."

www.af.mil/airpower/features.asp




http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops...Handel_FA22Rap
tor.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...

No, you don't; stop trying to read stuff into it that is just not there. It
is an internal review of how they think they *are* doing (at present; note
the different "past" results), and how they can improve. You are
*******izing it to suit your own narrow-minded view.


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.

And thanks again for mentioning that most aircraft development programs have
experienced similar development problems.


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:-

snip *fascinating* bio sketch, but...

Wonderful. Note he does not claim that the F/A-22 is "obsolete", nor does he
indicate it is incapable of ground attack operations, as you have done. So
your point would be...?

You really need to get off of your "Typhoon is wonderful in all regards, and
all US advanced aircraft are trash" kick; it is getting monotonous, and as
we have seen, you neither fully comprehend what these aircraft are capable
of ("What?! The F/A-22 *can* conduct precision attacks against ground
targets?! With JDAM?! Well, that *really* doesn't mean anything..."), nor
the nature of the normal development hurdles that modern aircraft have to
negotiate. You continue to bury your head in the sand when it is pointed out
to you that other past programs, now very successful indeed, have
demonstrated similar early fielding challenges. And to top it all off, you
have now told us that we "can't" field an aircraft...that is being fielded
even as you compose your next biased attack.

Brooks


Cheers
John Cook

Cite please, where the evidence?.

USAF. Do your own Google.

I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.
;-)


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..

You keep coming up with the "obsolete" kitsch. Anybody else out there (or at
least anyone with *some* kind of credibility) claiming the F/A-22 is
"obsolete

The avionics are obsolete, and apparently everyone is aware of it
apart from you...


Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
that just can't be feilded in its present form.

Which is your claim. Apparently the USAF does not share your view, as they
are fielding the F/A-22--the first ones have already gone to the folks at
Tyndall. Odd how that system that "can't be fielded"...is being fielded.

Very odd, The only reason I can find is someone is very scared of a
cancellation and is rushing these into semi-service.

And
even non-USAF senior leaders support the program: "The F/A-22 Raptor will
deliver quantum air power improvements with great relevance in the Pacific
theater. Combining stealth, high speed, and precision weaponry, Raptor will
buy back battlespace and increase warfighting options for the joint force
commander. We need your support to fund and field this aircraft." ADM Thomas
Fargo, USPACOM, speech before HASC, March 31, 2004. Seems he thinks this
"obsolete" system is pretty neat and valuable--but you know more than he
does, right?

I've heard that all before, until they deliver that capability, its
just a speech, in fact if it were true then full rate production
would have already started, If what there saying is correct why hasn't
it started???, why does it need support to fund it??. it seems Mr
Fargo is drumming up support for it, I wonder why...?




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)

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....

"In addition, the F/A-22 has inherent ground attack capability, as it can
carry two 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions (JDAM)
internally. The F/A-22 will also have provisions to carry other weapons in
the future." You'll note the difference in how they address *current* versus
future capabilities.

www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ combat_air/f-22/weapons.html

Or, as the USAF puts it: "Two AIM-9 Sidewinders; six AIM-120C Advanced
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one 20mm Gatling gun; and two,
1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)."

www.af.mil/airpower/features.asp

There just saying that it will be used in the future...

Which means Its not cleared yet.... is it ;-),

I wonder why not, and where did you get the idea it had been cleared
for use or even tested....?

Wonderful. Note he does not claim that the F/A-22 is "obsolete", nor does he
indicate it is incapable of ground attack operations, as you have done. So
your point would be...?

No-one here claimed the F-22 was obsolete, just the avionics, which
are to be replaced hopefully by 2007, now you tell me why they would
do such a thing to such a robust and upgradable system thats not yet
out of development, is it because they had some spare cash they wanted
to spend, and couldn't find anything else to spend it on.



You really need to get off of your "Typhoon is wonderful in all regards,

I've never said Typhoon was wonderful in all regards, I know it has
several problems, and I'm willing to talk about them to without trying
to score points or blindly ignoring the bleeding obvious...

Which problem would you like to talk about?, just start another
thread.

The late and overbudget Pirate system, thats so expensive that not
all aircraft may be fitted with them?.

The DASS which is also expensive and only has rudimentary capability
eg chaff and flares for tranche 1.

The tranche 2 negotiations which are well overdue and will lead to a
production gap if not signed soon.

I'm aware of the problems, and it doest hurt to talk about them in a
rational manner.

and
all US advanced aircraft are trash" kick; it is getting monotonous, and as
we have seen, you neither fully comprehend what these aircraft are capable
of ("What?! The F/A-22 *can* conduct precision attacks against ground
targets?! With JDAM?! Well, that *really* doesn't mean anything..."),


Show me one instance of it, or even a test flight.... 'rudimentary'
now seems like a compliment.

nor
the nature of the normal development hurdles that modern aircraft have to
negotiate. You continue to bury your head in the sand when it is pointed out
to you that other past programs, now very successful indeed, have
demonstrated similar early fielding challenges. And to top it all off, you
have now told us that we "can't" field an aircraft...that is being fielded
even as you compose your next biased attack.

Fielding an aircraft takes more than just hooning around the sky, with
their cellphone* at the ready, these reported problems are not
fielding problems, they are development problems, big difference.

Unless they really get a move on in the next two months (and I mean
like never before in its development) it may well be cancelled despite
the grand speeches and promises of unmatched performance.


(*I read that a test pilot at Edwards AFB reportedly said that they
take cellphones aloft with them to be able to talk to the tower
when it BSOD on them.)

As your not very good with references or Cites etc. can anyone else
confirm JDAM is cleared for use on the F-22.

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
...


Cite please, where the evidence?.

USAF. Do your own Google.

I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.

Your whining is ceaseless in this regard. The USAF says the F/A-22 is JDAM
capable. LMCO says it is JDAM capable. Hell, even Wikipedia says it is JDAM
capable, IIRC! It flew the JDAM-capable Block 3.1 software back in 2002. You
don't think it is JDAM capable--seems like you are in a distinct minority.


;-)


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..

You keep coming up with the "obsolete" kitsch. Anybody else out there (or
at
least anyone with *some* kind of credibility) claiming the F/A-22 is
"obsolete

The avionics are obsolete, and apparently everyone is aware of it
apart from you...

"Obsolete"? I don't think so, and you have been rather sparse in terms of
providing any other reputable source that describes the F/A-22 as
"obsolete".



Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
that just can't be feilded in its present form.

Which is your claim. Apparently the USAF does not share your view, as
they
are fielding the F/A-22--the first ones have already gone to the folks at
Tyndall. Odd how that system that "can't be fielded"...is being fielded.

Very odd, The only reason I can find is someone is very scared of a
cancellation and is rushing these into semi-service.

LOL! First you claim they can't be fielded, now you are weaseling around it
when it is pointed out that it already *is* being fielded. Geeze.


And
even non-USAF senior leaders support the program: "The F/A-22 Raptor will
deliver quantum air power improvements with great relevance in the
Pacific
theater. Combining stealth, high speed, and precision weaponry, Raptor
will
buy back battlespace and increase warfighting options for the joint force
commander. We need your support to fund and field this aircraft." ADM
Thomas
Fargo, USPACOM, speech before HASC, March 31, 2004. Seems he thinks this
"obsolete" system is pretty neat and valuable--but you know more than he
does, right?

I've heard that all before, until they deliver that capability, its
just a speech, in fact if it were true then full rate production
would have already started, If what there saying is correct why hasn't
it started???, why does it need support to fund it??. it seems Mr
Fargo is drumming up support for it, I wonder why...?

More whining? Yes, the F/A-22 is in production, even as your fervently seek
to besmirch it. It is getting ready to enter its operational test program in
the next couple of months IIRC. Production will continue while that is
underway. The question on the board now is how many we will produce, not
whether it will be produced--production aircraft have already been
delivered.





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)

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....

"In addition, the F/A-22 has inherent ground attack capability, as it can
carry two 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions (JDAM)
internally. The F/A-22 will also have provisions to carry other weapons i
n
the future." You'll note the difference in how they address *current*
versus
future capabilities.

www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ combat_air/f-22/weapons.html

Or, as the USAF puts it: "Two AIM-9 Sidewinders; six AIM-120C Advanced
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one 20mm Gatling gun; and two,
1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)."

www.af.mil/airpower/features.asp

There just saying that it will be used in the future...

Which means Its not cleared yet.... is it ;-),

Is that a simper that follows your habitual whine...?


I wonder why not, and where did you get the idea it had been cleared
for use or even tested....?

It is capable of carrying the JDAM. You want to argue that, go talk to the
USAF. personally, I put a hell of a lot more stock in what they say than I
do in your drivel.


Wonderful. Note he does not claim that the F/A-22 is "obsolete", nor does
he
indicate it is incapable of ground attack operations, as you have done.
So
your point would be...?

No-one here claimed the F-22 was obsolete, just the avionics, which
are to be replaced hopefully by 2007, now you tell me why they would
do such a thing to such a robust and upgradable system thats not yet
out of development, is it because they had some spare cash they wanted
to spend, and couldn't find anything else to spend it on.

Yawnnn...you need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths. Are you done
whining yet?




You really need to get off of your "Typhoon is wonderful in all regards,

I've never said Typhoon was wonderful in all regards, I know it has
several problems, and I'm willing to talk about them to without trying
to score points or blindly ignoring the bleeding obvious...

Which problem would you like to talk about?, just start another
thread.

The late and overbudget Pirate system, thats so expensive that not
all aircraft may be fitted with them?.

The DASS which is also expensive and only has rudimentary capability
eg chaff and flares for tranche 1.

The tranche 2 negotiations which are well overdue and will lead to a
production gap if not signed soon.

I'm aware of the problems, and it doest hurt to talk about them in a
rational manner.

and
all US advanced aircraft are trash" kick; it is getting monotonous, and
as
we have seen, you neither fully comprehend what these aircraft are
capable
of ("What?! The F/A-22 *can* conduct precision attacks against ground
targets?! With JDAM?! Well, that *really* doesn't mean anything..."),


Show me one instance of it, or even a test flight.... 'rudimentary'
now seems like a compliment.

More whining...argue it with the USAF.


nor
the nature of the normal development hurdles that modern aircraft have to
negotiate. You continue to bury your head in the sand when it is pointed
out
to you that other past programs, now very successful indeed, have
demonstrated similar early fielding challenges. And to top it all off,
you
have now told us that we "can't" field an aircraft...that is being
fielded
even as you compose your next biased attack.

Fielding an aircraft takes more than just hooning around the sky, with
their cellphone* at the ready, these reported problems are not
fielding problems, they are development problems, big difference.

Unless they really get a move on in the next two months (and I mean
like never before in its development) it may well be cancelled despite
the grand speeches and promises of unmatched performance.

It is being fielded NOW to the folks at Tyndall. You don't like that
fact--too bad.

You can have the last (negative) word in regards to the F/A-22; it has
become patently obvious that you can't see past your bias about it, or the
JSF. You can claim you don't have an anti-US aircraft bias all you want, but
your many posts critical of the F/A-22 and F-35 (when was the last time you
had something positive to say about either?), concurrent to your "everybody
should buy Typhoon" stuff kind of points the way towards reality. Have a
great day.

Brooks



(*I read that a test pilot at Edwards AFB reportedly said that they
take cellphones aloft with them to be able to talk to the tower
when it BSOD on them.)

As your not very good with references or Cites etc. can anyone else
confirm JDAM is cleared for use on the F-22.

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

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.

Your whining is ceaseless in this regard. The USAF says the F/A-22 is JDAM
capable. LMCO says it is JDAM capable. Hell, even Wikipedia says it is JDAM
capable, IIRC! It flew the JDAM-capable Block 3.1 software back in 2002. You
don't think it is JDAM capable--seems like you are in a distinct minority.

When was the release clearance granted? "Capable" can mean as little as
"1760 bus, and 14-inch lugs stressed for the weight". Sometimes it can
mean less than that.

Eight years ago I helped with a request from an aircraft manufacturer
who for years had been widely advertising their maritime-patrol aircraft
as "Sting Ray capable": it was only when they had a potential sale to a
Sting Ray user that they bothered to talk to the manufacturer to find
out what that claim would actually *mean* and what modifications to the
weapon carriers were needed so that the potential customer could put
their torpedoes on the aircraft.

The sale didn't go through, they never modified the aircraft, it
couldn't use Sting Ray as is, and yet it's *still* listed as Sting Ray
capable despite the fact that it could only haul the torpedoes as
jettisonable ballast: couldn't preset them, arm them or have them start
up once in the water. (Maybe they could get the parachutes to open after
release, but that's all)

So take 'capable' with a generous pinch of salt.


I'm sure the dummy JDAMs fit the bay: hopefully the wiring harnesses
reach the relevant connectors within the snatch cone and with the
correct lanyard angle, there are EMRUs or similar for the arming wires,
and the drop characteristics have been properly explored to ensure the
weapons will leave the bay cleanly across a range of airspeeds and
attitudes (a frequent problem with bay-mounted weapons in fast jets).
However, there's nothing mentioning any of this on the Web that I could
find, other than the cheerful comment that the F-22 is 'JDAM capable'.

Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability"
into operational utility... so when were they carried out?



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.

Your whining is ceaseless in this regard. The USAF says the F/A-22 is
JDAM
capable. LMCO says it is JDAM capable. Hell, even Wikipedia says it is
JDAM
capable, IIRC! It flew the JDAM-capable Block 3.1 software back in 2002.
You
don't think it is JDAM capable--seems like you are in a distinct
minority.

When was the release clearance granted? "Capable" can mean as little as
"1760 bus, and 14-inch lugs stressed for the weight". Sometimes it can
mean less than that.

Eight years ago I helped with a request from an aircraft manufacturer
who for years had been widely advertising their maritime-patrol aircraft
as "Sting Ray capable": it was only when they had a potential sale to a
Sting Ray user that they bothered to talk to the manufacturer to find
out what that claim would actually *mean* and what modifications to the
weapon carriers were needed so that the potential customer could put
their torpedoes on the aircraft.

The sale didn't go through, they never modified the aircraft, it
couldn't use Sting Ray as is, and yet it's *still* listed as Sting Ray
capable despite the fact that it could only haul the torpedoes as
jettisonable ballast: couldn't preset them, arm them or have them start
up once in the water. (Maybe they could get the parachutes to open after
release, but that's all)

So take 'capable' with a generous pinch of salt.


I'm sure the dummy JDAMs fit the bay: hopefully the wiring harnesses
reach the relevant connectors within the snatch cone and with the
correct lanyard angle, there are EMRUs or similar for the arming wires,
and the drop characteristics have been properly explored to ensure the
weapons will leave the bay cleanly across a range of airspeeds and
attitudes (a frequent problem with bay-mounted weapons in fast jets).
However, there's nothing mentioning any of this on the Web that I could
find, other than the cheerful comment that the F-22 is 'JDAM capable'.

Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability"
into operational utility... so when were they carried out?

Ask the USAF. I trust them a bit further in this regard than I do the peanut
gallery. The software that is capable of handling the JDAM has been flying
for a couple of years now; Arnold has done wind tunnel tests of the
separation characteristics, and the F/A-22 was listed as one of the
platforms to receive clearance in a fact sheet dated June 03 (
www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=108). Even Mr. Cook has
acknowledged that dummy drop tests were conducted. Let's see--software is in
place, dummy tests have been conducted...yep, seems like it is indeed
capable of delivering the puppy. The USAF says the F/A-22 will be able to
carry JDAM's when it enters into operational front-line service with 1st
TFW--if you disagree, take it up with them.

Brooks

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability"
into operational utility... so when were they carried out?

Ask the USAF.

I've checked their website and searched elsewhe best I could do was a
five-year-old plan that had JDAM test drops sometime after 2000.
Unfortunately I don't have any personal contacts there to tap.

I trust them a bit further in this regard than I do the peanut
gallery.

I've only *done* weapon system acceptance and integration, so what do I
know?

I know this for su all "capable" means is "has not been proved
impossible".

The software that is capable of handling the JDAM has been flying
for a couple of years now; Arnold has done wind tunnel tests of the
separation characteristics, and the F/A-22 was listed as one of the
platforms to receive clearance in a fact sheet dated June 03 (
www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=108). Even Mr. Cook has
acknowledged that dummy drop tests were conducted.

When, where and how many, out of interest? There seems to be a paucity
of data, and nobody's either claimed clearance or projected a date when
it will be achieved.

Let's see--software is in
place, dummy tests have been conducted...yep, seems like it is indeed
capable of delivering the puppy.

No.

I don't tell you combat engineering, you don't tell me how to integrate
weapons onto airframes.

"Software in place" is relatively straightforward when the weapon's in
use elsewhere and the software is developmental: "dummy tests conducted"
can be as simple as "flew with a blivet" or "conducted one safe jettison
from safe, slow and level" and certainly does not imply "cleared for
operational use".

The USAF says the F/A-22 will be able to
carry JDAM's when it enters into operational front-line service with 1st
TFW--if you disagree, take it up with them.

When was the clearance signed? If it hasn't been signed, when is it
expected?

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, still have the scars. "Will be
able to carry" has been translated as "is able to carry, but not safely
drop or jettison, inert training versions" for contract acceptance in
the past when an aircraft program was under pressure.

The USAF don't seem to be saying it very clearly or very loudly: while
there's no reason to believe it impossible, neither is this blind
acceptance that the Raptor is currently a fully-capable JDAM-dropper
reasonable.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Even Mr. Cook has
acknowledged that dummy drop tests were conducted.

The dummy tests I saw were for models of the JDAM being dropped from
a model of the F-22 in a four foot wind tunnel.

Quote:- from
http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/highma...ct9/raptor.htm


"Although AEDC conducted wind tunnel tests on the F-22 Raptor in its
development stages, the center had never performed a non-proprietary
store separation test involving the aircraft until 1998. Store
separation is the release of any weapon, munition, pod or fuel tank
carried by an aircraft.

In 1998, the center employees used 1/15th scale models to conduct five
tests in AEDC’s 4-foot transonic aerodynamic wind tunnel (4T) to
obtain separation characteristics of the AIM-120C missile, AIM-9M
missile and GBU-32 JDAM. This test involved cooperation among AEDC and
multiple test customers, including the F/A-22 Program Office, the
Joint Direct Attack Munitions Program, Wright Labs, Lockheed Martin
and the Air Force Seek Eagle Office.

In 1999, the F/A-22 Raptor returned to 4T for a series of store
separation tests. During this series of tests, center testers used
seven-percent scale models of the F/A-22 aircraft, AIM-9X missile and
600 gallon-fuel tank to acquire and evaluate data to prepare a mission
summary for use in flight testing."

I also saw some 'pods' in test for the F-22 which are wing mounted
that cover the jdams to make them stealthy....

There sort of internal bomb bays for the wings, complete with bomb
doors underneath (where else would you put bomb doors:[))...

Thats a new one on me...hang on a mo I'll get the link

heres the link :-
http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/highmach/stories/f22.pdf


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
...


Cite please, where the evidence?.

USAF. Do your own Google.

I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.
;-)

You might want to check back to March of 2003 when the Raptor failed to
deliver the new joint standoff munition for the third time. It is public
record.