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

"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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
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?

Not as much as the USAF, I'd wager. At least about the F/A-22 and its
capabilities.


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

I don't think so. Must be Brit-speak, huh?


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.

Why don't you not tell the USAF how to define what the initial capabilities
of the F/A-22 are/will be when it enters into operational service?


"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".

Argue it with the USAF--they appear quite confident that the "A" in the
title will be justified when it starts flying with the 1st TFW sometime
during the next year or two. That you are not is not going to cause me any
loss of sleep, OK Paul?

Brooks


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

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I've only *done* weapon system acceptance and integration, so what do I
know?

Not as much as the USAF, I'd wager. At least about the F/A-22 and its
capabilities.

"The USAF who will fly and fight the aircraft", or "the USAF press
releases and contractual acceptance schedules"? Big difference.

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

I don't think so. Must be Brit-speak, huh?

British and several other nations, including the US.

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

Why don't you not tell the USAF how to define what the initial capabilities
of the F/A-22 are/will be when it enters into operational service?

I have. Release certification and clearance to carry and drop the live
weapon.

So far all that's been published is some wind-tunnel model work. Nowhere
near actual operational utility.


That's "capable" according to some contracts: but for actual real-world
utility, unless you can persuade the enemy to occupy the relevant
wind-tunnel right under the model aircraft it's not much use.

"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".

Argue it with the USAF-

Where would you suggest?

-they appear quite confident that the "A" in the
title will be justified when it starts flying with the 1st TFW sometime
during the next year or two.

Been there, done that, seen the pencil-whipping. Give me a single F/A-22
JDAM warshot drop. There must be _some_ news article _somewhere_ to
report an event like that.

Or is it "fully operational" except that the first actual live-fire test
will be in combat? Yeah, *that* has worked really well in the past.

That you are not is not going to cause me any
loss of sleep, OK Paul?

I'm not paying for the 'A' designator and it's not my military trusting
that 'capability' will mean 'can actually put warheads on target'.

Pause and think, Kevin. The F-22 is, airframe versus airframe, the best
fighter in the world. But that tells you nothing about its air-to-ground
capability, and the notional ability to fit munitions into internal bays
means very little if you have not thoroughly tested the ability to get
the munitions _out_ of those bays (a thousand-pound blivet that doesn't
fully separate can thoroughly wreck a modern fighter) even before you
worry about presetting and arming.

You think it's easy and already handled? Then you're not paying
attention.

--
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
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I've only *done* weapon system acceptance and integration, so what do I
know?

Not as much as the USAF, I'd wager. At least about the F/A-22 and its
capabilities.

"The USAF who will fly and fight the aircraft", or "the USAF press
releases and contractual acceptance schedules"? Big difference.

In your mind.


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

I don't think so. Must be Brit-speak, huh?

British and several other nations, including the US.

I don't think so.


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

Why don't you not tell the USAF how to define what the initial
capabilities
of the F/A-22 are/will be when it enters into operational service?

I have. Release certification and clearance to carry and drop the live
weapon.

Good on you--you go keep those USAF types in line, Paul; God only knows how
we have managed to muddle through thus far without your editorial input to
the folks who fly these things and fight in them.


So far all that's been published is some wind-tunnel model work. Nowhere
near actual operational utility.

Tell it to the USAF. Go ahead--tell them they just HAVE to delete any
reference to the F/A-22 being JDAM capable when it enters front-line service
'cause you say so...



That's "capable" according to some contracts: but for actual real-world
utility, unless you can persuade the enemy to occupy the relevant
wind-tunnel right under the model aircraft it's not much use.

"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".

Argue it with the USAF-

Where would you suggest?

Do a google.


-they appear quite confident that the "A" in the
title will be justified when it starts flying with the 1st TFW sometime
during the next year or two.

Been there, done that, seen the pencil-whipping. Give me a single F/A-22
JDAM warshot drop. There must be _some_ news article _somewhere_ to
report an event like that.

Or is it "fully operational" except that the first actual live-fire test
will be in combat? Yeah, *that* has worked really well in the past.

Note that it has yet to enter into front-line combat unit service; those
fielded thus far are either at Edwards or joining the conversion/opeval unit
at Tyndall.


That you are not is not going to cause me any
loss of sleep, OK Paul?

I'm not paying for the 'A' designator and it's not my military trusting
that 'capability' will mean 'can actually put warheads on target'.

Who really cares at this point. USAF says it will be JDAM capable when it
enters operational service--you say it won't be. Most folks will accept the
USAF version unless you can prove they are lying. Kind of hard for you to do
at this point.

Brooks


Pause and think, Kevin. The F-22 is, airframe versus airframe, the best
fighter in the world. But that tells you nothing about its air-to-ground
capability, and the notional ability to fit munitions into internal bays
means very little if you have not thoroughly tested the ability to get
the munitions _out_ of those bays (a thousand-pound blivet that doesn't
fully separate can thoroughly wreck a modern fighter) even before you
worry about presetting and arming.

You think it's easy and already handled? Then you're not paying
attention.

--
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

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:54:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

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.


Just my own opinion but I'd be surprised if they dropped them and
*didn't* make a big tado about it. There are photos out there of it
launching -9s and -120s but none with JDAMS that I've ever seen.
Maybe they feel the JDAM thing is a no-brainer and have too many other
more difficult problems to solve so it's priority is low?

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:54:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
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.


Just my own opinion but I'd be surprised if they dropped them and
*didn't* make a big tado about it. There are photos out there of it
launching -9s and -120s but none with JDAMS that I've ever seen.
Maybe they feel the JDAM thing is a no-brainer and have too many other
more difficult problems to solve so it's priority is low?

The other issue is that the F-22 is a hardcore air-supremacy machine,
with the 'A' designation an afterthought.

The USAF is buying the F-22 because it needs a stealthy superfighter to
replace the F-15. It is certainly not short of platforms able to drop
JDAMs. If the F-22 has problems in its declared intended air-to-air
role, is anyone going to be convinced by "okay, but it can carry two
whole JDAMs!" when even the A-10 is being bruited as a JDAM-dropper?

As I said: it's "capable" because nobody's got proof it can't use them.
At some point it'll be cleared to actually fly with the weapons and use
them in action - just not yet.


Not knocking the F-22's capability in its designed role: it might be
expensive, it might have assorted problems, but it's still the best at
what it does ('A' designator accepted as a tacked-on afterthought). The
concern then is how many can be bought... doesn't matter how good your
airframes are, if there aren't enough to intercept the enemy raids.

--
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