No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:45:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:39:17 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, Harry Andreas

wrote:

Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with
the
F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the
F-22 to conclusion.

What's wrong with the F/A-18?

The context was that the F-22 program was badly flawed and the Tarver
assertion was the the program should be cancelled and the USAF
supplied with F/A-18s.

The F/A-18E works very well.

There is nothing per se wrong with F/A-18, but for USAF, what can the
Bug do that an F-15E, F-15C or F-16C can't do?

The F-15 option no longer exists, but I can see the F-16 getting a bump.


What planet do you live on that the F-15 isn't an option? Care to
tell us WHY it is not an option?

Gephardt is retiring.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:21:48 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:45:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:39:17 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, Harry Andreas

wrote:

Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with
the
F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the
F-22 to conclusion.

What's wrong with the F/A-18?

The context was that the F-22 program was badly flawed and the Tarver
assertion was the the program should be cancelled and the USAF
supplied with F/A-18s.

The F/A-18E works very well.

There is nothing per se wrong with F/A-18, but for USAF, what can the
Bug do that an F-15E, F-15C or F-16C can't do?

The F-15 option no longer exists, but I can see the F-16 getting a bump.


What planet do you live on that the F-15 isn't an option? Care to
tell us WHY it is not an option?

Gephardt is retiring.



So? Does that mean the USAF is all of a sudden going to want to start
buying a derivative of a derivitive of the LOSER in the LWF
competition instead of a fighter with FAR higher performance (F-15)?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:21:48 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:45:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:39:17 +0100, ess
(phil
hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, Harry Andreas

wrote:

Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF
with
the
F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the
F-22 to conclusion.

What's wrong with the F/A-18?

The context was that the F-22 program was badly flawed and the
Tarver
assertion was the the program should be cancelled and the USAF
supplied with F/A-18s.

The F/A-18E works very well.

There is nothing per se wrong with F/A-18, but for USAF, what can
the
Bug do that an F-15E, F-15C or F-16C can't do?

The F-15 option no longer exists, but I can see the F-16 getting a
bump.


What planet do you live on that the F-15 isn't an option? Care to
tell us WHY it is not an option?

Gephardt is retiring.



So? Does that mean the USAF is all of a sudden going to want to start
buying a derivative of a derivitive of the LOSER in the LWF
competition instead of a fighter with FAR higher performance (F-15)?

I expect that now that the F-15 option is off the table that some F-16
version is what USAF will select, in the event of an F-22 cancellation.
Keep in mind as you rant at me over the political facts, that 90% of all
your F-22 posts are now revealed as bull hockey, Ferrin.

So? Does that mean the USAF is all of a sudden going to want to start
buying a derivative of a derivitive of the LOSER in the LWF
competition instead of a fighter with FAR higher performance (F-15)?

I expect that now that the F-15 option is off the table


It's not.



that some F-16
version is what USAF will select, in the event of an F-22 cancellation.
Keep in mind as you rant at me over the political facts, that 90% of all
your F-22 posts are now revealed as bull hockey, Ferrin.

Like I said. Keep telling yourself that (and I'm sure you will).

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

So? Does that mean the USAF is all of a sudden going to want to start
buying a derivative of a derivitive of the LOSER in the LWF
competition instead of a fighter with FAR higher performance (F-15)?

I expect that now that the F-15 option is off the table

It's not.

Now Scott, I doubt your history of being wrong about the F-22 for so many
years qualifies you to make a statements about F-15s. The politics of the
situation have eliminated any reasonable chance of a Super Eagle, which is
why I joke about F/A-18s for USAF. Within the same City are two very
different political situations.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:56:38 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

So? Does that mean the USAF is all of a sudden going to want to start
buying a derivative of a derivitive of the LOSER in the LWF
competition instead of a fighter with FAR higher performance (F-15)?

I expect that now that the F-15 option is off the table

It's not.

Now Scott, I doubt your history of being wrong about the F-22 for so many
years

I think you are confusing yourself here. Exactly what was it I was
wrong about? Feel free to quote anything I've said here on the
newsgroups. If you can't find anything to back your claim then shut
your pie hole.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:56:38 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

So? Does that mean the USAF is all of a sudden going to want to
start
buying a derivative of a derivitive of the LOSER in the LWF
competition instead of a fighter with FAR higher performance (F-15)?

I expect that now that the F-15 option is off the table

It's not.

Now Scott, I doubt your history of being wrong about the F-22 for so many
years

I think you are confusing yourself here.

Any such "thought" would be projection.

The politics of the
situation have eliminated any reasonable chance of a Super Eagle, which is
why I joke about F/A-18s for USAF. Within the same City are two very
different political situations.


It depends on what you consider a "Super Eagle". We'll certainly
never see something along the lines of the F-15XX they were kicking
around ten years ago but an F-15E with an AESA and better engines is
easily doable. The production line isn't shutting down anytime soon
(especially if Singapore decides to go with the Eagle) so it's not
like we wouldn't be able to build them. As far as the USAF *ever*
signing up for "Super"Hornets over Eagles that's something I doubt
Vegas would ever accept bets on.