Delivery of Raptor delayed

Scott Ferrin wrote in message . ..
On 14 Jul 2004 11:56:06 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

.

And at almost $200 million a piece! But at least this aircraft lives
up to its name "Raptor"- a dinosaur... which should get Congressional
extinction!

It's funny that people who don't want America to be a powerful nation also
want to axe the F-22 (among other things).

Not at all... it's a wasteful, obscene amount of money to pay for an
aircraft the USAF hasn't been able to justify by any means.


You do realize that a significant portion of the total amount has
ALREADY BEEN SPENT don't you? You know that thing called R and D?






The
Eurofighter by comparison can fulfill most of the Raptor's job at
one-third of the cost.

So it's what. . .$40 million. Damn let's buy some.

My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.





If Sukhoi built the Su-47 it would still be
less costly, more heavily armed, and more powerful with dogfighting
skills we can't duplicate. Hell, even the Superflanker costs just a
fraction of the F-22. Ansd since the USAF knows its a wasteful program
they have tried to sell other proposed versions, turning it into the
F/A-22, FB-22, and even a more distant X-44 MANTA version.

X-44 "Manta"???? You're an idiot. Do you know what the "X" in X-44
stands for? (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't stand for "X-Men")

And the X-44 is based on what airframe?- the F-22.






Give us
taxpayers a break- buy the F-35 for all services.

Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
by using a direct comparison.

I was using dinosaur in context of the wasteful overbudget program.
The Europeans and Russians have aircraft that could take the F-22 on:
Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Superflanker, Su-47, etc...

The *Gripen*???? A Block 60 F-16 would kick it's ass up around it's
ears let alone an F-22.

Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
a Raptor!!!
You know you guys only have fun with air superiority when it comes to
striking poor, third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript
pilots... under ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with
no spare parts. I'm so F**king impressed by America's aerial combat
record over the last quarter century. Let's compare it to the Israeli
record or at least try flying air superiority over Russia, China, N.
Korea- nations that will appear in numbers and fight back with modern
equipment.

Rob

From: (robert arndt)

snip

Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
a Raptor!!!

A Fokker Dr.1 could take down an F-15 under the right circumstances.

You know you guys only have fun with air superiority when it comes to
striking poor, third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript
pilots... under ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with
no spare parts.

Aha, you admit you aren't American!

I'm so F**king impressed by America's aerial combat
record over the last quarter century. Let's compare it to the Israeli
record or at least try flying air superiority over Russia, China, N.
Korea- nations that will appear in numbers and fight back with modern
equipment.

Rob

The
Eurofighter by comparison can fulfill most of the Raptor's job at
one-third of the cost.

So it's what. . .$40 million. Damn let's buy some.

My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.


The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero *might*
equal a Ferrari on one specific point (though admittedly I can't think
of one except maybe weight) but the whole package together is an
entirely different deal. Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.
Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department. Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
other areas.








If Sukhoi built the Su-47 it would still be
less costly, more heavily armed, and more powerful with dogfighting
skills we can't duplicate. Hell, even the Superflanker costs just a
fraction of the F-22. Ansd since the USAF knows its a wasteful program
they have tried to sell other proposed versions, turning it into the
F/A-22, FB-22, and even a more distant X-44 MANTA version.

X-44 "Manta"???? You're an idiot. Do you know what the "X" in X-44
stands for? (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't stand for "X-Men")

And the X-44 is based on what airframe?- the F-22.


And again I say, so what? It was a proposal -years past- for a
modification to ONE prototype to test flight controls. Big friggin
deal. Pretty much every aircraft out there has been used for test
purposes at one time or another. It has absolutley ZERO influence on
whether any of them are bought or not.











Give us
taxpayers a break- buy the F-35 for all services.

Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
by using a direct comparison.

I was using dinosaur in context of the wasteful overbudget program.
The Europeans and Russians have aircraft that could take the F-22 on:
Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Superflanker, Su-47, etc...

The *Gripen*???? A Block 60 F-16 would kick it's ass up around it's
ears let alone an F-22.

Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
a Raptor!!!

LOL!! The Viggen lost out to the F-16 for the European sales so I
guess nobody else agrees with you.





You know you guys only have fun with air superiority when it comes to
striking poor, third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript
pilots... under ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with
no spare parts.

Somebody get me a hanky.




I'm so F**king impressed by America's aerial combat
record over the last quarter century.

Me too. How many US pilots have been downed by opposing fighters?
One? Hell Russian flight demonstration teams (the guys who are
SUPPOSE to be good) have killed more of their own than that.




Let's compare it to the Israeli
record


And who were they fighting? Remind me I forget. Oh yeah , "poor,
third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript pilots... under
ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with no spare parts"




or at least try flying air superiority over Russia, China, N.
Korea- nations that will appear in numbers and fight back with modern
equipment.


They've never really bee stupid enough to start something with us. (So
far anyway.)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:21:14 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:


The
Eurofighter by comparison can fulfill most of the Raptor's job at
one-third of the cost.

So it's what. . .$40 million. Damn let's buy some.

My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.


The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero *might*
equal a Ferrari on one specific point (though admittedly I can't think
of one except maybe weight) but the whole package together is an
entirely different deal. Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.
Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department.

The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors, its has a wider
range of missile countermeasures, just a couple of areas where the
Raptor 'Comes up short'.

Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
other areas.

Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
way tactically there's little in it, BTW Cost is better too!!.


All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor.... one
could argue that for R&D money the Raptor has cost, it should be
better in _all_ areas regardless, and be cheaper to manufacture and
support...

Its not all one sided you know!.

Cheers










If Sukhoi built the Su-47 it would still be
less costly, more heavily armed, and more powerful with dogfighting
skills we can't duplicate. Hell, even the Superflanker costs just a
fraction of the F-22. Ansd since the USAF knows its a wasteful program
they have tried to sell other proposed versions, turning it into the
F/A-22, FB-22, and even a more distant X-44 MANTA version.

X-44 "Manta"???? You're an idiot. Do you know what the "X" in X-44
stands for? (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't stand for "X-Men")

And the X-44 is based on what airframe?- the F-22.


And again I say, so what? It was a proposal -years past- for a
modification to ONE prototype to test flight controls. Big friggin
deal. Pretty much every aircraft out there has been used for test
purposes at one time or another. It has absolutley ZERO influence on
whether any of them are bought or not.











Give us
taxpayers a break- buy the F-35 for all services.

Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
by using a direct comparison.

I was using dinosaur in context of the wasteful overbudget program.
The Europeans and Russians have aircraft that could take the F-22 on:
Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Superflanker, Su-47, etc...

The *Gripen*???? A Block 60 F-16 would kick it's ass up around it's
ears let alone an F-22.

Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
a Raptor!!!

LOL!! The Viggen lost out to the F-16 for the European sales so I
guess nobody else agrees with you.





You know you guys only have fun with air superiority when it comes to
striking poor, third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript
pilots... under ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with
no spare parts.

Somebody get me a hanky.




I'm so F**king impressed by America's aerial combat
record over the last quarter century.

Me too. How many US pilots have been downed by opposing fighters?
One? Hell Russian flight demonstration teams (the guys who are
SUPPOSE to be good) have killed more of their own than that.




Let's compare it to the Israeli
record


And who were they fighting? Remind me I forget. Oh yeah , "poor,
third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript pilots... under
ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with no spare parts"




or at least try flying air superiority over Russia, China, N.
Korea- nations that will appear in numbers and fight back with modern
equipment.


They've never really bee stupid enough to start something with us. (So
far anyway.)

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:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:21:14 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

.

The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero *might*
equal a Ferrari on one specific point (though admittedly I can't think
of one except maybe weight) but the whole package together is an
entirely different deal. Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.
Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department.

The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors, its has a wider
range of missile countermeasures, just a couple of areas where the
Raptor 'Comes up short'.

It other words the Eurofighter was located before the opposition launched a
missile to destroy it. That means the Eurofighter pilot is left with nothing
but the faint hope that the weapon about to destroy his plane will succumb
to the limited number of countermeasures his plane is equipped with due to
budget constraints at the MoD.

The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22. Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
boat. About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
AMRAAM's range.




its has a wider
range of missile countermeasures,


So the decoy-on-a-string is better than all-aspect stealth huh? You
must know something the USAF doesn't.




just a couple of areas where the
Raptor 'Comes up short'.

How about something tangible?






Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
other areas.

Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
way tactically there's little in it,


Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?




BTW Cost is better too!!.


No arguement there :-)





All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor


From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.




.... one
could argue that for R&D money the Raptor has cost, it should be
better in _all_ areas regardless, and be cheaper to manufacture and
support...

There are tradeoffs in where you apply your R&D dollars too. You
figure they built four prototypes of two different designs and two
completely new engines in addition to breaking ground pretty much
everywhere. And sometimes even the mundane ends up costing $$$ when
you factor in the necessity for stealth. I imagine the radome on the
F-22 costs a few bucks more than that of the Eurofighter. Even the
nozzles on the engines are likely significantly more expensive, even
the vectoring aside. None of that stuff comes cheap and it doesn't
help that they stretched the program so long.



Its not all one sided you know!.


Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long. It just seems like
certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.




Cheers

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22. Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
boat. About the only time it would

I wonder how F22 is going to do that with its insect size backscatterer RCS
but B-52 size bi-static (forward scatterer) RCS.

Attacking countries with no multi-static radar development capability might be
the solution,but heck,you can attack such countries with B-17s too.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:17:02 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*.

Yup! it may be an upgrade to the raptor at a much later date, so the
Typhoons PIRATE IRST is infinitely better.

IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22.

No the Pirate system is capable of cueing the Missle shot all by
itself, the missile may require mid course guidance if required, but
otherwise its totally passive..

Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
boat. About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
AMRAAM's range.

Well the IRST tracked Venus!, the real question is how stealthy to IR
is the Raptor....

its has a wider
range of missile countermeasures,


So the decoy-on-a-string is better than all-aspect stealth huh? You
must know something the USAF doesn't.

Well if a radar missile is actually launched at a Typhoon or an F-22,
I'd rather have a decoy than not have a decoy;-).



just a couple of areas where the
Raptor 'Comes up short'.

How about something tangible?

Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
other areas.

Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
way tactically there's little in it,


Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?

As opposed to a cruising Typhoon at Mach 1.5 , its the 0.2 Mach that
has little tactical advantage.

Source


BTW Cost is better too!!.

No arguement there :-)

All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor

From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.

True, IIRC the Typhoon is better at Supersonic speeds around 1.5 or at
least that seems to be the best.

.... one
could argue that for R&D money the Raptor has cost, it should be
better in _all_ areas regardless, and be cheaper to manufacture and
support...

There are tradeoffs in where you apply your R&D dollars too. You
figure they built four prototypes of two different designs and two
completely new engines in addition to breaking ground pretty much
everywhere. And sometimes even the mundane ends up costing $$$ when
you factor in the necessity for stealth.

Do they include the Costs for the YF-23??.

I imagine the radome on the
F-22 costs a few bucks more than that of the Eurofighter. Even the
nozzles on the engines are likely significantly more expensive, even
the vectoring aside. None of that stuff comes cheap and it doesn't
help that they stretched the program so long.



Its not all one sided you know!.


Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long.

Thats not unusual its the same with the Typhoon!.

It just seems like
certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.

And others can see no wrong ;-)

Cheers



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

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:43:09 +1000, John Cook
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:17:02 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*.

Yup! it may be an upgrade to the raptor at a much later date, so the
Typhoons PIRATE IRST is infinitely better.

IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22.

No the Pirate system is capable of cueing the Missle shot all by
itself, the missile may require mid course guidance if required, but
otherwise its totally passive..


But then if the Eurofighter sends an update the F-22s ESM system will
pick it up. Not to mention the missile's terminal radar seeker still
needs to be able to detect the F-22.




Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
boat. About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
AMRAAM's range.

Well the IRST tracked Venus!, the real question is how stealthy to IR
is the Raptor....

its has a wider
range of missile countermeasures,


So the decoy-on-a-string is better than all-aspect stealth huh? You
must know something the USAF doesn't.

Well if a radar missile is actually launched at a Typhoon or an F-22,
I'd rather have a decoy than not have a decoy;-).



just a couple of areas where the
Raptor 'Comes up short'.

How about something tangible?

Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
other areas.

Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
way tactically there's little in it,


Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?

As opposed to a cruising Typhoon at Mach 1.5 , its the 0.2 Mach that
has little tactical advantage.

Source


BTW Cost is better too!!.

No arguement there :-)

All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor

From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.

True, IIRC the Typhoon is better at Supersonic speeds around 1.5 or at
least that seems to be the best.

.... one
could argue that for R&D money the Raptor has cost, it should be
better in _all_ areas regardless, and be cheaper to manufacture and
support...

There are tradeoffs in where you apply your R&D dollars too. You
figure they built four prototypes of two different designs and two
completely new engines in addition to breaking ground pretty much
everywhere. And sometimes even the mundane ends up costing $$$ when
you factor in the necessity for stealth.

Do they include the Costs for the YF-23??.


I guess it depends on who's doing the math. Do you include all costs
for the entire ATF program or do you start the money-clock ticking
once the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23?




I imagine the radome on the
F-22 costs a few bucks more than that of the Eurofighter. Even the
nozzles on the engines are likely significantly more expensive, even
the vectoring aside. None of that stuff comes cheap and it doesn't
help that they stretched the program so long.



Its not all one sided you know!.


Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long.

Thats not unusual its the same with the Typhoon!.

It just seems like
certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.

And others can see no wrong ;-)

Nah I can see wrong. The wrongest thing in the whole F-22 soap opera
IMO is how friggin' long they're taking to get everything done. I
don't doubt that's been a significant factor in the total cost of the
program.

Ooops missed out the source for thwe !.5 Mach claim

"Much is currently being made about supercruise, that is the ability
to cruise supersonically without the use of reheat (afterburn) for
extended periods of time. Although never stated explicitly (as for
example with the U.S. F-22) the Typhoon is capable of and has
demonstrated such an ability since early in its flight program
according to all the Eurofighter partnets. Initial comments indicated
that, with a typical air to air combat load the aircraft was capable
of cruising at M1.2 at altitude (11000m/36000ft) without reheat and
for extended periods. Later information appeared to suggest this
figure had increased to M1.3. However even more recently EADS have
stated a maximum upper limit of M1.5 is possible although the
configuration of the aircraft is not stated for this scenario (an
essential factor in determining how useful such a facility 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