If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Critical Evaluation of the F22
I have been downloading Col. John Boyd's works to study and stumbled
upon this... http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A Critical Evaluation of the F22
http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html
I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight. The man makes some sense -- but the F-22 is just too darned COOL to eliminate. - Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A Critical Evaluation of the F22
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight. The man makes some sense -- but the F-22 is just too darned COOL to eliminate. - Jay Honeck You bitch about gov't idiocy, and then you go and say something like that... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A Critical Evaluation of the F22
"john smith" wrote in message ... I have been downloading Col. John Boyd's works to study and stumbled upon this... http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight. Remember that if Riccione and Boyd had their way, the F-15 wouldn't have been built, and the F-16 would have had even more limited radar, bomb aiming, and avionics suites. Those guys wanted the F-16 to be essentially an F-86 with a far better power to weight ratio. Now, they are proposing further upgrades to the fighter (the F-15) they railed against and the fighter they wanted to be a minimalist dogfighter. KB |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A Critical Evaluation of the F22
In article ,
"Kyle Boatright" wrote: "john smith" wrote in message ... I have been downloading Col. John Boyd's works to study and stumbled upon this... http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight. Remember that if Riccione and Boyd had their way, the F-15 wouldn't have been built, and the F-16 would have had even more limited radar, bomb aiming, and avionics suites. Those guys wanted the F-16 to be essentially an F-86 with a far better power to weight ratio. Now, they are proposing further upgrades to the fighter (the F-15) they railed against and the fighter they wanted to be a minimalist dogfighter. Kyle, you need to dig into the information available. Boyd actually saved the F-15 program. The original design was to be a swing wing like the F-14. Boyd's work showed the deficiencies in that design and the improvements resulting in the final design. You can also read aabout the F-14's design deficiencies. The F-14 and F-15 were designed around the big radar for long range detection. The F-16 was designed to be a lightweight, close-in, air-superiority fighter, it didn't need the big radar. GOOGLE "John Boyd" and wade through the material. You will find much that counters what you have been mislead to believe. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A Critical Evaluation of the F22
In article .com,
Jay Honeck wrote: http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight. The man makes some sense -- but the F-22 is just too darned COOL to eliminate. I agree, that is my thought, also. Sometimes you have to build a product just to advance the art. A technology demonstrator just doesn't make the same convincing arguement. The F-20 is a good example of that. It had a new engine and avionics in an old airframe and didn't sell. I also think the V-22 is great utility aircraft, but there have been equally disparaging criticism written about it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A Critical Evaluation of the F22
john smith wrote: Kyle, you need to dig into the information available. Boyd actually saved the F-15 program. Only because by doing so he got to design the F-16. He hated the F-15. Any aircraft you build with two engines he will build a better one with a single engine. The F-16 is recognized by the fighter folks as a superior pure fighter plane than the F-15. That's all he wanted to build, a pure fighter plane, any other mission detracted from the fighter role. The original design was to be a swing wing like the F-14. Which he also despised. His quote to a congressional committee when asked about the F-111, while sitting next to a higher ranking officer who was testifying in favor of the F-111 was that "there isn't enough thrust in the world to make the F-111 a fighter." Thereby foisting that turd on to the bomber folks, who he also despised. Boyd's work showed the deficiencies in that design and the improvements resulting in the final design. You can also read aabout the F-14's design deficiencies. The F-14 and F-15 were designed around the big radar for long range detection. The F-14 was designed to carry the Phoenix and was an interceptor, not a true fighter. The F-16 was designed to be a lightweight, close-in, air-superiority fighter, it didn't need the big radar. GOOGLE "John Boyd" and wade through the material. You will find much that counters what you have been mislead to believe. Read the book about him. It's pretty good. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A Critical Evaluation of the F22
"john smith" wrote in message ... In article , "Kyle Boatright" wrote: "john smith" wrote in message ... I have been downloading Col. John Boyd's works to study and stumbled upon this... http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight. Remember that if Riccione and Boyd had their way, the F-15 wouldn't have been built, and the F-16 would have had even more limited radar, bomb aiming, and avionics suites. Those guys wanted the F-16 to be essentially an F-86 with a far better power to weight ratio. Now, they are proposing further upgrades to the fighter (the F-15) they railed against and the fighter they wanted to be a minimalist dogfighter. Kyle, you need to dig into the information available. Boyd actually saved the F-15 program. The original design was to be a swing wing like the F-14. Boyd's work showed the deficiencies in that design and the improvements resulting in the final design. You can also read aabout the F-14's design deficiencies. The F-14 and F-15 were designed around the big radar for long range detection. The F-16 was designed to be a lightweight, close-in, air-superiority fighter, it didn't need the big radar. GOOGLE "John Boyd" and wade through the material. You will find much that counters what you have been mislead to believe. That is my understanding also. Boyd fought to make the F-15 better, not to cancel it. He saw the need for a large plane with its big radar, but also wanted the small plane with the smaller radar. If you read the history of Boyd and the F-16, he kept its very good range a secret for as long as he could. He "sold" it as a short range fighter, but it actually had more range than the F-15 did. Danny Deger Danny Deger |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A Critical Evaluation of the F22
The man makes some sense -- but the F-22 is just too darned COOL to
eliminate. - Jay Honeck You bitch about gov't idiocy, and then you go and say something like that... Dude, we're talking *aviation* here. Our stupid government could spend its entire budget on space travel and cool airplanes, and I'd be more than happy... ;-) -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A Critical Evaluation of the F22
Kyle Boatright wrote:
Now, they are proposing further upgrades to the fighter (the F-15) they railed against and the fighter they wanted to be a minimalist dogfighter. I remember back in the late 80's/early '90's, the fighter generals who were ruling the Air Force tried to get rid of the A-10 and were pushing a "ground/attack" version of the F-16 as it's replacement. Along came Gulf War I and the A-10's were here to stay. Look at the history of the F-16 and you will see that it continues to gain weight and misson roles. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Software available for testing and evaluation. | Greg Siemon | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | November 8th 05 02:28 AM |
Software available for testing and evaluation. | Greg Siemon | Home Built | 0 | November 4th 05 04:52 PM |
Software available for testing and evaluation. | Greg Siemon | Products | 0 | November 3rd 05 08:37 PM |
Corrosion Evaluation Help | Dick | Home Built | 3 | July 15th 05 02:51 AM |
Evaluation of Bush the Pilot | BUFDRVR | Military Aviation | 17 | February 23rd 04 10:44 PM |