Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

Do I hear the sounds of black helicopters in your post?

--
Mike Kanze

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you."

- Pericles (430 B.C.)


"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...

| | Remember that we are planning for a war with China by the end of
| | the decade.
| |
|
|Are you planning to fight them all yourself or do
|you have a couple of buddies lined up to help ?
|
|Keith

Ok, ok!!!

Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
to plan for this potential war. China has let it be known, there
are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.

Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
North Africa.

It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and
2012.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
*can*. Which is why a lot of that F-35 code you're so happy about is
just modified Ada code from the F-22 suite - and why a good chunk of the
F-22 code is Ada-95 (newer and better development tools make maintaining
the code so much easier it was cost-effective to rewrite it).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...

The FB-22 would replace the Air Force's F-15E and take
over some missions for long-range bombers such as the B-2 and
B-1. The initial design envisioned a plane that could carry 24
Small Diameter Bombs, which weigh only 250 pounds. Using Global
Positioning System guidance, the small bomb would be as lethal as
a 2,000-pound bomb.

No sir , GPS guidance systems are already available for
2000lb bombs

Depends on what that SDB is aimed at. A 250lb rock is just as lethal for a
tank as a 2000lb bomb would be.

8 x 250lb bombs would be (assuming they all hit their targets) more lethal
for an enemy tank company than one 2000lb bomb.

Pete

Damn,

I'm not credible

That just tears me up

Jake

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will
be
replacing them as soon as they are available.

You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
published information, but providing no evidence to support said
claims.

Thus, you're not credible.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
news:5Ob_b.4176

A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
a military-derived cargo plane

The obvious question is why doesn't the military use them and give the
taxpayers a break

Ya know,

I just had to comment again. There are quite a few folks who use this group
know me personally, professionally and by association.

You do not, and are one of the reasons I rarely post here.

I could give a flying **** if I am credible to you or not.

Jake


"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will
be
replacing them as soon as they are available.

You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
published information, but providing no evidence to support said
claims.

Thus, you're not credible.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
*can*.

Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without altering the
sofware.

Wch is why a lot of that F-35 code you're so happy about is
just modified Ada code from the F-22 suite - and why a good chunk of the
F-22 code is Ada-95 (newer and better development tools make maintaining
the code so much easier it was cost-effective to rewrite it).

Let me clue you, the F-35 is tabbed to the Eurofighter. Are you aware of
BAE Systems?

Ozman Trad wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
news:5Ob_b.4176

A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
a military-derived cargo plane

The obvious question is why doesn't the military use them and give
the taxpayers a break

Check the part you snipped: "Very few users need the short-field or
oversized cargo capacity..." Well, the military is one of those very few
users. A 747 won't carry a tank, nor will it land in a short unimproved
strip in the back of beyond to deliver its cargo.

However, you will find that the military does use civil-style freighters for
lots of its cargo hauling. They just happen to belong to the Civil Reserve
Air Fleet rather than actually being owned by the US military.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Ozman Trad" wrote in message
...
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
news:5Ob_b.4176

A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
a military-derived cargo plane

The obvious question is why doesn't the military use them and give the
taxpayers a break

They sometimes do, under charter. But are you going to task that 747-400
freighter to, say for example, try and conduct an airborne insertion? I
don't think so...

Brooks

I really, really hate to mess with your "credibility" but the F35 was NOT
designed as a carrier aircraft. The JSF concept was for an aircraft that
can be used by different players with differnt requiremnets. NOT as a
CARRIER aircraft.

The F-35C was. Argue all you want, but that leaves two other variants of
the F35 that were NOT designed to be carrier aircraft. The A, a CTOV
variant for the Airforce to replace F-16's, A-10's, and yes, in the up
coming future, the F-22.

Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a Carrier
Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a carrier
but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or Cat
launches.

The Brits have a little different take on the uses but they pretty much fall
in line with the above.

Respectfully
Jake

PS - Oh, wait a minute, please quote some credible documentation to back up
your above statement. I don't seem to be able to find any.


"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
modified to be a carrier aircraft.

Huh? The F-35 is absolutely nothing like the F-22.

The F-35 was not "modified" to be a carrier aircraft, it was DESIGNED
AS a carrier aircraft.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/