Any guesses as to when or if the F-22 will ever show up at Paris or Farnborough?

I'd say 2005. At this stage of the program they cannot afford a crash, nor
can they pull a test aircraft from its duties. In 2005 a few test aircraft
would be "free" to other pursuits, and I'd wager we'll see a lot of PR
record breaking and some very agressive aerial demonstrations at the usual
events.

_____________
José Herculano

"José Herculano" wrote in message .. .
I'd say 2005.
_____________
José Herculano

Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
projected at $162 million each!!!
That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
SHOULD have but really doesn't.
Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.
The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other
aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the
Flanker and Eurofighter.
I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do
many other taxpayers. It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its
role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series
production. I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed
F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really
wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could
modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense
without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future.
However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat
emerging until after 2010 at least.
Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6.
This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also
working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under
development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems.
I think our money should be spent more wisely...

Rob

On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

Gosh, Robert, tell us what you really think. But, maybe more
importantly, tell us what particularl in your experience gives you
such insights into a still largely classified program. In other words,
beyond the typical "omigod, look at those dollars" argument, why do
you think the F-22 is so inferior.

Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
projected at $162 million each!!!
That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
SHOULD have but really doesn't.

What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
shortfall?

Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.

Why is it that they can make a Yugo for $3500 but it costs $55K for a
Lexus that is just as good a transporter?

Give me an example of a conflict in which Russias finest product has
demonstrated superiority. The last time you might be able to find some
numbers that could give that impression, you'd be talking about the
Vietnam war, but there you'd be looking at ROE rather than capability.
Try Bekaa Valley stats for the same airplanes without the ROE.

The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other
aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the
Flanker and Eurofighter.

So, specifically, how much "NOT that much better overall" is the
Raptor? How are you quantifying the advanced, not-yet-publicised
aspects of the F-22?

I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do
many other taxpayers.

That's it. I really like the idea of putting the technology choices in
the hands of the taxpayers.

It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its
role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series
production.

Exactly how does a UCAV beat a Raptor in the integrated system which
the UCAV never sees before being morted?

I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed
F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really
wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could
modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense
without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future.

The F-15 is 30 years old! The technology was incredible, but it is now
obsolescent, if not obsolete.

However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat
emerging until after 2010 at least.

This is 2003. We've been in development of Raptor since 1985 and will
finally reach IOC in 2006. So, when do you want to start production of
the counter to that "serious threat" emerging after 2010?

Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6.
This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also
working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under
development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems.
I think our money should be spent more wisely...

Have you considered that the greatest value of F-22 will be precisely
to counter "primarily a ground attack family".... Have you noticed
that US forces have not had enemy aircraft overhead since Korea? What
would you spend our money on, oh wise one?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

snip
What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
shortfall?

Weapons sensor integration, weapons integation and structural integrity are
all current shortfalls of the F-22 program. Perhaps these issues can be
sorted out by the end of this fiscal year, but perhaps the ax will fall.

"At Paris?"

Never.

"Over Paris?"

Soon, I hope . . .

Steve Swartz

"José Herculano" wrote in message
...
I'd say 2005. At this stage of the program they cannot afford a crash, nor
can they pull a test aircraft from its duties. In 2005 a few test aircraft
would be "free" to other pursuits, and I'd wager we'll see a lot of PR
record breaking and some very agressive aerial demonstrations at the usual
events.

_____________
José Herculano

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:15:15 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

snip
What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
shortfall?

Weapons sensor integration, weapons integation and structural integrity are
all current shortfalls of the F-22 program. Perhaps these issues can be
sorted out by the end of this fiscal year, but perhaps the ax will fall.



Any specific numbers and cites to go with those assertions? Didn't
think so.

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
Give me an example of a conflict in which Russias finest product has
demonstrated superiority. The last time you might be able to find some
numbers that could give that impression, you'd be talking about the
Vietnam war, but there you'd be looking at ROE rather than capability.
Try Bekaa Valley stats for the same airplanes without the ROE.

The sort of conflict you refer to has never occurred. Russia's finest
was never in the hands of anyone but the Russians themselves (barring
a few defectors who brought their ride along). Even if they had been,
you Bekaa example probably doesn't hold up. I think that if the Arabs
had had the same technology as the Israelis, the Israelis still would
have walked all over them, although at a somewhat higher cost. It just
doesn't get much leaner and meaner than the IDF.

I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a
West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had
just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East
German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the
superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most
relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that
had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies
easily.

I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the
bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly,
as these tests showed.

I hope that we will never really know the answer to which is better.

Rob

I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a
West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had
just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East
German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the
superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most
relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that
had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies
easily.

I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the
bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly,
as these tests showed.


Actually from an article I recall reading back then, quoting accounts
from the pilots who actually participated, the F-4s *did* win. I
specifically remember the laments of East German pilots of getting
waxed by "lousy Phantoms".





I hope that we will never really know the answer to which is better.

Rob

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"José Herculano" wrote in message
.. .
I'd say 2005.
_____________
José Herculano

Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
projected at $162 million each!!!
That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
SHOULD have but really doesn't.
Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.
The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other
aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the
Flanker and Eurofighter.
I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do
many other taxpayers. It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its
role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series
production. I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed
F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really
wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could
modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense
without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future.
However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat
emerging until after 2010 at least.
Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6.
This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also
working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under
development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems.
I think our money should be spent more wisely...

Rob

Too bad you don't win a war based on the cheaper fighter jet. You put a
squadron of F-22s at some country's doorstep and you show me any country
that will be willing to fight in the air. That fact alone will probably
save you months to years on the duration of a war and billions of dollars in
cost savings and thousands of lives. They will pay for themselves just by
their meir existance.

How many billions have we spent on nuclear weapons? How many times have we
used them? You sleep well at night?

We should be willing to pay any price to continue to completely dominate the
battlespace. If we ever lose that edge, we'll find ourselves back into
another Kora, Vietnam, WWII nightware that no one wants. Your shinny new
car, or big new house, won't matter for a damn if you get drafted to go
fight some war that's dragging on because we outfitted our military with the
lowest bidder.