Did the F/A-22 Raptor turn the corner in 2003?

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
But they're not. The
military has cancelled stuff before that they wanted but were not
living up to their promises. The A-12, Sgt, York, and TSSAM come to
mind.

Now even Air Force wants to get rid of Jurassicfighter.
It was aready too late for cancellation in year 2001,thats the only reason
why
it survived up to now.

Georgia pork is the only thing keeping the jurassic turd alive.

On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
"They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
"They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.

"Honest" is the word, Mary.

The mix will still be big/small, is we build the robot flock to run with the
F-18. I don't see any indication that USAF is prepared to make a COTS
procurement, at this time and mil-spec procurement is "expired".

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

I think EF-22 could be a perfect ECM plane,but if everything else fails we
have
still Smithsonian for the Jurassicfighter.

Lockmart did things a little differently with the F-22 development and in
doing so validated the old school way.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
"They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.


The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
fighter business.

How can they be trying to "find a role" for an airplane that has been,
from the first release of RFP, a dedicated "air dominance fighter"
replacement for the F-15? What's so damning about initial 1-v-1
engagements with F-15s in which the Raptor starts in trail or the
Eagle starts in trail--these are standard 1-v-1 setups. You will
probably also see shoulder to shoulder same way and shoulder to
shoulder opposing initial setups.

Riccioni's comments on A/A missile failures read like someone who's
been in a time warp since the '70s. And Pearson's fumbling comments
about the effectiveness of stealth indicate a possible Rip Van Winkle
period during Desert Storm.

Don't know that we could accuse Riccioni of being LWF Mafia, it sounds
like he was much more Eagle than Viper and definitely not F-5 over
F-4. The Mafia were much more centered on the operational side of the
house than development.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
"They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.


The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
fighter business.

For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the F-22
cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the Pentagon
can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:38:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
"They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.


The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
fighter business.

For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the F-22
cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the Pentagon
can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.

Having been in the ATF Dem/Val stage, I've got a bit of insight into
the program and I commented on the quotes in the article which make
little sense in the context of modern fighter operations.

Now, how can you have such great engineering insights into the program
which you've repeatedly indicated is still so "black" that taking
pictures of OT&E vehicles is felonious? The article certainly didn't
come from the Pentagon, but from spokesmen at Edwards and it certainly
didn't sound like a whitewash, but rather the rantings of someone who
is opposed to the airplane.

Did you read the article at the link? It seems to be from folks in
your camp rather than mine.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...

These are people with an axe to grind -- the 'light weight
fighter maffia'. Their arguments don't impress me much;
lightweight fighters have never been very successful.
I've read part of Stevenson's "The Pentagon Paradox"
book once, but found it hard to take seriously -- too
many errors and fallacies.


For more of Stevenson's views check "Fighter Jet Fix Video Transcription"
Interview
James Stevenson
July 27, 1998
http://www.cdi.org/adm/1233/Stevenson.html
ADM's Jon Lottman interviews James Stevenson, for "Fighter Jet Fix"

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:38:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
"They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.


The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
fighter business.

For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the F-22
cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the
Pentagon
can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.

Having been in the ATF Dem/Val stage, I've got a bit of insight into
the program and I commented on the quotes in the article which make
little sense in the context of modern fighter operations.

My comments go directly to the title of the article, as calling the results
from 2003, "turning a corner" made me laugh. In light of Congres' notice
that the F-22 will be canceled in FY05, unless the program squares away it's
problems during FY04, I can't see how even a casual observer could believe
the article's main premise.

Now, how can you have such great engineering insights into the program
which you've repeatedly indicated is still so "black" that taking
pictures of OT&E vehicles is felonious?

The desire to prevent photographs of the F-22s on the Edwards flight line
has gone so far as to provide each aircraft with it's own little dog house.
It is a security violation on Edwards to take pictures.

The article certainly didn't
come from the Pentagon, but from spokesmen at Edwards and it certainly
didn't sound like a whitewash, but rather the rantings of someone who
is opposed to the airplane.

I didn't take the article that way, but as a recognition that a ground
attack version of the F-22 is probably not viable in light of current
inventory. The Bone lighting up for the terror war is a pleasant surprise
from a deployable asset viewpoint.

Did you read the article at the link? It seems to be from folks in
your camp rather than mine.

I read the article and your critique. It seems to me that the Bone
addresses certain forward basing issues, that have hounded fighter community
funding over the past decade; favoring Navy funding.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Now even Air Force wants to get rid of Jurassicfighter. It was
aready too late for cancellation in year 2001,thats the only reason
why it survived up to now.

Georgia pork is the only thing keeping the jurassic turd alive.

So now we have Denyav *and* Tarver against the F-22.

Safe to say it's going to be one of the greatest figher planes, *ever*,
looking at their past records...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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