Question about the F-22 and it's radar.

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
snip all the personal slights and fluff


This is getting silly, were getting away from the major points with
little headway being made and sniping at each other is childish - What
exactly are we arguing about....


What I say..

Tthe F/A-22 program is too expensive for the uility it provides, and
has severe problems with software and avionics, and is struggling to
survive the review.

It requires several updates to software forcing an upgrade to the
hardware, which also increases costs.

I have provided sources for my assertions, (you have rubbished the GAO
credability),. while you have provided no quotable sources to rebutt
my assertions, you ignore facts, and provide no alternative but your
unsubstanciated opinion.

You forgot your infamous, "Can't do ground attack as is" garbage.



What You say

The F-22 is the most capable fighter in the world, its development is
comparable to a normal fighter program, there are no major problems,
its all being taken care of.

Nope-that reading comprehension problem of yours is evidencing itself again.
Of course there are development problems--just as there have been problems
in the development of the F-100, F-15, F-16, Typhoon, etc. Where we disagree
is as to whether to get our shorts all tied up into a knot over the
problems.


Issues of reliability, cost, obsolecence are all figments of
someones imagination.

Nope again. Cost is a major concern, which is why the choice of the right
number of aircraft to procure is critical. Reliability is a key concern--but
then again, reliability during the initial fielding phase is usually none
too great--witness the F-15 when it was first fielded. Where do you purchase
your blinders--over the counter, or are they specially fitted?


The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

Talk to the USAF; they are the ones saying it is indeed capable of carrying
it. Not that this would be much of a surprise. And unlike you, I understand
that the mating of JDAMS with a stealthy penetration platform like the
F/A-22 means increased lethality and increased survivability, not to mention
versatility--kind of hard to have the F-117 switch from a pure strike role
to taking out an air-to-air threat that pops up unexpectedly.


You don't like GAO assesment of the program.

I know enough not to take the GAO's assessment of *any* program as being
gospel; asking a bean-counter to make a pronouncement on advanced military
hardware is a bit like asking your accountant to select the best flyrod for
your personal use--kind of a shot in the dark.





Now for some of those side issues

Ok sources - how about LM, take a look he-


http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops...FA22Raptor.pdf

Page eleven- 2.1 for the airframe 3.1 for the engines.

This gives an overall score to the airframe development ie 1 lowest
to 5 highest.

Did you bother to read the entire slideshow, and what it is aimed at
accomplishing? Geeze, talk about taking things out of context... This is NOT
a rating of the aircraft itself, but of the development *approach* and
methodology. Think of it as internal critical analysis--a good thing, by the
way.


or Jon Ogg on obsolete systems

Try googling " ogg stsc crosstalk " I'm sure you'll find that
interesting. especially the bit about :-



"Q: Why does it cost so much to migrate to new hardware considering
that electronics technology has decreased from five-year cycles to one
year or less?

Ogg: Many of the current architectures are unique and make software
dependent on hardware. So when hardware changes, you have to redo
software at an enormous cost.

Today there is a big push on open systems and to insulate or isolate
the hardware from the functional/program software. At some future
point, the hardware component technology will change. Open systems
minimize the dependency of executing software on the underpinning
hardware. The focus is on making the system more adaptable to future
change.

In addition to the F-22 standing out as an example of this problem, we
had the F-15, F-16, B-1, C-5, and C-130 -- multi-billion-dollar
programs -- all slated for modernization. The end-user [warfighter]
wanted enhanced capabilities and functionality that couldn't be
accommodated with existing avionic architectures. So we were faced
with modernization that typically spans four to six years due to the
need to rebuild existing software for hardware technology that was out
of production."

Gee, he notes that the F-15 and F-16 faced the same kind of problems. When I
pointed this out to you, you scoffed--but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he is)
says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing my
point.

Brooks




I like the bit about the end user myself.... capability...
functionality.... can't be done on existing avionics architecture...
Sounds familier to me....

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

In article ,
John Cook wrote:

In addition to the F-22 standing out as an example of this problem, we
had the F-15, F-16, B-1, C-5, and C-130 -- multi-billion-dollar
programs -- all slated for modernization.

This is normal. When we build new planes, and create new systems, older
planes get upgrades from the lessons learned on the new ones.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:13:34 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
John Cook wrote:

In addition to the F-22 standing out as an example of this problem, we
had the F-15, F-16, B-1, C-5, and C-130 -- multi-billion-dollar
programs -- all slated for modernization.

This is normal. When we build new planes, and create new systems, older
planes get upgrades from the lessons learned on the new ones.


I absolutley agree, the only difference being the F22 isn't yet in
service, and its avionics are already in need of a major overhaul,
something the program doesn't need to be highlighted while under its
present scrutiny.

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

You forgot your infamous, "Can't do ground attack as is" garbage.

I like the bit about the end user myself.... capability...
functionality.... can't be done on existing avionics architecture...
Sounds familier to me....

Cite please, where the evidence?.


Gee, he notes that the F-15 and F-16 faced the same kind of problems. When I
pointed this out to you, you scoffed--but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he is)
says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing my
point.

Take a good look at who he is...its at the beginning,
The difference is those systems have been fielded and used, the F-22
is still in development and test (and not doing too well at the mo) So
you now have an obsolete and flakey system, Hmm. spend money trying to
rectify it or hide the fact till the new system arrives..





Nope again. Cost is a major concern, which is why the choice of the right
number of aircraft to procure is critical. Reliability is a key concern--but
then again, reliability during the initial fielding phase is usually none
too great--witness the F-15 when it was first fielded. Where do you purchase
your blinders--over the counter, or are they specially fitted?


Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
that just can't be feilded in its present form.


The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

Talk to the USAF; they are the ones saying it is indeed capable of carrying
it. Not that this would be much of a surprise. And unlike you, I understand
that the mating of JDAMS with a stealthy penetration platform like the
F/A-22 means increased lethality and increased survivability, not to mention
versatility--kind of hard to have the F-117 switch from a pure strike role
to taking out an air-to-air threat that pops up unexpectedly.

They state its going to be one of its weapons, I couldn't find a
reference that it had been cleared, I only found that dummies had
been dropped, and the weapons bay had been enlarged to accomodate
them...

Perhaps you can find something....


http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops...FA22Raptor.pdf

Page eleven- 2.1 for the airframe 3.1 for the engines.

This gives an overall score to the airframe development ie 1 lowest
to 5 highest.

Did you bother to read the entire slideshow, and what it is aimed at
accomplishing? Geeze, talk about taking things out of context... This is NOT
a rating of the aircraft itself, but of the development *approach* and
methodology. Think of it as internal critical analysis--a good thing, by the
way.

Exactly right, the development approach!, did you note the score, or
what that score actually meant?

I tell you... 2.1 for the airframe equates to :-

2 = General awareness, informal approach deployed in a few areas with
varying degrees of effectiveness and sustainment

3 = a systematic approach/methology deployed in various stages in
most areas: facilitated with good metrics; good sustainment.

You'll need level 4 to make real progress, or level 3 to get by...

The engine has actually slipped from 3.2 in 2002 to 3.1 in 2003.

but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he is)
says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing my
point.

Rember were talking about two seperate things in service aircraft that
have grown obsolete and in development aircraft that shouldn't be in
the pickle there in right now.

BTW Mr Ogg was chief engineer for the F-22 Program for nearly a decade
and now a director in the ASC, bio as follows:-

"Ogg is a member of the Senior Executive Service and director,
Engineering and Technical Management Directorate, Aeronautical Systems
Center (ASC), Air Force Materiel Command, Dayton, Ohio. He provides
overall management guidance for the development of systems engineering
programs for ASC with annual expenditures of more than $10 billion. He
ensures the proper allocation and expenditure of fiscal and personnel
resources and provides engineering tools to the program offices.

Ogg entered federal civil service as a project engineer with the
Flight Systems Directorate in 1975. He is recognized as the Air
Force's leading authority on integrity for programs propulsion and
power systems. He spent 15 years in propulsion and has been involved
with every phase of a system's life cycle on nearly all gas turbine
engines in the Air Force inventory. In addition, Ogg has provided
technical and programmatic support to many ASC weapon system programs,
including as chief engineer for the F-22 Program for nearly a decade.
He has led numerous reviews spanning acquisition strategies, request
for proposal preparation, independent cost estimates, technical risk
assignments, and flight certification. He helped pioneer the current"
integrated product process development and product team approach on
the F-22 program."

Thats whoever he 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

"John Cook" wrote in message
...


You forgot your infamous, "Can't do ground attack as is" garbage.

I like the bit about the end user myself.... capability...
functionality.... can't be done on existing avionics architecture...
Sounds familier to me....

Cite please, where the evidence?.

USAF. Do your own Google.



Gee, he notes that the F-15 and F-16 faced the same kind of problems.
When I
pointed this out to you, you scoffed--but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he
is)
says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing
my
point.

Take a good look at who he is...its at the beginning,

At the beginning of what? Your last post provided no site info, just
launches int a "Mr. Ogg says..."

The difference is those systems have been fielded and used, the F-22
is still in development and test (and not doing too well at the mo) So
you now have an obsolete and flakey system, Hmm. spend money trying to
rectify it or hide the fact till the new system arrives..

You keep coming up with the "obsolete" kitsch. Anybody else out there (or at
least anyone with *some* kind of credibility) claiming the F/A-22 is
"obsolete"?


Nope again. Cost is a major concern, which is why the choice of the right
number of aircraft to procure is critical. Reliability is a key
concern--but
then again, reliability during the initial fielding phase is usually none
too great--witness the F-15 when it was first fielded. Where do you
purchase
your blinders--over the counter, or are they specially fitted?


Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
that just can't be feilded in its present form.

Which is your claim. Apparently the USAF does not share your view, as they
are fielding the F/A-22--the first ones have already gone to the folks at
Tyndall. Odd how that system that "can't be fielded"...is being fielded. And
even non-USAF senior leaders support the program: "The F/A-22 Raptor will
deliver quantum air power improvements with great relevance in the Pacific
theater. Combining stealth, high speed, and precision weaponry, Raptor will
buy back battlespace and increase warfighting options for the joint force
commander. We need your support to fund and field this aircraft." ADM Thomas
Fargo, USPACOM, speech before HASC, March 31, 2004. Seems he thinks this
"obsolete" system is pretty neat and valuable--but you know more than he
does, right?



The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

Talk to the USAF; they are the ones saying it is indeed capable of
carrying
it. Not that this would be much of a surprise. And unlike you, I
understand
that the mating of JDAMS with a stealthy penetration platform like the
F/A-22 means increased lethality and increased survivability, not to
mention
versatility--kind of hard to have the F-117 switch from a pure strike
role
to taking out an air-to-air threat that pops up unexpectedly.

They state its going to be one of its weapons, I couldn't find a
reference that it had been cleared, I only found that dummies had
been dropped, and the weapons bay had been enlarged to accomodate
them...

Perhaps you can find something....

"In addition, the F/A-22 has inherent ground attack capability, as it can
carry two 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions (JDAM)
internally. The F/A-22 will also have provisions to carry other weapons in
the future." You'll note the difference in how they address *current* versus
future capabilities.

www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ combat_air/f-22/weapons.html

Or, as the USAF puts it: "Two AIM-9 Sidewinders; six AIM-120C Advanced
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one 20mm Gatling gun; and two,
1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)."

www.af.mil/airpower/features.asp




http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops...Handel_FA22Rap
tor.pdf

Page eleven- 2.1 for the airframe 3.1 for the engines.

This gives an overall score to the airframe development ie 1 lowest
to 5 highest.

Did you bother to read the entire slideshow, and what it is aimed at
accomplishing? Geeze, talk about taking things out of context... This is
NOT
a rating of the aircraft itself, but of the development *approach* and
methodology. Think of it as internal critical analysis--a good thing, by
the
way.

Exactly right, the development approach!, did you note the score, or
what that score actually meant?

I tell you... 2.1 for the airframe equates to :-

2 = General awareness, informal approach deployed in a few areas with
varying degrees of effectiveness and sustainment

3 = a systematic approach/methology deployed in various stages in
most areas: facilitated with good metrics; good sustainment.

You'll need level 4 to make real progress, or level 3 to get by...

No, you don't; stop trying to read stuff into it that is just not there. It
is an internal review of how they think they *are* doing (at present; note
the different "past" results), and how they can improve. You are
*******izing it to suit your own narrow-minded view.


The engine has actually slipped from 3.2 in 2002 to 3.1 in 2003.

but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he is)
says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing
my
point.

Rember were talking about two seperate things in service aircraft that
have grown obsolete and in development aircraft that shouldn't be in
the pickle there in right now.

And thanks again for mentioning that most aircraft development programs have
experienced similar development problems.


BTW Mr Ogg was chief engineer for the F-22 Program for nearly a decade
and now a director in the ASC, bio as follows:-

snip *fascinating* bio sketch, but...

Wonderful. Note he does not claim that the F/A-22 is "obsolete", nor does he
indicate it is incapable of ground attack operations, as you have done. So
your point would be...?

You really need to get off of your "Typhoon is wonderful in all regards, and
all US advanced aircraft are trash" kick; it is getting monotonous, and as
we have seen, you neither fully comprehend what these aircraft are capable
of ("What?! The F/A-22 *can* conduct precision attacks against ground
targets?! With JDAM?! Well, that *really* doesn't mean anything..."), nor
the nature of the normal development hurdles that modern aircraft have to
negotiate. You continue to bury your head in the sand when it is pointed out
to you that other past programs, now very successful indeed, have
demonstrated similar early fielding challenges. And to top it all off, you
have now told us that we "can't" field an aircraft...that is being fielded
even as you compose your next biased attack.

Brooks


Cheers
John Cook

Cite please, where the evidence?.

USAF. Do your own Google.

I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.
;-)


The difference is those systems have been fielded and used, the F-22
is still in development and test (and not doing too well at the mo) So
you now have an obsolete and flakey system, Hmm. spend money trying to
rectify it or hide the fact till the new system arrives..

You keep coming up with the "obsolete" kitsch. Anybody else out there (or at
least anyone with *some* kind of credibility) claiming the F/A-22 is
"obsolete

The avionics are obsolete, and apparently everyone is aware of it
apart from you...


Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
that just can't be feilded in its present form.

Which is your claim. Apparently the USAF does not share your view, as they
are fielding the F/A-22--the first ones have already gone to the folks at
Tyndall. Odd how that system that "can't be fielded"...is being fielded.

Very odd, The only reason I can find is someone is very scared of a
cancellation and is rushing these into semi-service.

And
even non-USAF senior leaders support the program: "The F/A-22 Raptor will
deliver quantum air power improvements with great relevance in the Pacific
theater. Combining stealth, high speed, and precision weaponry, Raptor will
buy back battlespace and increase warfighting options for the joint force
commander. We need your support to fund and field this aircraft." ADM Thomas
Fargo, USPACOM, speech before HASC, March 31, 2004. Seems he thinks this
"obsolete" system is pretty neat and valuable--but you know more than he
does, right?

I've heard that all before, until they deliver that capability, its
just a speech, in fact if it were true then full rate production
would have already started, If what there saying is correct why hasn't
it started???, why does it need support to fund it??. it seems Mr
Fargo is drumming up support for it, I wonder why...?




The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

They state its going to be one of its weapons, I couldn't find a
reference that it had been cleared, I only found that dummies had
been dropped, and the weapons bay had been enlarged to accomodate
them...

Perhaps you can find something....

"In addition, the F/A-22 has inherent ground attack capability, as it can
carry two 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions (JDAM)
internally. The F/A-22 will also have provisions to carry other weapons in
the future." You'll note the difference in how they address *current* versus
future capabilities.

www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ combat_air/f-22/weapons.html

Or, as the USAF puts it: "Two AIM-9 Sidewinders; six AIM-120C Advanced
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one 20mm Gatling gun; and two,
1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)."

www.af.mil/airpower/features.asp

There just saying that it will be used in the future...

Which means Its not cleared yet.... is it ;-),

I wonder why not, and where did you get the idea it had been cleared
for use or even tested....?

Wonderful. Note he does not claim that the F/A-22 is "obsolete", nor does he
indicate it is incapable of ground attack operations, as you have done. So
your point would be...?

No-one here claimed the F-22 was obsolete, just the avionics, which
are to be replaced hopefully by 2007, now you tell me why they would
do such a thing to such a robust and upgradable system thats not yet
out of development, is it because they had some spare cash they wanted
to spend, and couldn't find anything else to spend it on.



You really need to get off of your "Typhoon is wonderful in all regards,

I've never said Typhoon was wonderful in all regards, I know it has
several problems, and I'm willing to talk about them to without trying
to score points or blindly ignoring the bleeding obvious...

Which problem would you like to talk about?, just start another
thread.

The late and overbudget Pirate system, thats so expensive that not
all aircraft may be fitted with them?.

The DASS which is also expensive and only has rudimentary capability
eg chaff and flares for tranche 1.

The tranche 2 negotiations which are well overdue and will lead to a
production gap if not signed soon.

I'm aware of the problems, and it doest hurt to talk about them in a
rational manner.

and
all US advanced aircraft are trash" kick; it is getting monotonous, and as
we have seen, you neither fully comprehend what these aircraft are capable
of ("What?! The F/A-22 *can* conduct precision attacks against ground
targets?! With JDAM?! Well, that *really* doesn't mean anything..."),


Show me one instance of it, or even a test flight.... 'rudimentary'
now seems like a compliment.

nor
the nature of the normal development hurdles that modern aircraft have to
negotiate. You continue to bury your head in the sand when it is pointed out
to you that other past programs, now very successful indeed, have
demonstrated similar early fielding challenges. And to top it all off, you
have now told us that we "can't" field an aircraft...that is being fielded
even as you compose your next biased attack.

Fielding an aircraft takes more than just hooning around the sky, with
their cellphone* at the ready, these reported problems are not
fielding problems, they are development problems, big difference.

Unless they really get a move on in the next two months (and I mean
like never before in its development) it may well be cancelled despite
the grand speeches and promises of unmatched performance.


(*I read that a test pilot at Edwards AFB reportedly said that they
take cellphones aloft with them to be able to talk to the tower
when it BSOD on them.)

As your not very good with references or Cites etc. can anyone else
confirm JDAM is cleared for use on the F-22.

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

"John Cook" wrote in message
...


Cite please, where the evidence?.

USAF. Do your own Google.

I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.

Your whining is ceaseless in this regard. The USAF says the F/A-22 is JDAM
capable. LMCO says it is JDAM capable. Hell, even Wikipedia says it is JDAM
capable, IIRC! It flew the JDAM-capable Block 3.1 software back in 2002. You
don't think it is JDAM capable--seems like you are in a distinct minority.


;-)


The difference is those systems have been fielded and used, the F-22
is still in development and test (and not doing too well at the mo) So
you now have an obsolete and flakey system, Hmm. spend money trying to
rectify it or hide the fact till the new system arrives..

You keep coming up with the "obsolete" kitsch. Anybody else out there (or
at
least anyone with *some* kind of credibility) claiming the F/A-22 is
"obsolete

The avionics are obsolete, and apparently everyone is aware of it
apart from you...

"Obsolete"? I don't think so, and you have been rather sparse in terms of
providing any other reputable source that describes the F/A-22 as
"obsolete".



Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
that just can't be feilded in its present form.

Which is your claim. Apparently the USAF does not share your view, as
they
are fielding the F/A-22--the first ones have already gone to the folks at
Tyndall. Odd how that system that "can't be fielded"...is being fielded.

Very odd, The only reason I can find is someone is very scared of a
cancellation and is rushing these into semi-service.

LOL! First you claim they can't be fielded, now you are weaseling around it
when it is pointed out that it already *is* being fielded. Geeze.


And
even non-USAF senior leaders support the program: "The F/A-22 Raptor will
deliver quantum air power improvements with great relevance in the
Pacific
theater. Combining stealth, high speed, and precision weaponry, Raptor
will
buy back battlespace and increase warfighting options for the joint force
commander. We need your support to fund and field this aircraft." ADM
Thomas
Fargo, USPACOM, speech before HASC, March 31, 2004. Seems he thinks this
"obsolete" system is pretty neat and valuable--but you know more than he
does, right?

I've heard that all before, until they deliver that capability, its
just a speech, in fact if it were true then full rate production
would have already started, If what there saying is correct why hasn't
it started???, why does it need support to fund it??. it seems Mr
Fargo is drumming up support for it, I wonder why...?

More whining? Yes, the F/A-22 is in production, even as your fervently seek
to besmirch it. It is getting ready to enter its operational test program in
the next couple of months IIRC. Production will continue while that is
underway. The question on the board now is how many we will produce, not
whether it will be produced--production aircraft have already been
delivered.





The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

They state its going to be one of its weapons, I couldn't find a
reference that it had been cleared, I only found that dummies had
been dropped, and the weapons bay had been enlarged to accomodate
them...

Perhaps you can find something....

"In addition, the F/A-22 has inherent ground attack capability, as it can
carry two 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions (JDAM)
internally. The F/A-22 will also have provisions to carry other weapons i
n
the future." You'll note the difference in how they address *current*
versus
future capabilities.

www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ combat_air/f-22/weapons.html

Or, as the USAF puts it: "Two AIM-9 Sidewinders; six AIM-120C Advanced
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one 20mm Gatling gun; and two,
1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)."

www.af.mil/airpower/features.asp

There just saying that it will be used in the future...

Which means Its not cleared yet.... is it ;-),

Is that a simper that follows your habitual whine...?


I wonder why not, and where did you get the idea it had been cleared
for use or even tested....?

It is capable of carrying the JDAM. You want to argue that, go talk to the
USAF. personally, I put a hell of a lot more stock in what they say than I
do in your drivel.


Wonderful. Note he does not claim that the F/A-22 is "obsolete", nor does
he
indicate it is incapable of ground attack operations, as you have done.
So
your point would be...?

No-one here claimed the F-22 was obsolete, just the avionics, which
are to be replaced hopefully by 2007, now you tell me why they would
do such a thing to such a robust and upgradable system thats not yet
out of development, is it because they had some spare cash they wanted
to spend, and couldn't find anything else to spend it on.

Yawnnn...you need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths. Are you done
whining yet?




You really need to get off of your "Typhoon is wonderful in all regards,

I've never said Typhoon was wonderful in all regards, I know it has
several problems, and I'm willing to talk about them to without trying
to score points or blindly ignoring the bleeding obvious...

Which problem would you like to talk about?, just start another
thread.

The late and overbudget Pirate system, thats so expensive that not
all aircraft may be fitted with them?.

The DASS which is also expensive and only has rudimentary capability
eg chaff and flares for tranche 1.

The tranche 2 negotiations which are well overdue and will lead to a
production gap if not signed soon.

I'm aware of the problems, and it doest hurt to talk about them in a
rational manner.

and
all US advanced aircraft are trash" kick; it is getting monotonous, and
as
we have seen, you neither fully comprehend what these aircraft are
capable
of ("What?! The F/A-22 *can* conduct precision attacks against ground
targets?! With JDAM?! Well, that *really* doesn't mean anything..."),


Show me one instance of it, or even a test flight.... 'rudimentary'
now seems like a compliment.

More whining...argue it with the USAF.


nor
the nature of the normal development hurdles that modern aircraft have to
negotiate. You continue to bury your head in the sand when it is pointed
out
to you that other past programs, now very successful indeed, have
demonstrated similar early fielding challenges. And to top it all off,
you
have now told us that we "can't" field an aircraft...that is being
fielded
even as you compose your next biased attack.

Fielding an aircraft takes more than just hooning around the sky, with
their cellphone* at the ready, these reported problems are not
fielding problems, they are development problems, big difference.

Unless they really get a move on in the next two months (and I mean
like never before in its development) it may well be cancelled despite
the grand speeches and promises of unmatched performance.

It is being fielded NOW to the folks at Tyndall. You don't like that
fact--too bad.

You can have the last (negative) word in regards to the F/A-22; it has
become patently obvious that you can't see past your bias about it, or the
JSF. You can claim you don't have an anti-US aircraft bias all you want, but
your many posts critical of the F/A-22 and F-35 (when was the last time you
had something positive to say about either?), concurrent to your "everybody
should buy Typhoon" stuff kind of points the way towards reality. Have a
great day.

Brooks



(*I read that a test pilot at Edwards AFB reportedly said that they
take cellphones aloft with them to be able to talk to the tower
when it BSOD on them.)

As your not very good with references or Cites etc. can anyone else
confirm JDAM is cleared for use on the F-22.

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

In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

"Felger Carbon" wrote in message
link.net...
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , John Cook
wrote:


Just the official reports!!, Lockheed has only purchased enough
processors for 155 F-22's because there out of production, the
demand
for Air to ground operations has increased the demand on
processing
power, something the original processors are not quite upto hence
the
_need_ for the 'upgrade'.

So the processors are obsolete, (too old)... the Avionic
architecture
needs to be replaced before the F-22 can become the F/A-22 because
the
present system is based on the old processors and rewriting the
code
is pointless on an obsolete system, that would only support half
of
the F-22 fleet

Methinks there's some confusion there between processors, avionics
architecture, and software.
While it's true that Intel tried to shut down i960 production
causing a
chinese fire drill, there are enough assets to get by until a new
processor is
ready.

Full disclosu I'm a retired electrical engineer. I specialized in
high-end embedded microprocessors, which the "i960" in the F-22 is. I
know nothing about designing aircraft. I do know a little about the
Intel processor at the heart of the F-22:

The i960MX was designed by Intel specifically and solely for the F-22.

Nope, the i960 is a processor designed to control printers.

There were several flavors of the i960, most of which were purely
commercial and were used as printer drivers among other things.
The MX was the military version that had the 33rd bit for security, which
was unique among the other processors and is one of the reasons the
i960 was selected in the first place.

(rest of off-topic stuff snipped)

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:1%obc.4658$zc1.3787@okepread03...
The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface
capability." It can already lug a couple of JDAM's. So how does that
even
*require* an optimized ground mapping radar to allow it to strike ground
targets with significant precision?

I'm not a bombardier, but I think the SAR radar is necessary for the INS
inputs. The INS being only updated by the GPS, and only if the GPS
isn't being jammed (which will be unlikely down the road). I think I read
where GPS only doubles the accuracy of the INS (50 feet versus 100 feet).

Without SAR, and GPS being jammed, you'll need a good pair of TACAN's,
which some enemies don't seem to provide :-)

I have yet to hear that a SAR update is required. Doing so would require the
preloaded data for the terrain (so that the SAR would have something to
relate its picture to). From what i understand, the weapon gets its update
from the aircraft (through its own INS), then after release it uses GPS to
improve the accuracy of its own INS. If SAR was required, then I guess the
A-10 would never be certified to carry JDAM...?

That's ridculous.

SAR updates to pre-programmed INS settings have been used since the
early 90's to improve the accuracy of GPS aided munitions.

You don't need the SAR update to launch a JDAM, but it dramatically
improves the CEP of the weapon and essentially means that you can use
a smaller weapon to take out a target.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

The primary processor in CIP is the Intel i960MX microprocessor,which
is
used strictly for avionics processing.

Pretty obvious I think.

Yep, you somehow believe because Phill Miller is clueless, others must be
clueless as well. I was correct and what Felger wrote is wrong. I do
wonder at Phil's reading disability sometimes. The i960 has no application
outside Lockmart's MPP.

Not true. The i960 was used on several other programs. I worked on some
of them myself.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur