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

Scott Ferrin wrote:

I'm wondering if maybe he just saw a picture that looked like they had
strakes. I noticed a picture the other day of one taken from the side
and there is a panel towards the rear going up onto the spine a bit
that is has off color paint. It makes it look EXACTLY like one of
those added onto the Hornet.

On the other hand, he's had what, six months to figure that out?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:34:38 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote:

I'm wondering if maybe he just saw a picture that looked like they had
strakes. I noticed a picture the other day of one taken from the side
and there is a panel towards the rear going up onto the spine a bit
that is has off color paint. It makes it look EXACTLY like one of
those added onto the Hornet.

On the other hand, he's had what, six months to figure that out?


You're assuming he'd fess up ;-)

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:35:23 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

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.

Hey, I was there at the time. Ed Riccioni was one of the staunchest
members of the LWF Mafia. He was a tremendously vocal advocate of the
concept and, after the fly-off, the F-16. He'd tell you so himself.

He was proud of it. After all, they won. Actually, they won twice,
with two different services. And they weren't even trying that hard
the second time.

He commanded the CTF, too, as well as advocating things like the A-16
after he retired. He was a big supporter of the AFTI/F-16, for that
reason.

I remember him coming around Dryden and giving us a briefing he'd put
together about using the F-16 for a new role. I've got the viewgraphs
somewhere, I think. Off hand, I can't remember what it was, though.
Supercruise? It wasn't CAS, because that was earlier. And it wasn't
FB-16, because although he loves the F-16, he isn't stupid. It was
really clever, but unlikely, whatever it was. Something you wished
would get tried, just because it was neat.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 21:39:11 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:35:23 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

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.

Hey, I was there at the time. Ed Riccioni was one of the staunchest
members of the LWF Mafia. He was a tremendously vocal advocate of the
concept and, after the fly-off, the F-16. He'd tell you so himself.


I wonder what he thinks about the latest model of the F-16 grossing
52,000lbs ;-)

"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.

You don't even have to read the article: a glance at a couple of pages
worth of two line paragraphs screams either "clueless" or "hit
piece", take your choice.

"Smartace11" wrote in message
...
USAF was never "keen on the idea of stopping B-2 production." Don't
know where you got that.

On this one point I would have to agree though the rest of the argument
doesn't
ring true - I worked on both the F-22 and B-2 all through the 90s.

Whatever.

In 96 0r 97, Congress wanted the AF to "have" another 20 B-2s beyond the
first
20. They even wanted to appropriate $550M for long lead spares. The AF
Generals at the five sided wind tunnel and ACC HQ at Langley then went
enmasse
to Congress to tell then the DID NOT want more B-2s. Instead they wanted
more
funding to accelerate the F-22.

So then, you attempt to discredit me on the causal portion, but only agree
with the result. How can you possibly disagree with something you have no
clue about?


Not trying to discredit anyone. Just saying that there was a point where the
AF decided it did not want any more B-2s, mainly because of the maintenance
workoad and declining number of maintainers.

I may well be clueless about the B-2. My role was to write white papers for
the AF Generals, work with the GAO, and answer congressional inquiries from
within the AF program office. The sitting guy next to me mananged the AV-1
upgrade program when the $550M fell into our lap. Aside from that I haven't a
clue what you are accusingme of.

In article , wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:35:23 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

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.

Hey, I was there at the time. Ed Riccioni was one of the staunchest
members of the LWF Mafia. He was a tremendously vocal advocate of the
concept and, after the fly-off, the F-16. He'd tell you so himself.

He was proud of it. After all, they won. Actually, they won twice,
with two different services. And they weren't even trying that hard
the second time.

He commanded the CTF, too, as well as advocating things like the A-16
after he retired. He was a big supporter of the AFTI/F-16, for that
reason.

I remember him coming around Dryden and giving us a briefing he'd put
together about using the F-16 for a new role. I've got the viewgraphs
somewhere, I think. Off hand, I can't remember what it was, though.
Supercruise? It wasn't CAS, because that was earlier. And it wasn't
FB-16, because although he loves the F-16, he isn't stupid. It was
really clever, but unlikely, whatever it was. Something you wished
would get tried, just because it was neat.

Do remember when that would be?

I remember a briefing about 2 years ago that centered around using
mothballed F-16A, Block 10 & 20 aircraft (upgraded) as a shortcut
to UCAV.
It was rejected of course, for several reasons.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:28:36 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:08:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

Developmental aircraft are generally secured by other assets than
military police. (You may also recall from your USAF experience that
the terminology for USAF security forces is Security Police.) Any time
is a poor time to get arrested for law breaking. It doesn't have a lot
to do with F-22 performance.

You made an issue of me not having a picture of an airplane in a specific
configuration, as have several of the newsgroup monkeys.

No. Don't have a dog in that hunt. I have not been involved in the
argument regarding a picture with or without strakes.

OK

I've been trying to engage in a dialogue, without personal insult that
might provide some information and perspective for folks in the news
group. Join me or not, your choice.

I think we are already doing that.

No, Ed is providing information, while you, as usual, are providing an
amazingly warped, unreal viewpoint. While I suppose that, in the
"Tarverworld" your ramblings may make some sort of weird sense,
you are the only one that lives there. (Thank God)

Al Minyard

"Smartace11" wrote in message
...
"Smartace11" wrote in message
...
So then, you attempt to discredit me on the causal portion, but only
agree
with the result. How can you possibly disagree with something you have
no
clue about?

Not trying to discredit anyone. Just saying that there was a point where
the
AF decided it did not want any more B-2s, mainly because of the
maintenance
workoad and declining number of maintainers.

The USAF wanted the money and B-2s use few pilots.

I may well be clueless about the B-2. My role was to write white papers
for
the AF Generals, work with the GAO, and answer congressional inquiries
from
within the AF program office. The sitting guy next to me mananged the
AV-1
upgrade program when the $550M fell into our lap. Aside from that I
haven't a
clue what you are accusingme of.

AV-1 is Northrop's airframe, I do not know of any upgrade for that bird.
AV-2 thru AV-6 were ungraded to production version, about that time.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:27:42 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Smartace11" wrote in message
...
"Smartace11" wrote in message
...
So then, you attempt to discredit me on the causal portion, but only
agree
with the result. How can you possibly disagree with something you have
no
clue about?

Not trying to discredit anyone. Just saying that there was a point where
the
AF decided it did not want any more B-2s, mainly because of the
maintenance
workoad and declining number of maintainers.

The USAF wanted the money and B-2s use few pilots.

I may well be clueless about the B-2. My role was to write white papers
for
the AF Generals, work with the GAO, and answer congressional inquiries
from
within the AF program office. The sitting guy next to me mananged the
AV-1
upgrade program when the $550M fell into our lap. Aside from that I
haven't a
clue what you are accusingme of.

AV-1 is Northrop's airframe, I do not know of any upgrade for that bird.
AV-2 thru AV-6 were ungraded to production version, about that time.



I thought the "AV" in AV-1 was for "air vehicle". I know there was
one that wasn't intended to go into service but did in the end. The
only one I know of that didn't was the "iron bird" that had different
landing gear, wasn't flyable, but was the same size and configuaration
as the production B-2. Could that be the one you are thinking of as
Northrop's aircraft?