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

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.

-HJC

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
om...
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.

"The way Air Force officials and Lockheed Martin executives tell it, 2003
marked a turning point in the development of the F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet.
"

Odd that, considering 2003 saw tail delamination, departure from controlled
flight, failure to integrate the joint standoff munition and continueing
problems integrating weapons sensors. Especailly with Congress offering the
program one year to get their act together, with the passage of the FY04
budget.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:12:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
. com...
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.

"The way Air Force officials and Lockheed Martin executives tell it, 2003
marked a turning point in the development of the F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet.
"

Odd that, considering 2003 saw tail delamination, departure from controlled
flight, failure to integrate the joint standoff munition and continueing
problems integrating weapons sensors. Especailly with Congress offering the
program one year to get their act together, with the passage of the FY04
budget.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.




Right on schedule.

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:33:49 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
. com...

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.

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.


I'd have to agree with you there. Some of his arguements were weak at
best. First he complains that in mock combat that the F-22 started in
the rear and then he complains that it's "not realistic" when it
started up front. Another clue he needs to get is when determining
maximum speed *no figther* is carrying a warload. They're always
clean. His whining that the F-15 only hit Mach 2.5 because it was
clean screams of either him having an axe to grind or just plain lack
of common sense. Let's see the F-16 or anyother fighter for that
matter, hit it's maximum speed when loaded down with ordinance.





Nevertheless, I think a good case can be made that it was
wrong to go for a high/low mix F-22/F-35 in imitation of
the F-15/F-16 mix. It is very costly, even though Lockheed
Martin is obviously using F-22 know-how in the F-35, to
develop two types; and you end up with one type which
isn't as capable as you really want and one type which is
too expensive to be built in really large numbers. Instead,
the USAF should have invested in a single, medium fighter
type, single-engined and a real multi-role aircraft, and
simple-and-cheap STOVL attack type for the USMC and
as a *real* replacement for the A-10.

By the time it was a for-sure thing that Russia was no longer was a
threat a lot of money had already been sunk into the program. Combine
this with the fact that the USAF won't get as many aircraft as it
needs no matter *how* cheap they are, they wanted to get as much
capability as possible. If it only cost five million dollars the
politicians and tree huggers would still find a reason to whine about
it and rave on about how it's a "Cold War" weapon like that's a BAD
thing.

I agree that the F-35 in any incarnation is a poor replacement for the
A-10. Basically what you need to replace the A-10 with is new A-10s.
Add on a few electronic gizmos to improve it's ability to do what it
does best and no more.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:12:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
. com...
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.

"The way Air Force officials and Lockheed Martin executives tell it, 2003
marked a turning point in the development of the F/A-22 Raptor fighter
jet.
"

Odd that, considering 2003 saw tail delamination, departure from
controlled
flight, failure to integrate the joint standoff munition and continueing
problems integrating weapons sensors. Especailly with Congress offering
the
program one year to get their act together, with the passage of the FY04
budget.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Right on schedule.

So now the F-22 program has gone from "there is no problem" to "we have
turned the program around. Were they lying before, or now. (ie both)

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:51:22 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:12:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
. com...
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.

"The way Air Force officials and Lockheed Martin executives tell it, 2003
marked a turning point in the development of the F/A-22 Raptor fighter
jet.
"

Odd that, considering 2003 saw tail delamination, departure from
controlled
flight, failure to integrate the joint standoff munition and continueing
problems integrating weapons sensors. Especailly with Congress offering
the
program one year to get their act together, with the passage of the FY04
budget.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Right on schedule.

So now the F-22 program has gone from "there is no problem" to "we have
turned the program around. Were they lying before, or now. (ie both)


I'd have to say it depends on how long passed inbetween the statements
and what they meant when they said "problem". Was it three our four
years and there was no problem they were aware of, then they found
some, and then they fixed them? Were they saying "no problem" for the
media because the media would take all the little kinks that get
worked out in the flight test problem as being major problems as they
have in the past with the "flammable aluminum Bradleys"? Joe blow on
the street doesn't know the difference between show-stoppers and the
normal working-the-bugs-out process. The thing is the scenario you
lay out could be argued either way. Think of it like this. Even if
the F-22A has problems as you've suggested in the past, the USAF
*still* wants them over any alternative despite their high cost. Why
is that? If it was soley in the interest of keeping jobs they'd can
the F-22 and have Boeing cranking out F-15s. 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.

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.

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.

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...
Instead, the USAF should have invested in a single, medium fighter
type, single-engined and a real multi-role aircraft, and
simple-and-cheap STOVL attack type for the USMC and
as a *real* replacement for the A-10.

How can you make a STOVL that's as sturdy as the A-10?

Last time I looked armor weighed something.

-HJC

On 05 Jan 2004 04:03:10 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

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.


Keep dreamin'