No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:46:28 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


Boeing was fourth with damn near no
stealth experience (in the white world anyway) and the historical
king
of fighter producers McD was 5th.

McDonnell already had two fighter contracts and GD had one. The only
logic
that would apply is one where the Pentagon wanted to create an
additional
provider.

Grumman would have been the logical choice if that's all they wanted
to do. They already had experience building figthers and were
current. Yeah it had the Tomcat but even back then production was
starting to taper off.

Grumman was already building a fighter.

Yeah but of the three companies producing fighters it was the closest
to finishing up production. Grumman didn't have anything in the
pipeline after the Tomcat and where at this point in the ATF program
NATF was still a consideration Grumman would seem to be a shoe-in if
they were just interested in keeping the manufacturers going. Come to
think of it one of the reasons the F-22 was chosen over the F-23 was
because of the NATF requirement. Lockheed had planned a swing-wing
F-22 for the carrier requirement.

Not likely.

In fact, the finite element analysis that the F-22 was built off of renders
your comments laughable, Ferrin.

To go from supplying the USAF with
their premier fighter for the last forty or so years (F-4/F-15) to
placing FIFTH in the competition to build a new fighter suggests
that
though the USAF wanted it all, aerodynamic performance took a
distant
second place behind stealth.

Son, let me tell it like it is, when you take it down the road from
number
one you get less, not more.

???? Less *what*? Performance? It was number one on the F-15 and
nobody who's flown the F-22 will give the nod to the F-15 when it
comes to flight performance vs. the F-22.

If the avionics stay lit and the tails doesn't delaminate on the F-22.

The F-15 also had problems with delamination.

What?

Any idea what airframe
number they implimented the fix in on the F-22? Or is it still on the
to-do list?

AV-19 is supposed to be fixed, but there is no way for anyone to know that.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:20:42 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:00:05 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:18:30 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

At that point in the competition (two designs chosen of seven paper
designs) unless the USAF did a lot of inhouse simulation/studies/ etc.
about the only thing they have to go on is the data the manufacturers
submit with their proposals.

Excuse me, but this must be some sort of a time warp that I didn't
live through.


It's probably that age thing kicking in ;-) We're talking about the
decision process the LED to the building of the YF-22 and YF-23.

You might understand my confusion then. I thought we were talking
about the contract award choice for F-22. To have stated that the AF
bought an unflyable design would require a linkage between paper
proposal and final decision point at the end of the fly-off.

If we're talking about funding of Dem/Val, certainly there was a
decision made to narrow the field (must have been around '84) and
combine capabilities into the two teams. The purpose of Dem/Val (by
definition) is Demonstration/Validation of the proposed concepts. That
meant building the whole proposal package ranging from airframe to
man/machine interface to aerodynamic modeling to training (both
operator and maintainer training were required in the proposal).

By late '87, metal was being bent and configuration was well
established. Simulations were very far along. By late '88 prototypes
were rolled out and flew successfully. After a year of flying both -22
and -23, a selection was announced. Don't see how that equates with
your statement that AF bought an unflyable paper design.

It was at this point that Lockheed and Northrop were chosen to proceed
to building prototypes. Lockheed teamed with GD and Boeing and at
this point GD said "uh, we got some bad news about your design."

During Dem/Val a lot of things get tried in simulation and
wind-tunnels. Typically if you get inside the big black hangar you
will find a display of failed tunnel models that were developed along
the way.

In short, I don't think you've announced any sort of "smoking gun."


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

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:50:31 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:20:42 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:00:05 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:18:30 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

At that point in the competition (two designs chosen of seven paper
designs) unless the USAF did a lot of inhouse simulation/studies/ etc.
about the only thing they have to go on is the data the manufacturers
submit with their proposals.

Excuse me, but this must be some sort of a time warp that I didn't
live through.


It's probably that age thing kicking in ;-) We're talking about the
decision process the LED to the building of the YF-22 and YF-23.

You might understand my confusion then. I thought we were talking
about the contract award choice for F-22. To have stated that the AF
bought an unflyable design would require a linkage between paper
proposal and final decision point at the end of the fly-off.

If we're talking about funding of Dem/Val, certainly there was a
decision made to narrow the field (must have been around '84) and
combine capabilities into the two teams. The purpose of Dem/Val (by
definition) is Demonstration/Validation of the proposed concepts. That
meant building the whole proposal package ranging from airframe to
man/machine interface to aerodynamic modeling to training (both
operator and maintainer training were required in the proposal).

By late '87, metal was being bent and configuration was well
established. Simulations were very far along. By late '88 prototypes
were rolled out and flew successfully. After a year of flying both -22
and -23, a selection was announced. Don't see how that equates with
your statement that AF bought an unflyable paper design.


Not mine. Tarver's. What *I* said was that the Lockheed design
chosen to be built into a prototype wouldn't fly. This is the design
that Lockheed submitted that the airforce chose to move forward to the
prototype stage.

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/lockheed.jpg


Doesn't look much like a YF-22 does it? Unfortunately the small
picture doesn't really do it justice.

Yeah but of the three companies producing fighters it was the closest
to finishing up production. Grumman didn't have anything in the
pipeline after the Tomcat and where at this point in the ATF program
NATF was still a consideration Grumman would seem to be a shoe-in if
they were just interested in keeping the manufacturers going. Come to
think of it one of the reasons the F-22 was chosen over the F-23 was
because of the NATF requirement. Lockheed had planned a swing-wing
F-22 for the carrier requirement.

Not likely.

In fact, the finite element analysis that the F-22 was built off of renders
your comments laughable, Ferrin.


Sorry but it's pretty much common knowledge Tarver. The fact that a
self-claimed expert like yourself has never heard of it really makes
me question your claim.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0132.shtml






To go from supplying the USAF with
their premier fighter for the last forty or so years (F-4/F-15) to
placing FIFTH in the competition to build a new fighter suggests
that
though the USAF wanted it all, aerodynamic performance took a
distant
second place behind stealth.

Son, let me tell it like it is, when you take it down the road from
number
one you get less, not more.

???? Less *what*? Performance? It was number one on the F-15 and
nobody who's flown the F-22 will give the nod to the F-15 when it
comes to flight performance vs. the F-22.

If the avionics stay lit and the tails doesn't delaminate on the F-22.

The F-15 also had problems with delamination.

What?


The F-15 had the same kind of delamination problems with the
horizontal tail that has popped up with the F-22.




Any idea what airframe
number they implimented the fix in on the F-22? Or is it still on the
to-do list?

AV-19 is supposed to be fixed, but there is no way for anyone to know that.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

Yeah but of the three companies producing fighters it was the closest
to finishing up production. Grumman didn't have anything in the
pipeline after the Tomcat and where at this point in the ATF program
NATF was still a consideration Grumman would seem to be a shoe-in if
they were just interested in keeping the manufacturers going. Come to
think of it one of the reasons the F-22 was chosen over the F-23 was
because of the NATF requirement. Lockheed had planned a swing-wing
F-22 for the carrier requirement.

Not likely.

In fact, the finite element analysis that the F-22 was built off of
renders
your comments laughable, Ferrin.

Sorry but it's pretty much common knowledge Tarver. The fact that a
self-claimed expert like yourself has never heard of it really makes
me question your claim.

It is less common knowlede that such a change would require a complete
redesign of the F-22. The finite element design of the F-22 does not allow
for forces in the direction of any tailhook.

snip of kook website similar to Kopp's

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:20:42 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:00:05 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:18:30 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

At that point in the competition (two designs chosen of seven paper
designs) unless the USAF did a lot of inhouse simulation/studies/ etc.
about the only thing they have to go on is the data the manufacturers
submit with their proposals.

Excuse me, but this must be some sort of a time warp that I didn't
live through.


It's probably that age thing kicking in ;-) We're talking about the
decision process the LED to the building of the YF-22 and YF-23.

You might understand my confusion then. I thought we were talking
about the contract award choice for F-22. To have stated that the AF
bought an unflyable design would require a linkage between paper
proposal and final decision point at the end of the fly-off.

Nice tap dance.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:49:00 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

You might understand my confusion then. I thought we were talking
about the contract award choice for F-22. To have stated that the AF
bought an unflyable design would require a linkage between paper
proposal and final decision point at the end of the fly-off.

Nice tap dance.

What have you added to the discussion with that comment?

I worked for Northrop on the program in '87-'88. I've added from my
experience. And, you worked for which of the contenders?


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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:49:00 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

You might understand my confusion then. I thought we were talking
about the contract award choice for F-22. To have stated that the AF
bought an unflyable design would require a linkage between paper
proposal and final decision point at the end of the fly-off.

Nice tap dance.

What have you added to the discussion with that comment?

It was the snippage that was the value added, the comment is more of a
marker.

I worked for Northrop on the program in '87-'88. I've added from my
experience. And, you worked for which of the contenders?

I would not place either ATF prototype as something I would be proud of at
this point in the program. The machines I make work.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:47:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

Yeah but of the three companies producing fighters it was the closest
to finishing up production. Grumman didn't have anything in the
pipeline after the Tomcat and where at this point in the ATF program
NATF was still a consideration Grumman would seem to be a shoe-in if
they were just interested in keeping the manufacturers going. Come to
think of it one of the reasons the F-22 was chosen over the F-23 was
because of the NATF requirement. Lockheed had planned a swing-wing
F-22 for the carrier requirement.

Not likely.

In fact, the finite element analysis that the F-22 was built off of
renders
your comments laughable, Ferrin.

Sorry but it's pretty much common knowledge Tarver. The fact that a
self-claimed expert like yourself has never heard of it really makes
me question your claim.

It is less common knowlede that such a change would require a complete
redesign of the F-22. The finite element design of the F-22 does not allow
for forces in the direction of any tailhook.

Nobody said it was going to be EXACTLY the same. The fact of the
matter is that from the get go there was going to be a NATF in the
decision equation. It wasn't ever intended that the ATF/NATF would be
as similar as say the F-35A and F-35C





snip of kook website similar to Kopp's

Yeah those facts are a damn inconvenience aren't they?

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:39:17 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, Harry Andreas wrote:

Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with the
F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the
F-22 to conclusion.

What's wrong with the F/A-18?

The context was that the F-22 program was badly flawed and the Tarver
assertion was the the program should be cancelled and the USAF
supplied with F/A-18s.

There is nothing per se wrong with F/A-18, but for USAF, what can the
Bug do that an F-15E, F-15C or F-16C can't do?

If you accept the first premise regarding Raptors and then make the
gigantic leap that $xx billion will be written off and we should
revert to a 1970s aircraft with avionics and engine upgrades, then you
would have to have an improvement in capability over the existing
inventory to justify switching platforms.

The F/A-18 can't outperform the F-16 or F-15C in the A/A mission and
it can't out-lift/out-deliver the F-15E in A/G, so why would anyone
suggest adding a new system to the inventory?


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