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

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
sid wrote:
You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assets
in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing
targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming.

Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its
shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you
ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de
la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the
F/A-22...

And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which
gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the
threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this
kind of support).

Brooks


-HJC

Kevin Brooks wrote:
Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its
shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you

I like the F-35.

ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de
la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the
F/A-22...

Given that your jammer options are EB-52 or G-18, who you gonna call?

-HJC

My rather poor translation went something like this

Test Pilot: Gemessen an der Zeitspanne - also wenn man überlegt wann
die zuerst geflogen sind (Erstflug 29.09.90), haben wir denen jetzt
schon drei bis vier Jahre abgeknöpft.

Test Pilot: Given the timeframe - when considering that the first
flight was in 1990, have now already lost 3-4 years.


Und das was ich sehe und was ich höre...

And from what I see and hear...

Letzten Sommer war ich in Edwards, wo wir Probeflüge gemacht haben für
unser Helmdisplay in einer F-16.

last summer I was in Edwards, where I was test flying a helmet
displays for the F-16's

Und da haben die Amerikaner so in
bisschen über Raptor gesprochen.


and there the Americans spoke a little about the Raptor.

Und die müssen extreme Probleme
haben.

and they must have extreme problems

Die haben halt in das Flugzeug alles integriert über einen
einzigen Computer

They have halts in the aircrafts fully intergrated main computer

- da ist so ein riesen Computer drinnen der ausser
Flugsteuerung eigentlich alles macht.


There is a large computer inside which controls everything except the
flight controls.

Und da bin ich eigentlich sehr
froh über unsere Avionikarchitektur. In diese "fünf Familien" ist sehr
viel Redundanz eingebaut.
And there I'm pleased with our (different) avionic architecture,its
split into five familiys with lots of redundency built in.

Wenn uns etwas ausfällt, dann übernimmt ein
anderer Computer die wesentlichen Funktionen des defekten Systems.
If ours fails then another computer takes over the major fuctions of
that defective system.

Die Amerikaner haben halt das Problem,
dass wen dieser Computer
abstürzt oder Fehler hat, dann geht alles unter - inklusive
Kommunikation, Navigation und allem.
The Amercans have to stop the problem. that when there computer fails
or (software) errors, every thing goes down inclusive of
Communications, Navigation, everything.

Und die Piloten haben erzählt,
sie haben jetzt Vorrichtungen im Cockpit wo sie ein Handy eingebaut
haben, damit der Pilot mit unten telefonieren kann wenn nichts mehr
geht

The pilots have be told they have inserted a device in the cockpit so
that the pilot can telephone ( or Communicate) when nothings working.

. Da muss ich sagen, was wir bei uns haben ist ein serienreifes
Flugzeug und in USA ist das immer noch im Prototypenstadium.

There I must say, what we have with us is a series ready airplane and
in the USA are still in the prototype stage.

Well, my German's about as rust as you can get, and still order Beer,
but what I make of the above is that he's commenting on the high level
of integration of ancilliary systems, and that it's tough for
Third-Party (Not on the System Prime) team to integrate their stuff
into the aircraft. I don't read "unten telefonieren" as Cell Phone
though. In context, and allowing for what appears to be a bit of
circular translation, it's more like a "backup voice radio" than
anythig else. Which could be anything from a standard UHF/VHF set in
the panel to a handheld in the Pilot's Pubs Bag. (Which is pretty
much the norm - when I've been flying things that need a radio, I
always bring a handheld, just in case, and whe my brother's off in his
767, he's got a handheld in his Jepp Case. (Along with a Maglite, the
appropriate sectionals, etc.) Which would just be prudent.

Think about it - in this context, an Aviation Band transceiver makes
much more sense than a cell phone.

Ah, that said - Cell phones are nice and small:-), I really have
trouble with some German colloquial sayings and translating it into
English, one classic example of English to German springs to mind
"out of sight ,out of mind" got translated to "invisible maniac"

Thanks for your help.

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 writes:

My rather poor translation went something like this

a few small corection to clarify... your translation is good!

Und die m�üssen extreme Probleme
haben.

and they must be experiencing some serious problems

Die haben halt in das Flugzeug alles integriert �über einen
einzigen Computer

They've gone and integrated all systems into a single computer,...

- da ist so ein riesen Computer drinnen der ausser
Flugsteuerung eigentlich alles macht.


..., so there's this monstrous computer inside which controls
bascially everything except the flight control (here he means the
really basic direction setting an manoevering that the pilot
decides).

Wenn uns etwas ausf�ällt, dann �übernimmt ein
anderer Computer die wesentlichen Funktionen des defekten Systems.

If something in one of our systems fails then another computer takes
over the major fuctions of the defective system.

Die Amerikaner haben halt das Problem,
dass wen dieser Computer
abst�ürzt oder Fehler hat, dann geht alles unter - inklusive
Kommunikation, Navigation und allem.

The Amercans have this problem now that when there computer fails
gives errors, everything goes down including of Communications,
Navigation, everything.

(`halt' used in the above few situations is a colloquial term, similar
in meaning to 'gone and [done]', an indication that the thing that is
talked about is kind of wishy-washy or lackadaisical, not so well
thought out, or could be better)

Und die Piloten haben erz�ählt,
sie haben jetzt Vorrichtungen im Cockpit wo sie ein Handy eingebaut
haben, damit der Pilot mit unten telefonieren kann wenn nichts mehr
geht

The pilots now have an installation for a `handy' (the German word
for mobile phone in the cockpit so that the pilot can phone the blokes on the
ground when nothing works anymore. [Ooh boy, this sounds fun!]

Well, my German's about as rust as you can get, and still order Beer,
but what I make of the above is that he's commenting on the high level
of integration of ancilliary systems, and that it's tough for
Third-Party (Not on the System Prime) team to integrate their stuff
into the aircraft. I don't read "unten telefonieren" as Cell Phone
though. In context, and allowing for what appears to be a bit of
circular translation, it's more like a "backup voice radio" than
anythig else. Which could be anything from a standard UHF/VHF set in
the panel to a handheld in the Pilot's Pubs Bag. (Which is pretty
much the norm - when I've been flying things that need a radio, I
always bring a handheld, just in case, and whe my brother's off in his
767, he's got a handheld in his Jepp Case. (Along with a Maglite, the
appropriate sectionals, etc.) Which would just be prudent.

OK, maybe it isn't in fact a cellphone... who knows. Can you ask?

Think about it - in this context, an Aviation Band transceiver makes
much more sense than a cell phone.

Yeah, but so do backup systems in the computer system :-)

Ah, that said - Cell phones are nice and small:-), I really have
trouble with some German colloquial sayings and translating it into
English, one classic example of English to German springs to mind
"out of sight ,out of mind" got translated to "invisible maniac"

Great stuff, these translators, huh!
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which
gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the
threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this
kind of support).

Brooks

Its a shame you didn't see the links that refute your precious
"facts(?)" brooks. In the interests of fair play...Choke on this
one...

You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assetsin a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Meanwhile, suppliers to potential adversaries are realizing a market
to counter tactics you are postulating...
http://www.ainonline.com/Publication...1agatpg85.html
"If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an
opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at
distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or
other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms
that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be
vulnerable as never before."

Since the E-10 is nearly stillborn, the MP-RTIP equipped UAV is the
way to go.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:52:54 -0700, Henry J Cobb wrote:

sid wrote:
You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assets
in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing
targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming.

-HJC

And the F/A-18G will be along shortly.

Al Minyard

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of
its
shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you

I like the F-35.

ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme
de
la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of
the
F/A-22...

Given that your jammer options are EB-52 or G-18, who you gonna call?

Reliability - Availability - Revenue

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message And the gent
(mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8,
which
gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of
the
threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform
this
kind of support).

Brooks

Its a shame you didn't see the links that refute your precious
"facts(?)" brooks. In the interests of fair play...Choke on this
one...

You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assetsin a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Whoever you are, you silly little cretin...go back and read the thread. The
E-8 was 100 klicks away, and has been credited with a maximum effective GMTI
range of some 200 plus klicks in an open source (FAS). Now where does that
require the E-8 to journey into a zone of "undue risk"? It can loiter fifty
klicks to the rear of the FLOT and still support engagements 150 klicks the
other side of the FLOT, you idiotic ninny.

Brooks

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:54:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability"
into operational utility... so when were they carried out?

Ask the USAF.

I've checked their website and searched elsewhe best I could do was a
five-year-old plan that had JDAM test drops sometime after 2000.
Unfortunately I don't have any personal contacts there to tap.


Just my own opinion but I'd be surprised if they dropped them and
*didn't* make a big tado about it. There are photos out there of it
launching -9s and -120s but none with JDAMS that I've ever seen.
Maybe they feel the JDAM thing is a no-brainer and have too many other
more difficult problems to solve so it's priority is low?

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:54:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
I've checked their website and searched elsewhe best I could do was a
five-year-old plan that had JDAM test drops sometime after 2000.
Unfortunately I don't have any personal contacts there to tap.


Just my own opinion but I'd be surprised if they dropped them and
*didn't* make a big tado about it. There are photos out there of it
launching -9s and -120s but none with JDAMS that I've ever seen.
Maybe they feel the JDAM thing is a no-brainer and have too many other
more difficult problems to solve so it's priority is low?

The other issue is that the F-22 is a hardcore air-supremacy machine,
with the 'A' designation an afterthought.

The USAF is buying the F-22 because it needs a stealthy superfighter to
replace the F-15. It is certainly not short of platforms able to drop
JDAMs. If the F-22 has problems in its declared intended air-to-air
role, is anyone going to be convinced by "okay, but it can carry two
whole JDAMs!" when even the A-10 is being bruited as a JDAM-dropper?

As I said: it's "capable" because nobody's got proof it can't use them.
At some point it'll be cleared to actually fly with the weapons and use
them in action - just not yet.


Not knocking the F-22's capability in its designed role: it might be
expensive, it might have assorted problems, but it's still the best at
what it does ('A' designator accepted as a tacked-on afterthought). The
concern then is how many can be bought... doesn't matter how good your
airframes are, if there aren't enough to intercept the enemy raids.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk