Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...

| Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
| the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
| to plan for this potential war.
|
|Actually, you're the one who seems out of touch. The Joint Staff plans
for
|all sorts of wars all the time. But Presidents don't pick Chairmen of
the
|JCS to plan any particular wars. Indeed, the Chairman's job is mostly to
|supervise current ops; the Staff does long-term planning regardless of
who
|is in charge.

There were several articles in the Washington Post here, when the
GWOT started (just after Sept 11th), on how Gen. Myers was
selected to plan for a possible war with China.

Bullpoopie. Such planning is handled in the J-3 Operations section of the
Joint Staff, under the direction of a three star. The unified command
responsible for the AO in question (in this case that would have been PACOM)
would also be contributing to the planning process while it updates its own
theater level plans. Firstly, I don't recall the Washington Pravda saying
any such thing; and secondly, since when has that media source been a
reliable source for military-specific information?

And how he was
out of his element with the GWOT. It is common knowledge, at
here in DC, that we do have a war in the making with China.

I live within spitting distance of you and have not picked up on any such
"common knowledge". Stop making stuff up, for gosh sakes.

It
would be nice to avoid that war. But Gen Myers does have that
mission.

As I believe Tom already told you, the JCS staff routinely plans for all
sorts of contingency operations, no matter how likely. We have done that for
eons; hell, we had contingency plans for going to war against the Brits and
canucks long after they were any sort of major threat to the US. Do we have
OPLAN's that are directed at a potential war with the PRC? Of course. That
does not mean that we have a "war in the making" with China.


| China has let it be known, there
| are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
| school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
| east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
| Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
|
|China's policy appears to be primarily focussed on ensuring that no one
else
|interfrres with their own territory.

And they define that "territory" as everything from India to
Australia to Siberia and Japan. The whole of the far East. This
has been China's "domain" for thousands of years. The question
is do you want to be shut out of that area?

While China no doubt would love to be the big dog in that lot, it knows that
right now, and in the immediate future, it can't be.


| Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
| 5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
| throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
| San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
| North Africa.
|
|Oh, good grief. China has commercial intereasts worldwide, yes. But
|there's no evidence that running port operations in Panama (NOT running
the
|Canal proper, BTW) translates into any sort of aggressive intent.
INdeed,
|the company that runs those ops is a Hong Kong-based multinational, not
|controlled by the Chinese government as the fearmongers would have you
|believe.

Since much of "business" in China is owned by the People's
Republican Army (PRA), business is seen as an arm of the
military.

The "Peoples Republican Army"? You can't even identify the largest freakin'
army in the worl properly, and you want us to believe your rants about them
going to war with us in the near term??! Try "Liberation" in place of
"Republican".


Whether we like it or not, things change. China has been looking
for a chance to be player.

OK.

With the USSR gone, and Russia weak,
they have their chance.

Not really. They have to have the tools and expertise to back such a
strategy up, and they don't have them now, and won't have them anytime in
this decade. How many AWACS do they have? None really, just a few somewhat
capable AEW platforms. How well have they managed to integrate their
operations between components? Their 1979 Vietnam fiasco showed us they had
virtually NO capability there, and while they have undoubtedly improved
since then, they are not in any shpe to confront the US. How about their
naval capability versus the USN? Laughable at present.

Most of us have no problem if they play
fair and equal. But if they treat business much the way the
mafia does then we will have to learn to be equally aggressive.

Not everyone in the world sees appeasement as being fair minded.
Many see those who use appeasement as being weak thus prey.

What the hell does your rant have to do with "appeasement"? Recognizing the
true level of the current threat does not equal "appeasement". Does China
want to be able to confront the US? Yes. Can they do it now? No. By 2010?
No. By 2020? Maybe, but only if the US completely scotches its military
development.

Brooks

"fudog50" wrote in message
...
For cryin out loud!
Did everyone read the last 15 posts by Tarver, Chad and R.
David about software and programming? LOL, I'm sure it means a lot to
them but it gives perfect credence to my philosophy that all engineers
should be locked up in a rubber room at night! Too Funny!!
Hey guys! When you get that software and programming crap
worked out,,, let me know so I can go fly the jet ok??? Holy cow!

Perhaps never. The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
airplane yourself are long gone. The software is always there.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:48:02 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based
solely on
it being post '96 Ada

Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software
is
based on the F-22 software...

Was to be, but tabbing to the F-22 would be foolish now.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made
good.

But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
*can*.

Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without
altering
the
sofware.

That's true, but the folks who have been working with the Ada-95 tools
noticed that it's easier to alter the software to run under Ada-95
than
it is to keep using the older Ada. Cheaper to maintain, faster to
develop.

As in the old software doesn't work.

No, as in "the old software worked, but they improved it and brought it
up to Ada-95 to make it easier to work with."

The low competence of Lockmart's avionics group is why they sold it to
BAE
Systems.

Nope.

Yes, Simmons and all of Lockmart's avionics group are now part of BAE
Systems.

If you are this far outside what is real, why are you posting to this
thread, Irby?

Is it to "help" Lockmart? If that is the case I am certain Lockmart would
perfer you to shut up.

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
news

| | I thought that we had moved beyond ADA?
| |
| |How?
|
| Had we not stopped programming in ADA? C++ or something has
| replaced it? Good lord, ADA is like PL1.
|
|The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

I am not even aware of an university that teaches ADA. I
remember when ADA was first talked about. It was joked about as
the new and improved PL1.

It is. Lockheed went for the DARPA subsidy for Ada, it was part of their
cooperative attitude that won the fly off.

You have to consider that Lockheed won the contract to build the YF-22 with
an airframe design that would not even fly. The YF-22 that was built is for
the most part the GD entry. Next, Lockheed built their main computer based
on an i960 based MPP. Intel's attempt to build the i432, an i860 based MPP,
nearly bankrupted Intel. Later, lockmart dumped their Avionics division to
BAE systems, due to "competitiveness" issues.

Can't C++ do as well?

No, but C has.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Yes, Simmons and all of Lockmart's avionics group are now part of BAE
Systems.

Wrong, as usual.

Note, for example, that the core processing units of the F-35 are
*still* being made by Lockheed Martin Tactical Systems, which is *still*
part of the LockMart organization as of this particular day. You seem
to not know about "Maritime Systems and Sensors," which is still a
*large* LockMart subsidiary (part of the Electronic Systems business
unit.

(Insults deleted)

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

I hear ya, but they expect the new explosive wad will make up the
differance, combined with penetration, speed and accuracy. The problem is
that the weapon is being driven by bay size rather than performance so who
knows if they are really just blowing smoke to have SOMETHING that works in
the small bays, of if it really is/will be better.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Boomer" wrote in message
...
The SDB will have an autopilot which will allow it to reach the target
with
more kinetic energy than a standard JDAM flight profile. Combine that
with
a
new explosive package and they SAY it will have the same effectiveness
as
a
2000lb bomb. The ER (or is it EX) version will have a potential range of
60
miles.



I rather doubt that the KE fraction will be high enough to
offset more than 1000lbs of HE

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Yes, Simmons and all of Lockmart's avionics group are now part of BAE
Systems.

Wrong, as usual.

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

"Boomer" wrote in message
...
I hear ya, but they expect the new explosive wad will make up the
differance, combined with penetration, speed and accuracy. The problem is
that the weapon is being driven by bay size rather than performance so who
knows if they are really just blowing smoke to have SOMETHING that works
in
the small bays, of if it really is/will be better.

Spoon feeding Lockheed a fighter program has been a major driving force for
the USAF for many years.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...

Wrong, as usual.

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Get a room, guys!

__!_!__
Gizmo

"gizmo-goddard" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...

Wrong, as usual.

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Get a room, guys!

Poor Chad, so distantly seperated from reality.

So, if the Commanche is dead, can USAF justify pouring more money down the
F-22 rathole?