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

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
snip all the personal slights and fluff


This is getting silly, were getting away from the major points with
little headway being made and sniping at each other is childish - What
exactly are we arguing about....


What I say..

Tthe F/A-22 program is too expensive for the uility it provides, and
has severe problems with software and avionics, and is struggling to
survive the review.

It requires several updates to software forcing an upgrade to the
hardware, which also increases costs.

I have provided sources for my assertions, (you have rubbished the GAO
credability),. while you have provided no quotable sources to rebutt
my assertions, you ignore facts, and provide no alternative but your
unsubstanciated opinion.

You forgot your infamous, "Can't do ground attack as is" garbage.



What You say

The F-22 is the most capable fighter in the world, its development is
comparable to a normal fighter program, there are no major problems,
its all being taken care of.

Nope-that reading comprehension problem of yours is evidencing itself again.
Of course there are development problems--just as there have been problems
in the development of the F-100, F-15, F-16, Typhoon, etc. Where we disagree
is as to whether to get our shorts all tied up into a knot over the
problems.


Issues of reliability, cost, obsolecence are all figments of
someones imagination.

Nope again. Cost is a major concern, which is why the choice of the right
number of aircraft to procure is critical. Reliability is a key concern--but
then again, reliability during the initial fielding phase is usually none
too great--witness the F-15 when it was first fielded. Where do you purchase
your blinders--over the counter, or are they specially fitted?


The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

Talk to the USAF; they are the ones saying it is indeed capable of carrying
it. Not that this would be much of a surprise. And unlike you, I understand
that the mating of JDAMS with a stealthy penetration platform like the
F/A-22 means increased lethality and increased survivability, not to mention
versatility--kind of hard to have the F-117 switch from a pure strike role
to taking out an air-to-air threat that pops up unexpectedly.


You don't like GAO assesment of the program.

I know enough not to take the GAO's assessment of *any* program as being
gospel; asking a bean-counter to make a pronouncement on advanced military
hardware is a bit like asking your accountant to select the best flyrod for
your personal use--kind of a shot in the dark.





Now for some of those side issues

Ok sources - how about LM, take a look he-


http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops...FA22Raptor.pdf

Page eleven- 2.1 for the airframe 3.1 for the engines.

This gives an overall score to the airframe development ie 1 lowest
to 5 highest.

Did you bother to read the entire slideshow, and what it is aimed at
accomplishing? Geeze, talk about taking things out of context... This is NOT
a rating of the aircraft itself, but of the development *approach* and
methodology. Think of it as internal critical analysis--a good thing, by the
way.


or Jon Ogg on obsolete systems

Try googling " ogg stsc crosstalk " I'm sure you'll find that
interesting. especially the bit about :-



"Q: Why does it cost so much to migrate to new hardware considering
that electronics technology has decreased from five-year cycles to one
year or less?

Ogg: Many of the current architectures are unique and make software
dependent on hardware. So when hardware changes, you have to redo
software at an enormous cost.

Today there is a big push on open systems and to insulate or isolate
the hardware from the functional/program software. At some future
point, the hardware component technology will change. Open systems
minimize the dependency of executing software on the underpinning
hardware. The focus is on making the system more adaptable to future
change.

In addition to the F-22 standing out as an example of this problem, we
had the F-15, F-16, B-1, C-5, and C-130 -- multi-billion-dollar
programs -- all slated for modernization. The end-user [warfighter]
wanted enhanced capabilities and functionality that couldn't be
accommodated with existing avionic architectures. So we were faced
with modernization that typically spans four to six years due to the
need to rebuild existing software for hardware technology that was out
of production."

Gee, he notes that the F-15 and F-16 faced the same kind of problems. When I
pointed this out to you, you scoffed--but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he is)
says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing my
point.

Brooks




I like the bit about the end user myself.... capability...
functionality.... can't be done on existing avionics architecture...
Sounds familier to me....

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