If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... 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. Does to me: wing change and a bit different treatment of the fuselage in front of the wing. A whole lot more than the Vigilante-Foxbat-Eagle claims we get around here. That or the F-16 and cranked arrow version. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:21:48 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:45:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . 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. The F/A-18E works very well. 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? The F-15 option no longer exists, but I can see the F-16 getting a bump. What planet do you live on that the F-15 isn't an option? Care to tell us WHY it is not an option? Gephardt is retiring. So? Does that mean the USAF is all of a sudden going to want to start buying a derivative of a derivitive of the LOSER in the LWF competition instead of a fighter with FAR higher performance (F-15)? |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:44:05 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . 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. Does to me: wing change and a bit different treatment of the fuselage in front of the wing. More like entirely NEW wing, tail and fuselage. The only thing remotely the same is the nozzle area between the tails and the number of fins on the aircraft A whole lot more than the Vigilante-Foxbat-Eagle claims we get around here. There is actually some merit to the Vigilante/Foxbat similarities as Mikoyan himself was quoted as wanting to use the Vigilante as a starting point. That or the F-16 and cranked arrow version. You lost me there. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:19:25 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . Yeah those facts are a damn inconvenience aren't they? Facts are something you have always been in short supply of Ferrin, Yet another claim that Tarver can't back up. In our little debates YOU are the one constantly whining about not being able to post any references. What debate? Once there was me making claims about the F-22 while you and a bunch of trolls and Lockmart partisans attacked me, but now it turns out I have been correct all along. How do you figure? Even then loosest translation of all that's transpired doesn't support your claim that the F-22 is a dog. Not even close. But hey you just keep telling yourself that. You are not really in any position to complain Ferrin. Now stop your yelling and act like the discredited adult you are. Same old Tarver. No evidence and no nads to back his claims. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
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? Because it has 90 percent common parts with the only jammer aircraft in development in the United States. But the Air Force has concluded that they don't need jamming. By the time they get there the Navy will have already flattened the enemy air defenses. ;-) -HJC |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:21:48 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:45:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . 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. The F/A-18E works very well. 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? The F-15 option no longer exists, but I can see the F-16 getting a bump. What planet do you live on that the F-15 isn't an option? Care to tell us WHY it is not an option? Gephardt is retiring. So? Does that mean the USAF is all of a sudden going to want to start buying a derivative of a derivitive of the LOSER in the LWF competition instead of a fighter with FAR higher performance (F-15)? I expect that now that the F-15 option is off the table that some F-16 version is what USAF will select, in the event of an F-22 cancellation. Keep in mind as you rant at me over the political facts, that 90% of all your F-22 posts are now revealed as bull hockey, Ferrin. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:23:04 -0700, Henry J Cobb wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote: 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? Because it has 90 percent common parts with the only jammer aircraft in development in the United States. Which makes the assumption that commonality with "the only jammer aircraft" is desireable. Or maybe that a tactical platform for jamming is necessary and the only alternative. But the Air Force has concluded that they don't need jamming. I don't know a basis for that asserted conclusion. Electronic warfare is a continually evolving business. Stand-off jamming is only one aspect. Self-protection jamming has been a more effective choice for the USAF. Pods are suitable for multiple-aircraft types and can be quickly updated or replaced with newer models. A dedicated jamming aircraft doesn't offer that flexibility. By the time they get there the Navy will have already flattened the enemy air defenses. ;-) Wasn't that way in my experience. And, how will the Navy get there without large tanker support? Most of the world's land mass is unreachable by carrier based aircraft without refueling. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Henry J Cobb wrote:
Because it has 90 percent common parts with the only jammer aircraft in development in the United States. But the Air Force has concluded that they don't need jamming. The Air Force has an airborne jammer/SEAD/C2W platform in operation, with a major block upgrade underway. During OIF, it performed with great effect for the Air Force and numerous joint operations. Mike Williamson EC-130H Compass Call |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Williamson wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote: Because it has 90 percent common parts with the only jammer aircraft in development in the United States. But the Air Force has concluded that they don't need jamming. The Air Force has an airborne jammer/SEAD/C2W platform in operation, with a major block upgrade underway. During OIF, it performed with great effect for the Air Force and numerous joint operations. Mike Williamson EC-130H Compass Call http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=190 Specifically, the modified aircraft prevents or degrades communications essential to command and control of weapon systems and other resources. Yeah, I should have said dedicated radar jammer to exclude that and the F-16CJ. http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0702/sead.html -HJC |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
So? Does that mean the USAF is all of a sudden going to want to start buying a derivative of a derivitive of the LOSER in the LWF competition instead of a fighter with FAR higher performance (F-15)? I expect that now that the F-15 option is off the table It's not. that some F-16 version is what USAF will select, in the event of an F-22 cancellation. Keep in mind as you rant at me over the political facts, that 90% of all your F-22 posts are now revealed as bull hockey, Ferrin. Like I said. Keep telling yourself that (and I'm sure you will). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |