A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cold War relic F/A-22 initially designed for air-to-air combat with Soviet MiGs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 17th 04, 02:05 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold War relic F/A-22 initially designed for air-to-air combat with Soviet MiGs


The U.S. General Accounting Office raised concerns about LOCKHEED
MARTIN CORP.'s F/A-22 fighter jet, saying the Pentagon should
weigh the high risk of future cost increases and program delays
before deciding in December to start full production. The
investigative arm of Congress said costs for the program that
began during the Cold War era were expected to grow to $80
billion from an Air Force estimate of $72 billion, and the
Pentagon had not explained why it still needed the fighter in a
changed military environment. In an annual report to Congress,
GAO said the Pentagon estimated it would cost $11.7 billion to
expand the air-to-ground attack capability of the F/A-22, which
some critics decry as a Cold War relic, a stealthy jet initially
designed for air-to-air combat with Soviet MiGs.
(Reuters 03:06 PM ET 03/15/2004)

Mo
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=936...a&s=rb0403 15

================================================== ==============
  #2  
Old March 17th 04, 02:12 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

The U.S. General Accounting Office raised concerns about LOCKHEED
MARTIN CORP.'s F/A-22 fighter jet, saying the Pentagon should


Yadda-yadda-yadda... First, this is already the subject of another current
thread in this NG. Second, if the GAO is claiming that the cost of turning
the F-22 into the F/A-22 is $11.7 billion, then the GAO is lying, as their
own report indicates that the $11.7 billion is actually for *all* spiral
development costs related to the F/A-22, to include future upgrades of the
air-to-air and ISR capabilities. Thirdly, why do you persist in posting
nothing but excerpts of press reports/releases? You are beginning to sound
like the infamous "Otis Willie"...

Brooks

snip


  #3  
Old March 17th 04, 02:55 PM
Henry J Cobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Brooks wrote:
Yadda-yadda-yadda... First, this is already the subject of another current
thread in this NG. Second, if the GAO is claiming that the cost of turning
the F-22 into the F/A-22 is $11.7 billion, then the GAO is lying, as their
own report indicates that the $11.7 billion is actually for *all* spiral
development costs related to the F/A-22, to include future upgrades of the
air-to-air and ISR capabilities. Thirdly, why do you persist in posting
nothing but excerpts of press reports/releases? You are beginning to sound
like the infamous "Otis Willie"...


Yes you are correct.

It's also to fix the software so that it runs for at least five hours
every once in a while before crashing.

-HJC

  #4  
Old March 17th 04, 03:31 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Yadda-yadda-yadda... First, this is already the subject of another

current
thread in this NG. Second, if the GAO is claiming that the cost of

turning
the F-22 into the F/A-22 is $11.7 billion, then the GAO is lying, as

their
own report indicates that the $11.7 billion is actually for *all* spiral
development costs related to the F/A-22, to include future upgrades of

the
air-to-air and ISR capabilities. Thirdly, why do you persist in posting
nothing but excerpts of press reports/releases? You are beginning to

sound
like the infamous "Otis Willie"...


Yes you are correct.

It's also to fix the software so that it runs for at least five hours
every once in a while before crashing.


Zzzzz...oops, excuse me; were you offering something of relevance to the
discussion at hand, Henry? No? Figures. You really need to get back to
untangling that whole construction of your's that has Okinawa being a day's
flight away from Taiwan, and how the Su-30 is only a potential threat if it
is being operated by PLAAF or Russian pilots; you don't have time for
side-discussions. Back to the grindstone, Henry!

Brooks


-HJC



  #5  
Old March 17th 04, 06:51 PM
Boomer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

the great advantage of the F-22 is that it's stealth alows us to fight in
someone elses backyard with MUCH less chance of SAMs busting up a perfectly
good "clubbing baby seals" session lol.

--



Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Yadda-yadda-yadda... First, this is already the subject of another

current
thread in this NG. Second, if the GAO is claiming that the cost of

turning
the F-22 into the F/A-22 is $11.7 billion, then the GAO is lying, as

their
own report indicates that the $11.7 billion is actually for *all*

spiral
development costs related to the F/A-22, to include future upgrades of

the
air-to-air and ISR capabilities. Thirdly, why do you persist in

posting
nothing but excerpts of press reports/releases? You are beginning to

sound
like the infamous "Otis Willie"...


Yes you are correct.

It's also to fix the software so that it runs for at least five hours
every once in a while before crashing.


Zzzzz...oops, excuse me; were you offering something of relevance to the
discussion at hand, Henry? No? Figures. You really need to get back to
untangling that whole construction of your's that has Okinawa being a

day's
flight away from Taiwan, and how the Su-30 is only a potential threat if

it
is being operated by PLAAF or Russian pilots; you don't have time for
side-discussions. Back to the grindstone, Henry!

Brooks


-HJC





  #6  
Old March 18th 04, 01:51 AM
Henry J Cobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
It's also to fix the software so that it runs for at least five hours
every once in a while before crashing.


Zzzzz...oops, excuse me; were you offering something of relevance to the
discussion at hand, Henry? No? Figures.


Nope, lots of development effort is needed to fix the software.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1302919.html
But several software headaches remain "as well as numerous deficiencies
in functionality that will potentially affect mission performance,"
Christie wrote at the time.


-HJC

  #7  
Old March 18th 04, 02:23 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
It's also to fix the software so that it runs for at least five hours
every once in a while before crashing.


Zzzzz...oops, excuse me; were you offering something of relevance to the
discussion at hand, Henry? No? Figures.


Nope, lots of development effort is needed to fix the software.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1302919.html
But several software headaches remain "as well as numerous deficiencies
in functionality that will potentially affect mission performance,"
Christie wrote at the time.


Again, were you offering anything relevant to the discussion then at hand?
The above is not.

Brooks


-HJC



  #8  
Old April 2nd 04, 07:05 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:51:23 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote
in Message-Id: :

Nope, lots of development effort is needed to fix the software.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1302919.html
But several software headaches remain "as well as numerous deficiencies
in functionality that will potentially affect mission performance,"
Christie wrote at the time.



LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.'s $71 billion F/A-22 fighter jet program
has failed to meet important reliability goals and could face
new price hikes and schedule slips, congressional auditors said
in a big weapons review late Wednesday. The Air Force has not
demonstrated the aircraft "can achieve its reliability goal of
three hours' mean time between maintenance," said the General
Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm. The Air Force
does not expect to achieve this goal until 2008, by which time
most of the aircraft will have been bought, GAO said. In its
report, the auditors assessed 51 defense programs ranging from
the Missile Defense Agency's Airborne Laser to the Air Force's
Global Hawk remotely piloted aircraft.
(Reuters 06:16 PM ET 03/31/2004)

Mo
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=942...a&s=rb0403 31

----------------------------------------------------------------
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.