No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

"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.

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)?

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.

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.

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

"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.

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

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

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

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).