Any guesses as to when or if the F-22 will ever show up at Paris or Farnborough?

I'd say 2005. At this stage of the program they cannot afford a crash, nor
can they pull a test aircraft from its duties. In 2005 a few test aircraft
would be "free" to other pursuits, and I'd wager we'll see a lot of PR
record breaking and some very agressive aerial demonstrations at the usual
events.

_____________
José Herculano

"José Herculano" wrote in message .. .
I'd say 2005.
_____________
José Herculano

Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
projected at $162 million each!!!
That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
SHOULD have but really doesn't.
Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.
The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other
aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the
Flanker and Eurofighter.
I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do
many other taxpayers. It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its
role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series
production. I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed
F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really
wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could
modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense
without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future.
However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat
emerging until after 2010 at least.
Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6.
This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also
working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under
development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems.
I think our money should be spent more wisely...

Rob

On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

Gosh, Robert, tell us what you really think. But, maybe more
importantly, tell us what particularl in your experience gives you
such insights into a still largely classified program. In other words,
beyond the typical "omigod, look at those dollars" argument, why do
you think the F-22 is so inferior.

Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
projected at $162 million each!!!
That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
SHOULD have but really doesn't.

What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
shortfall?

Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.

Why is it that they can make a Yugo for $3500 but it costs $55K for a
Lexus that is just as good a transporter?

Give me an example of a conflict in which Russias finest product has
demonstrated superiority. The last time you might be able to find some
numbers that could give that impression, you'd be talking about the
Vietnam war, but there you'd be looking at ROE rather than capability.
Try Bekaa Valley stats for the same airplanes without the ROE.

The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other
aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the
Flanker and Eurofighter.

So, specifically, how much "NOT that much better overall" is the
Raptor? How are you quantifying the advanced, not-yet-publicised
aspects of the F-22?

I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do
many other taxpayers.

That's it. I really like the idea of putting the technology choices in
the hands of the taxpayers.

It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its
role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series
production.

Exactly how does a UCAV beat a Raptor in the integrated system which
the UCAV never sees before being morted?

I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed
F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really
wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could
modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense
without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future.

The F-15 is 30 years old! The technology was incredible, but it is now
obsolescent, if not obsolete.

However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat
emerging until after 2010 at least.

This is 2003. We've been in development of Raptor since 1985 and will
finally reach IOC in 2006. So, when do you want to start production of
the counter to that "serious threat" emerging after 2010?

Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6.
This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also
working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under
development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems.
I think our money should be spent more wisely...

Have you considered that the greatest value of F-22 will be precisely
to counter "primarily a ground attack family".... Have you noticed
that US forces have not had enemy aircraft overhead since Korea? What
would you spend our money on, oh wise one?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

snip
What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
shortfall?

Weapons sensor integration, weapons integation and structural integrity are
all current shortfalls of the F-22 program. Perhaps these issues can be
sorted out by the end of this fiscal year, but perhaps the ax will fall.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:15:15 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

snip
What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
shortfall?

Weapons sensor integration, weapons integation and structural integrity are
all current shortfalls of the F-22 program. Perhaps these issues can be
sorted out by the end of this fiscal year, but perhaps the ax will fall.



Any specific numbers and cites to go with those assertions? Didn't
think so.

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
Give me an example of a conflict in which Russias finest product has
demonstrated superiority. The last time you might be able to find some
numbers that could give that impression, you'd be talking about the
Vietnam war, but there you'd be looking at ROE rather than capability.
Try Bekaa Valley stats for the same airplanes without the ROE.

The sort of conflict you refer to has never occurred. Russia's finest
was never in the hands of anyone but the Russians themselves (barring
a few defectors who brought their ride along). Even if they had been,
you Bekaa example probably doesn't hold up. I think that if the Arabs
had had the same technology as the Israelis, the Israelis still would
have walked all over them, although at a somewhat higher cost. It just
doesn't get much leaner and meaner than the IDF.

I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a
West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had
just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East
German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the
superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most
relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that
had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies
easily.

I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the
bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly,
as these tests showed.

I hope that we will never really know the answer to which is better.

Rob

I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a
West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had
just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East
German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the
superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most
relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that
had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies
easily.

I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the
bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly,
as these tests showed.


Actually from an article I recall reading back then, quoting accounts
from the pilots who actually participated, the F-4s *did* win. I
specifically remember the laments of East German pilots of getting
waxed by "lousy Phantoms".





I hope that we will never really know the answer to which is better.

Rob

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...

I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a
West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had
just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East
German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the
superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most
relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that
had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies
easily.

I think you'll find that within visual range the Mig-29's had the
edge but the Phantom's would have killed them BVR. In any
event the Germans ditched the Mig's and kept the F-4's

Keith

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

Gosh, Robert, tell us what you really think. But, maybe more
importantly, tell us what particularl in your experience gives you
such insights into a still largely classified program. In other words,
beyond the typical "omigod, look at those dollars" argument, why do
you think the F-22 is so inferior.

First of all, the program is NOT largely classifield; you can go into
any military bookstore and buy shelfs full of F-22 Raptor books that
are updated frequently. Nothing in them suggests anything of radical
new technology. Between the F-22 Raptor and Su 47 Firkin, I'd
definately pick the Su-47.

Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
projected at $162 million each!!!
That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
SHOULD have but really doesn't.

What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
shortfall?

The entire purpose of the F-22 program is premiere air-to-air
superiority- period. This is simply not so against the Su-35, Su-47
and MiG MFI (if any are adopted) as well as the best armed Typhoon,
Gripen, and Rafale. This is also not so against anti-stealth radar and
integrated Russian missile systems that can lock onto this aircraft.
And none of this addresses the future air-to-air UCAV which is in its
infancy right now. We tried to use an experimental Predator in that
role a while back and it failed- the Iraqi MiG shot it down. But the
Predator isn't a true UCAV. Once those become available in the next
decade man vs machine engagements will take place and the UCAV has the
advantage of small target size, enhanced manouverability, and might
carry BVR missiles as well.

Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.

Why is it that they can make a Yugo for $3500 but it costs $55K for a
Lexus that is just as good a transporter?

The Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, Su-35, Su-47, and MiG MFI are not
comparable to a Yugo. The Russian aircraft can perform aerial
manouvers our aircraft can't and they have BVR misiles also... not to
mention continued development of plasma stealth. The European fighters
are all excellent canard/deltas with a vast array of available
armament; and unlike the F-22 are already operational.

Give me an example of a conflict in which Russias finest product has
demonstrated superiority. The last time you might be able to find some
numbers that could give that impression, you'd be talking about the
Vietnam war, but there you'd be looking at ROE rather than capability.
Try Bekaa Valley stats for the same airplanes without the ROE.

The aircraft cases you mention historically deal primarily with export
versions flown by undertrained pilots of client states. Try using the
F-22 over Russia or China against their defense systems and trained
pilots flying non-export aircraft.

The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other
aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the
Flanker and Eurofighter.

So, specifically, how much "NOT that much better overall" is the
Raptor? How are you quantifying the advanced, not-yet-publicised
aspects of the F-22?

What not-yet-publicised aspects? Ha! Supercruise, glass cockpit, and
the ability to fire BVR missiles... so what? The best Typhoons will
have the wide HUDs, all glass cockpit, voice command authority,
sextaplex redundancy, a future fly-by-light system, full auto-recovery
even in combat mode, self diagnostics, impregnated sensors, a
radar-cancelling emitter pod, as well as a huge array of armaments
including Mauser's modified dual-feed jamless BK-27.

I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do
many other taxpayers.

That's it. I really like the idea of putting the technology choices in
the hands of the taxpayers.

A dog is a dog and the F-22 is barking loudly.

It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its
role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series
production.

Exactly how does a UCAV beat a Raptor in the integrated system which
the UCAV never sees before being morted?

More like the reverse- the F-22 that is swarmed by UCAV-launched
killvehicles and can't shake them. Or the F-22 that is barraged by
ground and air systems directed by a loitering UCAV designator.

I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed
F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really
wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could
modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense
without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future.

The F-15 is 30 years old! The technology was incredible, but it is now
obsolescent, if not obsolete.

However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat
emerging until after 2010 at least.

This is 2003. We've been in development of Raptor since 1985 and will
finally reach IOC in 2006. So, when do you want to start production of
the counter to that "serious threat" emerging after 2010?

Our enemies are China, N Korea, Iran, Syria... with China the most
serious threat air-wise over Taiwanese independence. That would pit
our carrier aircraft against mainland fighters in the Taiwan Straight.
But China will only be able to send up a majority of older
stretch-MiGs in any invasion attempt plus their indigenous Xian strike
aircraft. None of these pose a real threat to our aircraft... unless
China decides to nuke a carrier battlegroup.
The problem arises over Russian sales of advanced Sukhoi aircraft on
the open market and their final adoption of a new air superority
fighter around 2012+.


Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6.
This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also
working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under
development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems.
I think our money should be spent more wisely...

Have you considered that the greatest value of F-22 will be precisely
to counter "primarily a ground attack family".... Have you noticed
that US forces have not had enemy aircraft overhead since Korea? What
would you spend our money on, oh wise one?

The F-22 is supposed to be an air superiority only fighter. Now that
the program is jeopardized financially there is all this talk of naval
variants, strike craft, and stretched tactical bomber.
I personally still favor developing a seperate air superiority
fighter... but with a reasonable price tag of $75-80 million each- not
an astronomical $150-200 million dog.
I guess you don't mind forking out the cash for such obscene
expenditures. Reminds me of the USAF $8000 toilet seat and $700 bolt.
Unless we are covertly funding black projects with F-22 money let's
axe the program and pour the funds into UCAV development, technology
upgrades on all frontline combat aircraft, and more advanced missile
systems.

Rob