No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:47:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

Yeah but of the three companies producing fighters it was the
closest
to finishing up production. Grumman didn't have anything in the
pipeline after the Tomcat and where at this point in the ATF program
NATF was still a consideration Grumman would seem to be a shoe-in if
they were just interested in keeping the manufacturers going. Come
to
think of it one of the reasons the F-22 was chosen over the F-23 was
because of the NATF requirement. Lockheed had planned a swing-wing
F-22 for the carrier requirement.

Not likely.

In fact, the finite element analysis that the F-22 was built off of
renders
your comments laughable, Ferrin.

Sorry but it's pretty much common knowledge Tarver. The fact that a
self-claimed expert like yourself has never heard of it really makes
me question your claim.

It is less common knowlede that such a change would require a complete
redesign of the F-22. The finite element design of the F-22 does not
allow
for forces in the direction of any tailhook.

Nobody said it was going to be EXACTLY the same.

It could not be the same internal structure at all; finite element design is
one of the technological advances the F-22 makes major use of.

The fact of the
matter is that from the get go there was going to be a NATF in the
decision equation. It wasn't ever intended that the ATF/NATF would be
as similar as say the F-35A and F-35C

It is just more bull**** from 20 years ago.

snip of kook website similar to Kopp's

Yeah those facts are a damn inconvenience aren't they?

Facts are something you have always been in short supply of Ferrin,
otherwise you would have agreed with me about the F-22 from the time I
started posting about it at ram. If you mean that cheerleaders like
yourself like to reference URLs from other cheerleaders, then I agree.

"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.

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.

I tend to agree with McCain.

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?

Weapons integration into the F/A-18E went very well and I doubt anyone
knowledgable would claim the same for the F-22. We are no longer in a world
where the A/G mission belongs to fighters and the A/A mission is BVR.

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
Why would you drag around a few "silver bullet" aircraft to
remote wars against countries that are unlikely to offer anything
able to match a late production F-16? If the commander of such
an expeditionary force does not really need the full F/A-22
capability, and the probability is that he (or she) will not, then
that commander will be very reluctant to burden the already
strained logistics pipeline with the particular maintenance
requirements of a handful of unique fighters. The F/A-22 may
become what the B-1 is today -- a weapon commanders prefer
to leave at home, because the cost of taking it with you outweighs
the advantage. Politics aside, of course; I suspect that quite
a few generals in history have been told "We paid for this
weapon -- use it".

Emmanuel,

I couldn't disagree with you more on your assessment of the B-1 in
today's Air Force. Your statement above is 180 degrees off from the
current thinking of today's combatant commanders. In fact during OEF
and OIF it was at the top of the list of platforms asked for by them.
Today's Bone is vastly improved from the dark days of the early 90's.

Our ability to fly long distances, loiter for hours on end, react
rapidly to emerging targets, and carry large combat loads is matched by
no other airframe in the USAF. So much so that congress is giving us
money and ordering us to return Bones to service, while talking about
retiring further BUFF's.

Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

"Michael Kelly" wrote in message
om...
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
Why would you drag around a few "silver bullet" aircraft to
remote wars against countries that are unlikely to offer anything
able to match a late production F-16? If the commander of such
an expeditionary force does not really need the full F/A-22
capability, and the probability is that he (or she) will not, then
that commander will be very reluctant to burden the already
strained logistics pipeline with the particular maintenance
requirements of a handful of unique fighters. The F/A-22 may
become what the B-1 is today -- a weapon commanders prefer
to leave at home, because the cost of taking it with you outweighs
the advantage. Politics aside, of course; I suspect that quite
a few generals in history have been told "We paid for this
weapon -- use it".

Emmanuel,

I couldn't disagree with you more on your assessment of the B-1 in
today's Air Force. Your statement above is 180 degrees off from the
current thinking of today's combatant commanders. In fact during OEF
and OIF it was at the top of the list of platforms asked for by them.
Today's Bone is vastly improved from the dark days of the early 90's.

Emmanuel would have been correct in what he wrote two years ago, but the
bone has lit up.

Our ability to fly long distances, loiter for hours on end, react
rapidly to emerging targets, and carry large combat loads is matched by
no other airframe in the USAF. So much so that congress is giving us
money and ordering us to return Bones to service, while talking about
retiring further BUFF's.

Getting the Bone to work is a major setback for any F/A-22.

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. If you want to show us facts here is your grand
opportunity. Show us a link that talks about those strakes you keep
babbling about on the F-22. Of course you won't. You can't. You're
such a pathetic excuse that you don't have the balls to admit there
AREN'T any references out there because there AREN'T and never have
been strakes on the F-22. You're WRONG. Just like you were WRONG
about the F-22 EVER having canards at any point in the design process.
(I dare ya to deny you ever said THAT).




otherwise you would have agreed with me about the F-22 from the time I
started posting about it at ram.

When you actually manage to post something true (by accident most
likely) I'm in complete agreement. I realize you have the disability
of seeing what you want to see but I've *never* claimed the F-22 *as a
program* was a stellar example. My steadfast assertion has been that
as an aircraft it's the best of the available choices. Period. Any
reading comprehension problems you have are your own problem. Feel
free to check dejanews and prove me wrong. Of course you won't. You
wouldn't know what the word "research" meant if you had a dictionary.
(That fat book thing with all the hard to pronounce words and no
pictures).




If you mean that cheerleaders like
yourself like to reference URLs from other cheerleaders, then I agree.



You must be a glutton for punishment. You're whining because I
referenced someone's URL? I wasn't referencing it for their input I
was referencing it for the picture. A picture that was released by
Lockheed. But hey, you know more than Lockheed, the USAF and the USN
because you think you're an "expert" right? That fact that they also
had information there (that happens to be correct I might add) had
nothing to do with it. The only reason you can never reference
*anything* is because there isn't any. It always makes me laugh when
dumbasses like yourself make wild claims and then whine because nobody
believes them. If you're such an "expert" why is it that you can't
back up the garbage you spew here? Are ALL websites garbage because
they don't flow from the mouth of Tarver? If I state that the B-52
has eight engines on a website does it automatically NOT have eight
engines in your tiny little universe? You're as bad as the pompus ass
a week or two ago who clamied that since he was a "professional" that
he'd killfile anybody who didn't accept everything he said as fact.

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?

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:58:02 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Michael Kelly" wrote in message
. com...
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
Why would you drag around a few "silver bullet" aircraft to
remote wars against countries that are unlikely to offer anything
able to match a late production F-16? If the commander of such
an expeditionary force does not really need the full F/A-22
capability, and the probability is that he (or she) will not, then
that commander will be very reluctant to burden the already
strained logistics pipeline with the particular maintenance
requirements of a handful of unique fighters. The F/A-22 may
become what the B-1 is today -- a weapon commanders prefer
to leave at home, because the cost of taking it with you outweighs
the advantage. Politics aside, of course; I suspect that quite
a few generals in history have been told "We paid for this
weapon -- use it".

Emmanuel,

I couldn't disagree with you more on your assessment of the B-1 in
today's Air Force. Your statement above is 180 degrees off from the
current thinking of today's combatant commanders. In fact during OEF
and OIF it was at the top of the list of platforms asked for by them.
Today's Bone is vastly improved from the dark days of the early 90's.

Emmanuel would have been correct in what he wrote two years ago, but the
bone has lit up.

Our ability to fly long distances, loiter for hours on end, react
rapidly to emerging targets, and carry large combat loads is matched by
no other airframe in the USAF. So much so that congress is giving us
money and ordering us to return Bones to service, while talking about
retiring further BUFF's.

Getting the Bone to work is a major setback for any F/A-22.


Well you can hope. It might not help the prospects of an FB-22
(though I doubt it) but I don't see the B-1 filling an air to air role
anytime soon. Do you?

"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. You are not really in any position to complain
Ferrin. Now stop your yelling and act like the discredited adult you are.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:58:02 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Michael Kelly" wrote in message
. com...
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
Why would you drag around a few "silver bullet" aircraft to
remote wars against countries that are unlikely to offer anything
able to match a late production F-16? If the commander of such
an expeditionary force does not really need the full F/A-22
capability, and the probability is that he (or she) will not, then
that commander will be very reluctant to burden the already
strained logistics pipeline with the particular maintenance
requirements of a handful of unique fighters. The F/A-22 may
become what the B-1 is today -- a weapon commanders prefer
to leave at home, because the cost of taking it with you outweighs
the advantage. Politics aside, of course; I suspect that quite
a few generals in history have been told "We paid for this
weapon -- use it".

Emmanuel,

I couldn't disagree with you more on your assessment of the B-1 in
today's Air Force. Your statement above is 180 degrees off from the
current thinking of today's combatant commanders. In fact during OEF
and OIF it was at the top of the list of platforms asked for by them.
Today's Bone is vastly improved from the dark days of the early 90's.

Emmanuel would have been correct in what he wrote two years ago, but the
bone has lit up.

Our ability to fly long distances, loiter for hours on end, react
rapidly to emerging targets, and carry large combat loads is matched by
no other airframe in the USAF. So much so that congress is giving us
money and ordering us to return Bones to service, while talking about
retiring further BUFF's.

Getting the Bone to work is a major setback for any F/A-22.


Well you can hope. It might not help the prospects of an FB-22
(though I doubt it) but I don't see the B-1 filling an air to air role
anytime soon. Do you?

I don't see the F-22 filling the air to air role anytime soon either. The
one year Congress gave the F-22 program to get their act together is almost
gone and I see no indication that things are better.

"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.