A Critical Evaluation of the F22

[john smith[_2_]]

I have been downloading Col. John Boyd's works to study and stumbled
upon this...

http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html

I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight.

[Jay Honeck]

> http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html
>
> I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight.

The man makes some sense -- but the F-22 is just too darned COOL to
eliminate.
-
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message oups.com...
>> http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html
>>
>> I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight.
>
> The man makes some sense -- but the F-22 is just too darned COOL to
> eliminate.
> -
> Jay Honeck

You bitch about gov't idiocy, and then you go and say something like that...

[Kyle Boatright]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>I have been downloading Col. John Boyd's works to study and stumbled
> upon this...
>
> http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html
>
> I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight.

Remember that if Riccione and Boyd had their way, the F-15 wouldn't have
been built, and the F-16 would have had even more limited radar, bomb
aiming, and avionics suites. Those guys wanted the F-16 to be <essentially>
an F-86 with a far better power to weight ratio.

Now, they are proposing further upgrades to the fighter (the F-15) they
railed against and the fighter they wanted to be a minimalist dogfighter.

KB

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I have been downloading Col. John Boyd's works to study and stumbled
> > upon this...
> >
> > http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html
> >
> > I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight.
>
> Remember that if Riccione and Boyd had their way, the F-15 wouldn't have
> been built, and the F-16 would have had even more limited radar, bomb
> aiming, and avionics suites. Those guys wanted the F-16 to be <essentially>
> an F-86 with a far better power to weight ratio.
>
> Now, they are proposing further upgrades to the fighter (the F-15) they
> railed against and the fighter they wanted to be a minimalist dogfighter.

Kyle, you need to dig into the information available.
Boyd actually saved the F-15 program. The original design was to be a
swing wing like the F-14. Boyd's work showed the deficiencies in that
design and the improvements resulting in the final design.
You can also read aabout the F-14's design deficiencies.
The F-14 and F-15 were designed around the big radar for long range
detection.
The F-16 was designed to be a lightweight, close-in, air-superiority
fighter, it didn't need the big radar.
GOOGLE "John Boyd" and wade through the material. You will find much
that counters what you have been mislead to believe.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article . com>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html
> > I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight.

> The man makes some sense -- but the F-22 is just too darned COOL to
> eliminate.

I agree, that is my thought, also.
Sometimes you have to build a product just to advance the art. A
technology demonstrator just doesn't make the same convincing arguement.
The F-20 is a good example of that. It had a new engine and avionics in
an old airframe and didn't sell.
I also think the V-22 is great utility aircraft, but there have been
equally disparaging criticism written about it.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

>
> Kyle, you need to dig into the information available.
> Boyd actually saved the F-15 program.


Only because by doing so he got to design the F-16. He hated the F-15.
Any aircraft you build with two engines he will build a better one
with a single engine. The F-16 is recognized by the fighter folks as a
superior pure fighter plane than the F-15. That's all he wanted to
build, a pure fighter plane, any other mission detracted from the
fighter role.


The original design was to be a
> swing wing like the F-14.


Which he also despised. His quote to a congressional committee when
asked about the F-111, while sitting next to a higher ranking officer
who was testifying in favor of the F-111 was that "there isn't enough
thrust in the world to make the F-111 a fighter." Thereby foisting that
turd on to the bomber folks, who he also despised.




Boyd's work showed the deficiencies in that
> design and the improvements resulting in the final design.
> You can also read aabout the F-14's design deficiencies.
> The F-14 and F-15 were designed around the big radar for long range
> detection.

The F-14 was designed to carry the Phoenix and was an interceptor, not a
true fighter.



> The F-16 was designed to be a lightweight, close-in, air-superiority
> fighter, it didn't need the big radar.
> GOOGLE "John Boyd" and wade through the material. You will find much
> that counters what you have been mislead to believe.

Read the book about him. It's pretty good.

[Danny Deger]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >I have been downloading Col. John Boyd's works to study and stumbled
>> > upon this...
>> >
>> > http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html
>> >
>> > I haven't read it yet, but plan to later tonight.
>>
>> Remember that if Riccione and Boyd had their way, the F-15 wouldn't have
>> been built, and the F-16 would have had even more limited radar, bomb
>> aiming, and avionics suites. Those guys wanted the F-16 to be
>> <essentially>
>> an F-86 with a far better power to weight ratio.
>>
>> Now, they are proposing further upgrades to the fighter (the F-15) they
>> railed against and the fighter they wanted to be a minimalist dogfighter.
>
> Kyle, you need to dig into the information available.
> Boyd actually saved the F-15 program. The original design was to be a
> swing wing like the F-14. Boyd's work showed the deficiencies in that
> design and the improvements resulting in the final design.
> You can also read aabout the F-14's design deficiencies.
> The F-14 and F-15 were designed around the big radar for long range
> detection.
> The F-16 was designed to be a lightweight, close-in, air-superiority
> fighter, it didn't need the big radar.
> GOOGLE "John Boyd" and wade through the material. You will find much
> that counters what you have been mislead to believe.

That is my understanding also. Boyd fought to make the F-15 better, not to
cancel it. He saw the need for a large plane with its big radar, but also
wanted the small plane with the smaller radar.

If you read the history of Boyd and the F-16, he kept its very good range a
secret for as long as he could. He "sold" it as a short range fighter, but
it actually had more range than the F-15 did.

Danny Deger

Danny Deger

[Jay Honeck]

> > The man makes some sense -- but the F-22 is just too darned COOL to
> > eliminate.
> > -
> > Jay Honeck
>
> You bitch about gov't idiocy, and then you go and say something like that...

Dude, we're talking *aviation* here. Our stupid government could
spend its entire budget on space travel and cool airplanes, and I'd be
more than happy...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> Now, they are proposing further upgrades to the fighter (the F-15) they
> railed against and the fighter they wanted to be a minimalist dogfighter.

I remember back in the late 80's/early '90's, the fighter generals who
were ruling the Air Force tried to get rid of the A-10 and were pushing
a "ground/attack" version of the F-16 as it's replacement.
Along came Gulf War I and the A-10's were here to stay.
Look at the history of the F-16 and you will see that it continues to
gain weight and misson roles.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > The man makes some sense -- but the F-22 is just too darned COOL to
>> > eliminate.
>> > -
>> > Jay Honeck
>>
>> You bitch about gov't idiocy, and then you go and say something like
>> that...
>
> Dude, we're talking *aviation* here. Our stupid government could
> spend its entire budget on space travel and cool airplanes, and I'd be
> more than happy...
>
And every other idiot has their pet program they think is cool, from income
redistribution to research on the tetse fly.

So now we see the exoneration about democracy being self-destructive: the
fiscal conservatives are just as full of it as the ones they admonished for
40 years. And we saw that end result in the last elections.