Did the F/A-22 Raptor turn the corner in 2003? [Archive]

Scott Ferrin

January 5th 04, 12:46 AM

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:33:49 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
om...
>
>> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
>> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
>> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
>
>These are people with an axe to grind -- the 'light weight
>fighter maffia'. Their arguments don't impress me much;
>lightweight fighters have never been very successful.
>I've read part of Stevenson's "The Pentagon Paradox"
>book once, but found it hard to take seriously -- too
>many errors and fallacies.

I'd have to agree with you there. Some of his arguements were weak at
best. First he complains that in mock combat that the F-22 started in
the rear and then he complains that it's "not realistic" when it
started up front. Another clue he needs to get is when determining
maximum speed *no figther* is carrying a warload. They're always
clean. His whining that the F-15 only hit Mach 2.5 because it was
clean screams of either him having an axe to grind or just plain lack
of common sense. Let's see the F-16 or anyother fighter for that
matter, hit it's maximum speed when loaded down with ordinance.

>
>Nevertheless, I think a good case can be made that it was
>wrong to go for a high/low mix F-22/F-35 in imitation of
>the F-15/F-16 mix. It is very costly, even though Lockheed
>Martin is obviously using F-22 know-how in the F-35, to
>develop two types; and you end up with one type which
>isn't as capable as you really want and one type which is
>too expensive to be built in really large numbers. Instead,
>the USAF should have invested in a single, medium fighter
>type, single-engined and a real multi-role aircraft, and
>simple-and-cheap STOVL attack type for the USMC and
>as a *real* replacement for the A-10.

By the time it was a for-sure thing that Russia was no longer was a
threat a lot of money had already been sunk into the program. Combine
this with the fact that the USAF won't get as many aircraft as it
needs no matter *how* cheap they are, they wanted to get as much
capability as possible. If it only cost five million dollars the
politicians and tree huggers would still find a reason to whine about
it and rave on about how it's a "Cold War" weapon like that's a BAD
thing.

I agree that the F-35 in any incarnation is a poor replacement for the
A-10. Basically what you need to replace the A-10 with is new A-10s.
Add on a few electronic gizmos to improve it's ability to do what it
does best and no more.

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 01:51 AM

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:12:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
> >> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
> >> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
> >
> >"The way Air Force officials and Lockheed Martin executives tell it, 2003
> >marked a turning point in the development of the F/A-22 Raptor fighter
jet.
> >"
> >
> >Odd that, considering 2003 saw tail delamination, departure from
controlled
> >flight, failure to integrate the joint standoff munition and continueing
> >problems integrating weapons sensors. Especailly with Congress offering
the
> >program one year to get their act together, with the passage of the FY04
> >budget.
> >
> >Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

> Right on schedule.

So now the F-22 program has gone from "there is no problem" to "we have
turned the program around. Were they lying before, or now. (ie both)

Scott Ferrin

January 5th 04, 02:42 AM

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:51:22 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:12:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
>> >> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
>> >> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
>> >
>> >"The way Air Force officials and Lockheed Martin executives tell it, 2003
>> >marked a turning point in the development of the F/A-22 Raptor fighter
>jet.
>> >"
>> >
>> >Odd that, considering 2003 saw tail delamination, departure from
>controlled
>> >flight, failure to integrate the joint standoff munition and continueing
>> >problems integrating weapons sensors. Especailly with Congress offering
>the
>> >program one year to get their act together, with the passage of the FY04
>> >budget.
>> >
>> >Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
>
>> Right on schedule.
>
>So now the F-22 program has gone from "there is no problem" to "we have
>turned the program around. Were they lying before, or now. (ie both)
>

I'd have to say it depends on how long passed inbetween the statements
and what they meant when they said "problem". Was it three our four
years and there was no problem they were aware of, then they found
some, and then they fixed them? Were they saying "no problem" for the
media because the media would take all the little kinks that get
worked out in the flight test problem as being major problems as they
have in the past with the "flammable aluminum Bradleys"? Joe blow on
the street doesn't know the difference between show-stoppers and the
normal working-the-bugs-out process. The thing is the scenario you
lay out could be argued either way. Think of it like this. Even if
the F-22A has problems as you've suggested in the past, the USAF
*still* wants them over any alternative despite their high cost. Why
is that? If it was soley in the interest of keeping jobs they'd can
the F-22 and have Boeing cranking out F-15s. But they're not. The
military has cancelled stuff before that they wanted but were not
living up to their promises. The A-12, Sgt, York, and TSSAM come to
mind.

Denyav

January 5th 04, 04:03 AM

>But they're not. The
>military has cancelled stuff before that they wanted but were not
>living up to their promises. The A-12, Sgt, York, and TSSAM come to
>mind.

Now even Air Force wants to get rid of Jurassicfighter.
It was aready too late for cancellation in year 2001,thats the only reason why
it survived up to now.

Denyav

January 5th 04, 04:07 AM

>They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
>sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

I think EF-22 could be a perfect ECM plane,but if everything else fails we have
still Smithsonian for the Jurassicfighter.

Henry J. Cobb

January 5th 04, 05:16 AM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message >...
> Instead, the USAF should have invested in a single, medium fighter
> type, single-engined and a real multi-role aircraft, and
> simple-and-cheap STOVL attack type for the USMC and
> as a *real* replacement for the A-10.

How can you make a STOVL that's as sturdy as the A-10?

Last time I looked armor weighed something.

-HJC

Scott Ferrin

January 5th 04, 06:58 AM

On 05 Jan 2004 04:03:10 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>But they're not. The
>>military has cancelled stuff before that they wanted but were not
>>living up to their promises. The A-12, Sgt, York, and TSSAM come to
>>mind.
>
>Now even Air Force wants to get rid of Jurassicfighter.
>It was aready too late for cancellation in year 2001,thats the only reason why
>it survived up to now.

Keep dreamin'

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 04:51 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >But they're not. The
> >military has cancelled stuff before that they wanted but were not
> >living up to their promises. The A-12, Sgt, York, and TSSAM come to
> >mind.
>
> Now even Air Force wants to get rid of Jurassicfighter.
> It was aready too late for cancellation in year 2001,thats the only reason
why
> it survived up to now.

Georgia pork is the only thing keeping the jurassic turd alive.

Mary Shafer

January 5th 04, 05:00 PM

On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 05:29 PM

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
> > http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
> > "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
> > sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
>
> Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
> fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
> pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.

"Honest" is the word, Mary.

The mix will still be big/small, is we build the robot flock to run with the
F-18. I don't see any indication that USAF is prepared to make a COTS
procurement, at this time and mil-spec procurement is "expired".

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 05:33 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
> >sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
>
> I think EF-22 could be a perfect ECM plane,but if everything else fails we
have
> still Smithsonian for the Jurassicfighter.

Lockmart did things a little differently with the F-22 development and in
doing so validated the old school way.

Ed Rasimus

January 5th 04, 05:35 PM

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>
>> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
>> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
>> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
>
>Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
>fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
>pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.
>

The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
fighter business.

How can they be trying to "find a role" for an airplane that has been,
from the first release of RFP, a dedicated "air dominance fighter"
replacement for the F-15? What's so damning about initial 1-v-1
engagements with F-15s in which the Raptor starts in trail or the
Eagle starts in trail--these are standard 1-v-1 setups. You will
probably also see shoulder to shoulder same way and shoulder to
shoulder opposing initial setups.

Riccioni's comments on A/A missile failures read like someone who's
been in a time warp since the '70s. And Pearson's fumbling comments
about the effectiveness of stealth indicate a possible Rip Van Winkle
period during Desert Storm.

Don't know that we could accuse Riccioni of being LWF Mafia, it sounds
like he was much more Eagle than Viper and definitely not F-5 over
F-4. The Mafia were much more centered on the operational side of the
house than development.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 05:38 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
> >On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
> >
> >> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
> >> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
> >> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
> >
> >Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
> >fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
> >pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.
> >
>
> The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
> the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
> fighter business.

For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the F-22
cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the Pentagon
can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.

Ed Rasimus

January 5th 04, 07:06 PM

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:38:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
>> >> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
>> >> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
>> >
>> >Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
>> >fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
>> >pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.
>> >
>>
>> The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
>> the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
>> fighter business.
>
>For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the F-22
>cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the Pentagon
>can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.
>
Having been in the ATF Dem/Val stage, I've got a bit of insight into
the program and I commented on the quotes in the article which make
little sense in the context of modern fighter operations.

Now, how can you have such great engineering insights into the program
which you've repeatedly indicated is still so "black" that taking
pictures of OT&E vehicles is felonious? The article certainly didn't
come from the Pentagon, but from spokesmen at Edwards and it certainly
didn't sound like a whitewash, but rather the rantings of someone who
is opposed to the airplane.

Did you read the article at the link? It seems to be from folks in
your camp rather than mine.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Jarmo Lindberg

January 5th 04, 07:23 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
>
> These are people with an axe to grind -- the 'light weight
> fighter maffia'. Their arguments don't impress me much;
> lightweight fighters have never been very successful.
> I've read part of Stevenson's "The Pentagon Paradox"
> book once, but found it hard to take seriously -- too
> many errors and fallacies.
>

For more of Stevenson's views check "Fighter Jet Fix Video Transcription"
Interview
James Stevenson
July 27, 1998
http://www.cdi.org/adm/1233/Stevenson.html
ADM's Jon Lottman interviews James Stevenson, for "Fighter Jet Fix"

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 07:35 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:38:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
> >> >> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
> >> >> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
> >> >
> >> >Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
> >> >fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
> >> >pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
> >> the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
> >> fighter business.
> >
> >For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the F-22
> >cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the
Pentagon
> >can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.
> >
> Having been in the ATF Dem/Val stage, I've got a bit of insight into
> the program and I commented on the quotes in the article which make
> little sense in the context of modern fighter operations.

My comments go directly to the title of the article, as calling the results
from 2003, "turning a corner" made me laugh. In light of Congres' notice
that the F-22 will be canceled in FY05, unless the program squares away it's
problems during FY04, I can't see how even a casual observer could believe
the article's main premise.

> Now, how can you have such great engineering insights into the program
> which you've repeatedly indicated is still so "black" that taking
> pictures of OT&E vehicles is felonious?

The desire to prevent photographs of the F-22s on the Edwards flight line
has gone so far as to provide each aircraft with it's own little dog house.
It is a security violation on Edwards to take pictures.

> The article certainly didn't
> come from the Pentagon, but from spokesmen at Edwards and it certainly
> didn't sound like a whitewash, but rather the rantings of someone who
> is opposed to the airplane.

I didn't take the article that way, but as a recognition that a ground
attack version of the F-22 is probably not viable in light of current
inventory. The Bone lighting up for the terror war is a pleasant surprise
from a deployable asset viewpoint.

> Did you read the article at the link? It seems to be from folks in
> your camp rather than mine.

I read the article and your critique. It seems to me that the Bone
addresses certain forward basing issues, that have hounded fighter community
funding over the past decade; favoring Navy funding.

Chad Irby

January 5th 04, 07:43 PM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Denyav" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Now even Air Force wants to get rid of Jurassicfighter. It was
> > aready too late for cancellation in year 2001,thats the only reason
> > why it survived up to now.
>
> Georgia pork is the only thing keeping the jurassic turd alive.

So now we have Denyav *and* Tarver against the F-22.

Safe to say it's going to be one of the greatest figher planes, *ever*,
looking at their past records...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 07:51 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Denyav" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > Now even Air Force wants to get rid of Jurassicfighter. It was
> > > aready too late for cancellation in year 2001,thats the only reason
> > > why it survived up to now.
> >
> > Georgia pork is the only thing keeping the jurassic turd alive.
>
> So now we have Denyav *and* Tarver against the F-22.

As always Chad, havn't you been paying attention?

> Safe to say it's going to be one of the greatest figher planes, *ever*,
> looking at their past records...

Either that, or Chad is an idiot. :)

Scott Ferrin

January 5th 04, 08:32 PM

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 08:45 PM

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:38:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
> >> >> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
> >> >> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
> >> >
> >> >Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
> >> >fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
> >> >pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
> >> the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
> >> fighter business.
> >
> >For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the F-22
> >cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the
Pentagon
> >can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.

> Well it's official. The broompusher knows more than a fighter pilot
> who worked on the ATF program and flew several hundred missions.
> also smarter than Mary who works for NASA. All bow and hail the
> broompusher Tarver.

Hmmm, Ed took the article as critical of the F-22 and now Ferrin attacks me
with the opposite conclusion. Perhaps Scott should suspend his posting,
until he has enough cognitive ability to understand that a fighter pilot and
a PE agreeing about an article pretty well blows out whatever Scot is
smoking.

Perhaps there will be some future turnaround for the F-22, but 2003 was not
the year.

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 08:51 PM

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:51:22 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:12:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> >> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
> >> >> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
> >> >> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
> >> >
> >> >"The way Air Force officials and Lockheed Martin executives tell it,
2003
> >> >marked a turning point in the development of the F/A-22 Raptor fighter
> >jet.
> >> >"
> >> >
> >> >Odd that, considering 2003 saw tail delamination, departure from
> >controlled
> >> >flight, failure to integrate the joint standoff munition and
continueing
> >> >problems integrating weapons sensors. Especailly with Congress
offering
> >the
> >> >program one year to get their act together, with the passage of the
FY04
> >> >budget.
> >> >
> >> >Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
> >
> >> Right on schedule.
> >
> >So now the F-22 program has gone from "there is no problem" to "we have
> >turned the program around. Were they lying before, or now. (ie both)
> >
>
> I'd have to say it depends on how long passed inbetween the statements
> and what they meant when they said "problem".

Jesus, Ferrin, what are you smoking?

Ed Rasimus

January 5th 04, 09:22 PM

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:35:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> >>
>> >> The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
>> >> the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
>> >> fighter business.
>> >
>> >For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the F-22
>> >cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the
>Pentagon
>> >can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.
>> >
>> Having been in the ATF Dem/Val stage, I've got a bit of insight into
>> the program and I commented on the quotes in the article which make
>> little sense in the context of modern fighter operations.
>
>My comments go directly to the title of the article, as calling the results
>from 2003, "turning a corner" made me laugh. In light of Congres' notice
>that the F-22 will be canceled in FY05, unless the program squares away it's
>problems during FY04, I can't see how even a casual observer could believe
>the article's main premise.

We hear a lot from Congress, and anyone who has seen a GAO team come
in to research and support their predetermined conclusions will note
the political rather than objective bent to the evaluation. Listen
good, Pilgrim (as the Duke would say) "and you can take this to the
bank..." the F-22 will not be cancelled in FY05.
>
>> Now, how can you have such great engineering insights into the program
>> which you've repeatedly indicated is still so "black" that taking
>> pictures of OT&E vehicles is felonious?
>
>The desire to prevent photographs of the F-22s on the Edwards flight line
>has gone so far as to provide each aircraft with it's own little dog house.
>It is a security violation on Edwards to take pictures.

Stealth aircraft have a need for protection from the weather. It's got
nada to do with security from photos. And, many military bases don't
allow flight line pictures, even when the system has been long in the
public domain. The "dog house" is for aircraft preservation not
because there is anything to be disclosed by an external airframe
photo.
>
>> The article certainly didn't
>> come from the Pentagon, but from spokesmen at Edwards and it certainly
>> didn't sound like a whitewash, but rather the rantings of someone who
>> is opposed to the airplane.
>
>I didn't take the article that way, but as a recognition that a ground
>attack version of the F-22 is probably not viable in light of current
>inventory. The Bone lighting up for the terror war is a pleasant surprise
>from a deployable asset viewpoint.

What does B-1 have to do with F-22 development?
>
>> Did you read the article at the link? It seems to be from folks in
>> your camp rather than mine.
>
>I read the article and your critique. It seems to me that the Bone
>addresses certain forward basing issues, that have hounded fighter community
>funding over the past decade; favoring Navy funding.

Duh? I'm confused. B-1? Forward basing? Fighter community relationship
to B-1? Navy funding of B-1 or fighter assets of USAF? Are you
thinking B-2 forward basing issues? Meet me half-way here.

>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Chad Irby

January 5th 04, 09:39 PM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> The desire to prevent photographs of the F-22s on the Edwards flight line
> has gone so far as to provide each aircraft with it's own little dog house.

It's a damned shame they have to actually *fly* the darned things, and
do TV shows on them, and such.

They must have *shot* that guy who flew the one over the Rose Bowl...

And still, nobody else has ever seen, or heard, of any of them having
wing strakes, like you keep claiming.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

January 5th 04, 09:40 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:

> > So now we have Denyav *and* Tarver against the F-22.
>
> As always Chad, havn't you been paying attention?

No, Denyav never got that silly about it.

*You*, however, are getting worse and worse.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 10:11 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:35:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
> >> >> the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
> >> >> fighter business.
> >> >
> >> >For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the
F-22
> >> >cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the
Pentagon
> >> >can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.
> >> >
> >> Having been in the ATF Dem/Val stage, I've got a bit of insight into
> >> the program and I commented on the quotes in the article which make
> >> little sense in the context of modern fighter operations.
> >
> >My comments go directly to the title of the article, as calling the
results
> >from 2003, "turning a corner" made me laugh. In light of Congres' notice
> >that the F-22 will be canceled in FY05, unless the program squares away
it's
> >problems during FY04, I can't see how even a casual observer could
believe
> >the article's main premise.
>
> We hear a lot from Congress, and anyone who has seen a GAO team come
> in to research and support their predetermined conclusions will note
> the political rather than objective bent to the evaluation. Listen
> good, Pilgrim (as the Duke would say) "and you can take this to the
> bank..." the F-22 will not be cancelled in FY05.

Sweet sweet Georgia pork.

Plus, eddie's then is all done, with no shuttle, no F-22 and no OSP. (space
plane) The F-22 is the only one fling there now, as NASA has wrapped up all
but two chase aircraft. Then again, there is unprecidented pressure to
perform in the system these days.

> >> Now, how can you have such great engineering insights into the program
> >> which you've repeatedly indicated is still so "black" that taking
> >> pictures of OT&E vehicles is felonious?
> >
> >The desire to prevent photographs of the F-22s on the Edwards flight line
> >has gone so far as to provide each aircraft with it's own little dog
house.
> >It is a security violation on Edwards to take pictures.
>
> Stealth aircraft have a need for protection from the weather. It's got
> nada to do with security from photos. And, many military bases don't
> allow flight line pictures, even when the system has been long in the
> public domain. The "dog house" is for aircraft preservation not
> because there is anything to be disclosed by an external airframe
> photo.

Right, as taking pictures would get you arrested and this is probably a poor
time to be arrested by the military police.

> >> The article certainly didn't
> >> come from the Pentagon, but from spokesmen at Edwards and it certainly
> >> didn't sound like a whitewash, but rather the rantings of someone who
> >> is opposed to the airplane.
> >
> >I didn't take the article that way, but as a recognition that a ground
> >attack version of the F-22 is probably not viable in light of current
> >inventory. The Bone lighting up for the terror war is a pleasant
surprise
> >from a deployable asset viewpoint.
>
> What does B-1 have to do with F-22 development?

One of the missions for the F-22 was to stretch it and make a bomber, but
the number of operational bomb truck assets has increased greatly; with the
Bone comming online. The stretch would additionally have a large
probability of eliminating the F-22's "buffeting" problem.

> >> Did you read the article at the link? It seems to be from folks in
> >> your camp rather than mine.
> >
> >I read the article and your critique. It seems to me that the Bone
> >addresses certain forward basing issues, that have hounded fighter
community
> >funding over the past decade; favoring Navy funding.
>
> Duh? I'm confused. B-1? Forward basing? Fighter community relationship
> to B-1? Navy funding of B-1 or fighter assets of USAF? Are you
> thinking B-2 forward basing issues? Meet me half-way here.

OK.

A few years ago, there was a war game played that determined the direction
of funding within the Pentagon. One of the criterion put forward by the
Navy was that in the future the US would have less forward basing
opertunities. The USAF, being keen on the idea of stopping B-2 production,
stipulated to the USN debate term. The Navy then laid claim to a larger
piece of the pie, based on the USAF being less likely to be able to bring
their assets to play in the future.

I believe the Bone changes that equation.

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 10:11 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > The desire to prevent photographs of the F-22s on the Edwards flight
line
> > has gone so far as to provide each aircraft with it's own little dog
house.
>
> It's a damned shame they have to actually *fly* the darned things, and
> do TV shows on them, and such.

Certain ones.

Ed Rasimus

January 5th 04, 10:35 PM

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:11:14 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>

>>
>>Listen
>> good, Pilgrim (as the Duke would say) "and you can take this to the
>> bank..." the F-22 will not be cancelled in FY05.
>
>Sweet sweet Georgia pork.

Every system has to be produced somewhere. It used to be Texas at
GD/Ft. Worth, or St. Louis/MacAir, or Seattle/Boeing, or now LockMart.
It always creates jobs and has a local economic impact. There will
always be a local "pork" aspect. But, if the contract is the result of
competitive fly-off (F-22-vs-F-23) then what's the problem?
>
>Plus, eddie's then is all done, with no shuttle, no F-22 and no OSP. (space
>plane) The F-22 is the only one fling there now, as NASA has wrapped up all
>but two chase aircraft. Then again, there is unprecidented pressure to
>perform in the system these days.

Edwards has always had plenty of work. It might be upgrades, it might
be "black", it might be weapons release, it might be advanced
technology vehicles.
>
>> Stealth aircraft have a need for protection from the weather. It's got
>> nada to do with security from photos. And, many military bases don't
>> allow flight line pictures, even when the system has been long in the
>> public domain. The "dog house" is for aircraft preservation not
>> because there is anything to be disclosed by an external airframe
>> photo.
>
>Right, as taking pictures would get you arrested and this is probably a poor
>time to be arrested by the military police.

Developmental aircraft are generally secured by other assets than
military police. (You may also recall from your USAF experience that
the terminology for USAF security forces is Security Police.) Any time
is a poor time to get arrested for law breaking. It doesn't have a lot
to do with F-22 performance.
>
>>
>> What does B-1 have to do with F-22 development?
>
>One of the missions for the F-22 was to stretch it and make a bomber, but
>the number of operational bomb truck assets has increased greatly; with the
>Bone comming online. The stretch would additionally have a large
>probability of eliminating the F-22's "buffeting" problem.

The B-1 came "online" about twenty years ago. The "A" aspect of F/A-22
doesn't require "stretch" and quiet clearly there is a huge difference
in payload between a strategic heavy bomber like B-1 or B-2 and a
tactical asset like F/A-22. Whether or not a stretch would have
anything to do with "buffeting" would be more work for Edwards. For
that matter, virtually all swept wing aircraft buffet at high AOA.
Whether "buffeting" is related to the slab delaminations is yet
another matter for conjecture.
>
>> >> Did you read the article at the link? It seems to be from folks in
>> >> your camp rather than mine.
>> >
>> >I read the article and your critique. It seems to me that the Bone
>> >addresses certain forward basing issues, that have hounded fighter
>community
>> >funding over the past decade; favoring Navy funding.
>>
>> Duh? I'm confused. B-1? Forward basing? Fighter community relationship
>> to B-1? Navy funding of B-1 or fighter assets of USAF? Are you
>> thinking B-2 forward basing issues? Meet me half-way here.
>
>OK.
>
>A few years ago, there was a war game played that determined the direction
>of funding within the Pentagon. One of the criterion put forward by the
>Navy was that in the future the US would have less forward basing
>opertunities. The USAF, being keen on the idea of stopping B-2 production,
>stipulated to the USN debate term. The Navy then laid claim to a larger
>piece of the pie, based on the USAF being less likely to be able to bring
>their assets to play in the future.
>
>I believe the Bone changes that equation.

That makes very little sense. (Sorry, but that's my opinion.) While
war games are occasionally insightful, they aren't a basis for funding
allocation between services. That is typically handled at higher
levels and is seriously impacted by Congress, which while they play
"games", don't usually participate in "war games."

Certainly questions of forward basing are critical, but with the
collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, as well as the
integration of a number of former Pact nations into NATO, you can make
a good argument for MORE forward basing opportunities rather than
less. Additionally, the Navy support for carrier ops as "forward
basing" is always questioned by the reach of Navy tactical assets from
blue water boats--there's a huge chunk of the globe unreachable by
CVBG forces.

USAF was never "keen on the idea of stopping B-2 production." Don't
know where you got that.

So, your argument is that USAF eagerly bought on to a NAVY argument
that resulted in lower funding and admission that they couldn't bring
forces to bear in the future? That makes no sense whatsoever!

>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Scott Ferrin

January 5th 04, 11:05 PM

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:45:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:38:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
>> >> >> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
>> >> >> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
>> >> >fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
>> >> >pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
>> >> the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
>> >> fighter business.
>> >
>> >For anyone in the engineering businees that has been following the F-22
>> >cluster ****, the article is a laughable lie. I don't see how the
>Pentagon
>> >can put out this kind of bull**** with a straight face.
>
>> Well it's official. The broompusher knows more than a fighter pilot
>> who worked on the ATF program and flew several hundred missions.
>> also smarter than Mary who works for NASA. All bow and hail the
>> broompusher Tarver.
>
>Hmmm, Ed took the article as critical of the F-22 and now Ferrin attacks me
>with the opposite conclusion.

What, so you're claiming you DO know more than Mary and Ed?

>Perhaps Scott should suspend his posting,
>until he has enough cognitive ability to understand that a fighter pilot and
>a PE agreeing about an article pretty well blows out whatever Scot is
>smoking.

They both agreed that the guy pretty much has an agenda and that the
article made little sense. Looks like YOU need to work on your
reading comprehension.

>
>Perhaps there will be some future turnaround for the F-22, but 2003 was not
>the year.

Scott Ferrin

January 5th 04, 11:07 PM

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:11:56 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> > The desire to prevent photographs of the F-22s on the Edwards flight
>line
>> > has gone so far as to provide each aircraft with it's own little dog
>house.
>>
>> It's a damned shame they have to actually *fly* the darned things, and
>> do TV shows on them, and such.
>
>Certain ones.
>

I guess those ones with the strakes are top secret huh?

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 11:08 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:11:14 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:

> >>Listen
> >> good, Pilgrim (as the Duke would say) "and you can take this to the
> >> bank..." the F-22 will not be cancelled in FY05.
> >
> >Sweet sweet Georgia pork.
>
> Every system has to be produced somewhere. It used to be Texas at
> GD/Ft. Worth, or St. Louis/MacAir, or Seattle/Boeing, or now LockMart.
> It always creates jobs and has a local economic impact. There will
> always be a local "pork" aspect. But, if the contract is the result of
> competitive fly-off (F-22-vs-F-23) then what's the problem?

Georgia has become a very Republican State, so I am not opposed to the
manufacturing location. Like I wrote before, the F-22 is keeping the doors
open for rpopel who live here.

I don't really believe the flyoff was competitive, but Northrop had the B-2.

> >Plus, eddie's then is all done, with no shuttle, no F-22 and no OSP.
(space
> >plane) The F-22 is the only one fling there now, as NASA has wrapped up
all
> >but two chase aircraft. Then again, there is unprecidented pressure to
> >perform in the system these days.
>
> Edwards has always had plenty of work. It might be upgrades, it might
> be "black", it might be weapons release, it might be advanced
> technology vehicles.

I think you underestimate boxer's incompetence.

> >> Stealth aircraft have a need for protection from the weather. It's got
> >> nada to do with security from photos. And, many military bases don't
> >> allow flight line pictures, even when the system has been long in the
> >> public domain. The "dog house" is for aircraft preservation not
> >> because there is anything to be disclosed by an external airframe
> >> photo.
> >
> >Right, as taking pictures would get you arrested and this is probably a
poor
> >time to be arrested by the military police.
>
> Developmental aircraft are generally secured by other assets than
> military police. (You may also recall from your USAF experience that
> the terminology for USAF security forces is Security Police.) Any time
> is a poor time to get arrested for law breaking. It doesn't have a lot
> to do with F-22 performance.

You made an issue of me not having a picture of an airplane in a specific
configuration, as have several of the newsgroup monkeys.

> >>
> >> What does B-1 have to do with F-22 development?
> >
> >One of the missions for the F-22 was to stretch it and make a bomber, but
> >the number of operational bomb truck assets has increased greatly; with
the
> >Bone comming online. The stretch would additionally have a large
> >probability of eliminating the F-22's "buffeting" problem.
>
> The B-1 came "online" about twenty years ago. The "A" aspect of F/A-22
> doesn't require "stretch" and quiet clearly there is a huge difference
> in payload between a strategic heavy bomber like B-1 or B-2 and a
> tactical asset like F/A-22. Whether or not a stretch would have
> anything to do with "buffeting" would be more work for Edwards. For
> that matter, virtually all swept wing aircraft buffet at high AOA.
> Whether "buffeting" is related to the slab delaminations is yet
> another matter for conjecture.
> >
> >> >> Did you read the article at the link? It seems to be from folks in
> >> >> your camp rather than mine.
> >> >
> >> >I read the article and your critique. It seems to me that the Bone
> >> >addresses certain forward basing issues, that have hounded fighter
> >community
> >> >funding over the past decade; favoring Navy funding.
> >>
> >> Duh? I'm confused. B-1? Forward basing? Fighter community relationship
> >> to B-1? Navy funding of B-1 or fighter assets of USAF? Are you
> >> thinking B-2 forward basing issues? Meet me half-way here.
> >
> >OK.
> >
> >A few years ago, there was a war game played that determined the
direction
> >of funding within the Pentagon. One of the criterion put forward by the
> >Navy was that in the future the US would have less forward basing
> >opertunities. The USAF, being keen on the idea of stopping B-2
production,
> >stipulated to the USN debate term. The Navy then laid claim to a larger
> >piece of the pie, based on the USAF being less likely to be able to bring
> >their assets to play in the future.
> >
> >I believe the Bone changes that equation.
>
> That makes very little sense. (Sorry, but that's my opinion.) While
> war games are occasionally insightful, they aren't a basis for funding
> allocation between services. That is typically handled at higher
> levels and is seriously impacted by Congress, which while they play
> "games", don't usually participate in "war games."
>
> Certainly questions of forward basing are critical, but with the
> collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, as well as the
> integration of a number of former Pact nations into NATO, you can make
> a good argument for MORE forward basing opportunities rather than
> less. Additionally, the Navy support for carrier ops as "forward
> basing" is always questioned by the reach of Navy tactical assets from
> blue water boats--there's a huge chunk of the globe unreachable by
> CVBG forces.
>
> USAF was never "keen on the idea of stopping B-2 production." Don't
> know where you got that.
>
> So, your argument is that USAF eagerly bought on to a NAVY argument
> that resulted in lower funding and admission that they couldn't bring
> forces to bear in the future? That makes no sense whatsoever!
>
>
> >
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus

January 5th 04, 11:20 PM

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:08:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Developmental aircraft are generally secured by other assets than
>> military police. (You may also recall from your USAF experience that
>> the terminology for USAF security forces is Security Police.) Any time
>> is a poor time to get arrested for law breaking. It doesn't have a lot
>> to do with F-22 performance.
>
>You made an issue of me not having a picture of an airplane in a specific
>configuration, as have several of the newsgroup monkeys.

No. Don't have a dog in that hunt. I have not been involved in the
argument regarding a picture with or without strakes.

I've been trying to engage in a dialogue, without personal insult that
might provide some information and perspective for folks in the news
group. Join me or not, your choice.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Tarver Engineering

January 5th 04, 11:28 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:08:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Developmental aircraft are generally secured by other assets than
> >> military police. (You may also recall from your USAF experience that
> >> the terminology for USAF security forces is Security Police.) Any time
> >> is a poor time to get arrested for law breaking. It doesn't have a lot
> >> to do with F-22 performance.
> >
> >You made an issue of me not having a picture of an airplane in a specific
> >configuration, as have several of the newsgroup monkeys.
>
> No. Don't have a dog in that hunt. I have not been involved in the
> argument regarding a picture with or without strakes.

OK

> I've been trying to engage in a dialogue, without personal insult that
> might provide some information and perspective for folks in the news
> group. Join me or not, your choice.

I think we are already doing that.

Scott Ferrin

January 5th 04, 11:42 PM

>The B-1 came "online" about twenty years ago. The "A" aspect of F/A-22
>doesn't require "stretch" and quiet clearly there is a huge difference
>in payload between a strategic heavy bomber like B-1 or B-2 and a
>tactical asset like F/A-22.

I'm fairly certain he's referring to the concept of stretching the
F-22, giving it a different wing, and dropping the verticals tails.
The idea being a stealthy, faster, F-111 so to speak.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,262063-1,00.html

Apparently Lockheed has already done some research on the idea.

> Whether or not a stretch would have
>anything to do with "buffeting" would be more work for Edwards. For
>that matter, virtually all swept wing aircraft buffet at high AOA.
>Whether "buffeting" is related to the slab delaminations is yet
>another matter for conjecture.

Smartace11

January 5th 04, 11:55 PM

>USAF was never "keen on the idea of stopping B-2 production." Don't
>know where you got that.

On this one point I would have to agree though the rest of the argument doesn't
ring true - I worked on both the F-22 and B-2 all through the 90s.

In 96 0r 97, Congress wanted the AF to "have" another 20 B-2s beyond the first
20. They even wanted to appropriate $550M for long lead spares. The AF
Generals at the five sided wind tunnel and ACC HQ at Langley then went enmasse
to Congress to tell then the DID NOT want more B-2s. Instead they wanted more
funding to accelerate the F-22.

The $550M was appropriated anyway and and instead of being spent on long lead,
it went, by direction of Bill Clinton, in an election year, to refurbish Air
Vehicle #1, a prototype that ACC wanted to turn into a static
display/maintenance trainer.

Guess it delivered SOCal to him and got Diane Feinstein re-elected though, IMHO
the only reason why it was made operational.

Tarver Engineering

January 6th 04, 12:03 AM

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> >USAF was never "keen on the idea of stopping B-2 production." Don't
> >know where you got that.
>
> On this one point I would have to agree though the rest of the argument
doesn't
> ring true - I worked on both the F-22 and B-2 all through the 90s.

Whatever.

> In 96 0r 97, Congress wanted the AF to "have" another 20 B-2s beyond the
first
> 20. They even wanted to appropriate $550M for long lead spares. The AF
> Generals at the five sided wind tunnel and ACC HQ at Langley then went
enmasse
> to Congress to tell then the DID NOT want more B-2s. Instead they wanted
more
> funding to accelerate the F-22.

So then, you attempt to discredit me on the causal portion, but only agree
with the result. How can you possibly disagree with something you have no
clue about?

> The $550M was appropriated anyway and and instead of being spent on long
lead,
> it went, by direction of Bill Clinton, in an election year, to refurbish
Air
> Vehicle #1, a prototype that ACC wanted to turn into a static
> display/maintenance trainer.

Strange.

Chad Irby

January 6th 04, 01:29 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > The desire to prevent photographs of the F-22s on the Edwards
> > > flight line has gone so far as to provide each aircraft with it's
> > > own little dog house.
> >
> > It's a damned shame they have to actually *fly* the darned things, and
> > do TV shows on them, and such.
>
> Certain ones.

They had it on a friggin' *football* game. Sheesh, you couldn't get
more public.

Not to mention a dozen or so episodes of various shows on Discovery
Wings (one was on yesterday, with multiple F-22s on screen at a time).

And on the official F-22 Raptor site, Raptors 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12 and 14
all have very clear photos, and none have strakes.

The strakes are in your head, Tarver.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Scott Ferrin

January 6th 04, 03:13 AM

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:29:13 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > The desire to prevent photographs of the F-22s on the Edwards
>> > > flight line has gone so far as to provide each aircraft with it's
>> > > own little dog house.
>> >
>> > It's a damned shame they have to actually *fly* the darned things, and
>> > do TV shows on them, and such.
>>
>> Certain ones.
>
>They had it on a friggin' *football* game. Sheesh, you couldn't get
>more public.
>
>Not to mention a dozen or so episodes of various shows on Discovery
>Wings (one was on yesterday, with multiple F-22s on screen at a time).
>
>And on the official F-22 Raptor site, Raptors 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12 and 14
>all have very clear photos, and none have strakes.
>
>The strakes are in your head, Tarver.

I'm wondering if maybe he just saw a picture that looked like they had
strakes. I noticed a picture the other day of one taken from the side
and there is a panel towards the rear going up onto the spine a bit
that is has off color paint. It makes it look EXACTLY like one of
those added onto the Hornet.

Chad Irby

January 6th 04, 03:34 AM

Scott Ferrin > wrote:

> I'm wondering if maybe he just saw a picture that looked like they had
> strakes. I noticed a picture the other day of one taken from the side
> and there is a panel towards the rear going up onto the spine a bit
> that is has off color paint. It makes it look EXACTLY like one of
> those added onto the Hornet.

On the other hand, he's had what, six months to figure that out?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Scott Ferrin

January 6th 04, 05:01 AM

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:34:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering if maybe he just saw a picture that looked like they had
>> strakes. I noticed a picture the other day of one taken from the side
>> and there is a panel towards the rear going up onto the spine a bit
>> that is has off color paint. It makes it look EXACTLY like one of
>> those added onto the Hornet.
>
>On the other hand, he's had what, six months to figure that out?

You're assuming he'd fess up ;-)

Mary Shafer

January 6th 04, 05:39 AM

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:35:23 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

> Don't know that we could accuse Riccioni of being LWF Mafia, it sounds
> like he was much more Eagle than Viper and definitely not F-5 over
> F-4. The Mafia were much more centered on the operational side of the
> house than development.

Hey, I was there at the time. Ed Riccioni was one of the staunchest
members of the LWF Mafia. He was a tremendously vocal advocate of the
concept and, after the fly-off, the F-16. He'd tell you so himself.

He was proud of it. After all, they won. Actually, they won twice,
with two different services. And they weren't even trying that hard
the second time.

He commanded the CTF, too, as well as advocating things like the A-16
after he retired. He was a big supporter of the AFTI/F-16, for that
reason.

I remember him coming around Dryden and giving us a briefing he'd put
together about using the F-16 for a new role. I've got the viewgraphs
somewhere, I think. Off hand, I can't remember what it was, though.
Supercruise? It wasn't CAS, because that was earlier. And it wasn't
FB-16, because although he loves the F-16, he isn't stupid. It was
really clever, but unlikely, whatever it was. Something you wished
would get tried, just because it was neat.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Scott Ferrin

January 6th 04, 05:41 AM

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 21:39:11 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:35:23 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
>wrote:
>
>> Don't know that we could accuse Riccioni of being LWF Mafia, it sounds
>> like he was much more Eagle than Viper and definitely not F-5 over
>> F-4. The Mafia were much more centered on the operational side of the
>> house than development.
>
>Hey, I was there at the time. Ed Riccioni was one of the staunchest
>members of the LWF Mafia. He was a tremendously vocal advocate of the
>concept and, after the fly-off, the F-16. He'd tell you so himself.

I wonder what he thinks about the latest model of the F-16 grossing
52,000lbs ;-)

John Keeney

January 6th 04, 08:11 AM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
> >On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:
> >
> >> http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
> >> "They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
> >> sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.
> >
> >Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
> >fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
> >pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.
> >
>
> The combination of Riccioni, Pearson and a clueless reporter leaves
> the entire article garbled into senselessness for anyone in the
> fighter business.

You don't even have to read the article: a glance at a couple of pages
worth of two line paragraphs screams either "clueless" or "hit
piece", take your choice.

Smartace11

January 6th 04, 02:44 PM

>"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
>> >USAF was never "keen on the idea of stopping B-2 production." Don't
>> >know where you got that.
>>
>> On this one point I would have to agree though the rest of the argument
>doesn't
>> ring true - I worked on both the F-22 and B-2 all through the 90s.
>
>Whatever.
>
>> In 96 0r 97, Congress wanted the AF to "have" another 20 B-2s beyond the
>first
>> 20. They even wanted to appropriate $550M for long lead spares. The AF
>> Generals at the five sided wind tunnel and ACC HQ at Langley then went
>enmasse
>> to Congress to tell then the DID NOT want more B-2s. Instead they wanted
>more
>> funding to accelerate the F-22.
>
>So then, you attempt to discredit me on the causal portion, but only agree
>with the result. How can you possibly disagree with something you have no
>clue about?
>

Not trying to discredit anyone. Just saying that there was a point where the
AF decided it did not want any more B-2s, mainly because of the maintenance
workoad and declining number of maintainers.

I may well be clueless about the B-2. My role was to write white papers for
the AF Generals, work with the GAO, and answer congressional inquiries from
within the AF program office. The sitting guy next to me mananged the AV-1
upgrade program when the $550M fell into our lap. Aside from that I haven't a
clue what you are accusingme of.

Harry Andreas

January 6th 04, 09:43 PM

In article >, wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:35:23 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
> wrote:
>
> > Don't know that we could accuse Riccioni of being LWF Mafia, it sounds
> > like he was much more Eagle than Viper and definitely not F-5 over
> > F-4. The Mafia were much more centered on the operational side of the
> > house than development.
>
> Hey, I was there at the time. Ed Riccioni was one of the staunchest
> members of the LWF Mafia. He was a tremendously vocal advocate of the
> concept and, after the fly-off, the F-16. He'd tell you so himself.
>
> He was proud of it. After all, they won. Actually, they won twice,
> with two different services. And they weren't even trying that hard
> the second time.
>
> He commanded the CTF, too, as well as advocating things like the A-16
> after he retired. He was a big supporter of the AFTI/F-16, for that
> reason.
>
> I remember him coming around Dryden and giving us a briefing he'd put
> together about using the F-16 for a new role. I've got the viewgraphs
> somewhere, I think. Off hand, I can't remember what it was, though.
> Supercruise? It wasn't CAS, because that was earlier. And it wasn't
> FB-16, because although he loves the F-16, he isn't stupid. It was
> really clever, but unlikely, whatever it was. Something you wished
> would get tried, just because it was neat.

Do remember when that would be?

I remember a briefing about 2 years ago that centered around using
mothballed F-16A, Block 10 & 20 aircraft (upgraded) as a shortcut
to UCAV.
It was rejected of course, for several reasons.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Alan Minyard

January 6th 04, 10:44 PM

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:28:36 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:08:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> Developmental aircraft are generally secured by other assets than
>> >> military police. (You may also recall from your USAF experience that
>> >> the terminology for USAF security forces is Security Police.) Any time
>> >> is a poor time to get arrested for law breaking. It doesn't have a lot
>> >> to do with F-22 performance.
>> >
>> >You made an issue of me not having a picture of an airplane in a specific
>> >configuration, as have several of the newsgroup monkeys.
>>
>> No. Don't have a dog in that hunt. I have not been involved in the
>> argument regarding a picture with or without strakes.
>
>OK
>
>> I've been trying to engage in a dialogue, without personal insult that
>> might provide some information and perspective for folks in the news
>> group. Join me or not, your choice.
>
>I think we are already doing that.
>
No, Ed is providing information, while you, as usual, are providing an
amazingly warped, unreal viewpoint. While I suppose that, in the
"Tarverworld" your ramblings may make some sort of weird sense,
you are the only one that lives there. (Thank God)

Al Minyard

Tarver Engineering

January 7th 04, 04:27 AM

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> >"Smartace11" > wrote in message
> ...
> >So then, you attempt to discredit me on the causal portion, but only
agree
> >with the result. How can you possibly disagree with something you have
no
> >clue about?

> Not trying to discredit anyone. Just saying that there was a point where
the
> AF decided it did not want any more B-2s, mainly because of the
maintenance
> workoad and declining number of maintainers.

The USAF wanted the money and B-2s use few pilots.

> I may well be clueless about the B-2. My role was to write white papers
for
> the AF Generals, work with the GAO, and answer congressional inquiries
from
> within the AF program office. The sitting guy next to me mananged the
AV-1
> upgrade program when the $550M fell into our lap. Aside from that I
haven't a
> clue what you are accusingme of.

AV-1 is Northrop's airframe, I do not know of any upgrade for that bird.
AV-2 thru AV-6 were ungraded to production version, about that time.

Scott Ferrin

January 7th 04, 06:33 AM

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:27:42 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
>> >"Smartace11" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >So then, you attempt to discredit me on the causal portion, but only
>agree
>> >with the result. How can you possibly disagree with something you have
>no
>> >clue about?
>
>> Not trying to discredit anyone. Just saying that there was a point where
>the
>> AF decided it did not want any more B-2s, mainly because of the
>maintenance
>> workoad and declining number of maintainers.
>
>The USAF wanted the money and B-2s use few pilots.
>
>> I may well be clueless about the B-2. My role was to write white papers
>for
>> the AF Generals, work with the GAO, and answer congressional inquiries
>from
>> within the AF program office. The sitting guy next to me mananged the
>AV-1
>> upgrade program when the $550M fell into our lap. Aside from that I
>haven't a
>> clue what you are accusingme of.
>
>AV-1 is Northrop's airframe, I do not know of any upgrade for that bird.
>AV-2 thru AV-6 were ungraded to production version, about that time.
>

I thought the "AV" in AV-1 was for "air vehicle". I know there was
one that wasn't intended to go into service but did in the end. The
only one I know of that didn't was the "iron bird" that had different
landing gear, wasn't flyable, but was the same size and configuaration
as the production B-2. Could that be the one you are thinking of as
Northrop's aircraft?

SteveM8597

January 7th 04, 02:12 PM

>AV-1 is Northrop's airframe, I do not know of any upgrade for that bird.
>AV-2 thru AV-6 were ungraded to production version, about that time.

Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after the program
was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to be flight
test assets but when the cut to 20 came, they were included as part of the 20
iin SAC's Bomber Roadmap with plans to upgrade them to final production
configuration. AV-1 was so different than the others that it was warranted to
not be worth the cost of upgrade. At that time Northrop-Grumman was quoting
$350 MIllion. Then the $550M long lead initiative came along. the AF took
the position that It couldn't afford to support another 20 and the $550M got
diverted to upgrading AV-1 to operational configuration. Interestingly, the
cost for the upgrade rose from $350M to $550M at the same time. It was the
final B-2 out of 21 delivered. It is flying at Whiteman today.

2001(IIRC), the non flying structural test article was recently delivered to
the AF Museum.
Pilot shortages were not the issue with a 40 plane fleet. At 150+
maintenanace manhours per flight hour, there weren't enough greensuiters at the
time to maintain a larger fleet. I trust that number has gone down some.

SteveM8597

January 7th 04, 02:17 PM

>I thought the "AV" in AV-1 was for "air vehicle". I know there was
>one that wasn't intended to go into service but did in the end. The
>only one I know of that didn't was the "iron bird" that had different
>landing gear, wasn't flyable, but was the same size and configuaration
>as the production B-2. Could that be the one you are thinking of as
>Northrop's aircraft?
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Iron bird was just that, a mockup of steel girders with much of the flight
and mission hardware installed, and the whole thing was tied to a full motion
simulator. Pretty awesome to see but not eactaly an airplane by any stretch.
..There wre two static test articles built IIRC tail #s 1001 and 1002, or maybe
2001/2. One is still at Plant 42 at Palmdale. the other at the AF Museum.

Tarver Engineering

January 7th 04, 05:01 PM

"SteveM8597" > wrote in message
...
> >AV-1 is Northrop's airframe, I do not know of any upgrade for that bird.
> >AV-2 thru AV-6 were ungraded to production version, about that time.
>
> Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after the
program
> was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to be
flight
> test assets

AV-2 thru AV-6 were flight test assets and were always intended to be
brought up to production configuration; I have the complte set of crew
shirts. Including my wife's, "ship from hell", crew shirt.

> but when the cut to 20 came, they were included as part of the 20
> iin SAC's Bomber Roadmap with plans to upgrade them to final production
> configuration. AV-1 was so different than the others that it was
warranted to
> not be worth the cost of upgrade.

No ****.

> At that time Northrop-Grumman was quoting
> $350 MIllion. Then the $550M long lead initiative came along. the AF
took
> the position that It couldn't afford to support another 20 and the $550M
got
> diverted to upgrading AV-1 to operational configuration. Interestingly,
the
> cost for the upgrade rose from $350M to $550M at the same time. It was
the
> final B-2 out of 21 delivered. It is flying at Whiteman today.

Geeze, they had to rip the entire flight deck and ebay to make that work.

> 2001(IIRC), the non flying structural test article was recently delivered
to the AF Museum.
> Pilot shortages were not the issue with a 40 plane fleet.

Pilot jobs are, pay attention and try not to take the most rediculess
interpretation of your own misreadings.

> At 150+
> maintenanace manhours per flight hour, there weren't enough greensuiters
at the
> time to maintain a larger fleet. I trust that number has gone down some.

Body and fender work is not so skilled.

Tarver Engineering

January 7th 04, 05:05 PM

"SteveM8597" > wrote in message
...
> >I thought the "AV" in AV-1 was for "air vehicle". I know there was
> >one that wasn't intended to go into service but did in the end. The
> >only one I know of that didn't was the "iron bird" that had different
> >landing gear, wasn't flyable, but was the same size and configuaration
> >as the production B-2. Could that be the one you are thinking of as
> >Northrop's aircraft?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The Iron bird was just that, a mockup of steel girders with much of the
flight
> and mission hardware installed, and the whole thing was tied to a full
motion
> simulator. Pretty awesome to see but not eactaly an airplane by any
stretch.
> .There wre two static test articles built IIRC tail #s 1001 and 1002, or
maybe
> 2001/2. One is still at Plant 42 at Palmdale. the other at the AF Museum.

A simple shake of AV-1 was all that was required to validate the test rig
results.

It is the same reason Lockmart blocked a shake of the F-22 prior to
production, for it might have killed the program right then. (ie "buffeting"
:)

Smartace11

January 7th 04, 05:26 PM

>"SteveM8597" > wrote in message
...
>> >I thought the "AV" in AV-1 was for "air vehicle". I know there was
>> >one that wasn't intended to go into service but did in the end. The
>> >only one I know of that didn't was the "iron bird" that had different
>> >landing gear, wasn't flyable, but was the same size and configuaration
>> >as the production B-2. Could that be the one you are thinking of as
>> >Northrop's aircraft
>>
>> The Iron bird was just that, a mockup of steel girders with much of the
>flight
>> and mission hardware installed, and the whole thing was tied to a full
>motion
>> simulator. Pretty awesome to see but not eactaly an airplane by any
>stretch.
>> .There wre two static test articles built IIRC tail #s 1001 and 1002, or
>maybe
>> 2001/2. One is still at Plant 42 at Palmdale. the other at the AF Museum.
>
>A simple shake of AV-1 was all that was required to validate the test rig
>results.

Iam curious where you got your information. The iron bird "test rig" was at
Pico Rivera and was officially called the SIL or systems integration lab. Now
used for structural testing at all.

1001. 1002 and AV-1 were stored at Palmdale 60 miles away. 1001 was loaded up
in a hangar at Palmdale and then shook until it broke at 207% of mission
loading. You can go to the AF Museum today and see the scab plates on the
right wing where it brokeso it could be put on display.

AV-1 was never subjected to stress testing. It was the first flying
prototype. It was rolled out in 1987 and used to validate initial flying
qualities. It is easy to spot in pictures because it was grey with black
leading edges before the refurb, not black all over as is the operational
fleet.

>
>It is the same reason Lockmart blocked a shake of the F-22 prior to
>production, for it might have killed the program right then. (ie "buffeting"
>:)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Smartace11

January 7th 04, 05:58 PM

>> Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after the
>program
>> was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to be
>flight
>> test assets
>
>AV-2 thru AV-6 were flight test assets and were always intended to be
>brought up to production configuration; I have the complte set of crew
>shirts. Including my wife's, "ship from hell", crew shirt.

Still wrong. Under the 132 and 75 plane programs, pre 1991, they were the
pre-production LRIP (Limited Rate Initial Production) planes to be used as
life cycle flight test assets. Possibly AVs 5 - 6 could be made operational
because they were close to the rate production configuration but the AVs 2-4
and especially AV-1 were so far from the production configuration that they
wouldn't be supportable as they were. At the time the program was cut back the
third time at the fall of the Soviet Union, the government wanted to curtail
the program but the cost of accepting 20 was the same as contract termination
costs. The program went forward and made the decision in 1990 to proceed with
a 20 plane fleet that included the upgrade of AV 2-6 to near production
configuration. Thise six planes all have their own separate support
requirements because of their vaying uniqueness.It was run as a separate
program within the government and the contractor. How do II know this? I
worked in the B-2 System Program Office at Wright-Patt in the 90s and did some
of the anaylsis on these planes myself.

>
>> but when the cut to 20 came, they were included as part of the 20
>> iin SAC's Bomber Roadmap with plans to upgrade them to final production
>> configuration. AV-1 was so different than the others that it was
>warranted to
>> not be worth the cost of upgrade.
>
>No ****.
>
>> At that time Northrop-Grumman was quoting
>> $350 MIllion. Then the $550M long lead initiative came along. the AF
>took
>> the position that It couldn't afford to support another 20 and the $550M
>got
>> diverted to upgrading AV-1 to operational configuration. Interestingly,
>the
>> cost for the upgrade rose from $350M to $550M at the same time. It was
>the
>> final B-2 out of 21 delivered. It is flying at Whiteman today.
>
>Geeze, they had to rip the entire flight deck and ebay to make that work.
>
>> 2001(IIRC), the non flying structural test article was recently delivered
>to the AF Museum.
>> Pilot shortages were not the issue with a 40 plane fleet.
>
>Pilot jobs are, pay attention and try not to take the most rediculess
>interpretation of your own misreadings.

I misread nothing See above. I was a senior analyst on the program when
twahe dscisis made. It had absolutely nothing to do with pilot shortages. In
fact, at that time the AF was banking pilots and scaling way back on
Undergraduate Pilot Training slots because there were too many pilots for the
cockpits that were available. We were flying KC135s with two crews at once
just so everone could get enough time to stay current. Twenty B-2s soaked up
more maintenance assets than an entire wing of fighters. 40 B-2s would have
cost two fighter wings. At that time the fighter mafia had wrested control of
the AF from the old SAC types and were working hard to increase the number of
fighter wings. Sorry but you can't fly fighters or anything else without
green suiters.

>
>> At 150+
>> maintenanace manhours per flight hour, there weren't enough greensuiters
>at the
>> time to maintain a larger fleet. I trust that number has gone down some.
>
>Body and fender work is not so skilled.

Wrong again. Had anybody work done lately?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Tarver Engineering

January 7th 04, 07:23 PM

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> >"SteveM8597" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >I thought the "AV" in AV-1 was for "air vehicle". I know there was
> >> >one that wasn't intended to go into service but did in the end. The
> >> >only one I know of that didn't was the "iron bird" that had different
> >> >landing gear, wasn't flyable, but was the same size and configuaration
> >> >as the production B-2. Could that be the one you are thinking of as
> >> >Northrop's aircraft
> >>
> >> The Iron bird was just that, a mockup of steel girders with much of the
flight
> >> and mission hardware installed, and the whole thing was tied to a full
motion
> >> simulator. Pretty awesome to see but not eactaly an airplane by any
stretch.
> >> .There wre two static test articles built IIRC tail #s 1001 and 1002,
or maybe
> >> 2001/2. One is still at Plant 42 at Palmdale. the other at the AF
Museum.
> >
> >A simple shake of AV-1 was all that was required to validate the test rig
> >results.
>
> Iam curious where you got your information. The iron bird "test rig" was
at
> Pico Rivera and was officially called the SIL or systems integration lab.
Now
> used for structural testing at all.

I was commenting on the Nyquist shake of the B-2, are you confused?

> 1001. 1002 and AV-1 were stored at Palmdale 60 miles away. 1001 was
loaded up
> in a hangar at Palmdale and then shook until it broke at 207% of mission
> loading. You can go to the AF Museum today and see the scab plates on the
> right wing where it brokeso it could be put on display.

Right, no B-2 was broken to prove the structure.

> AV-1 was never subjected to stress testing. It was the first flying
> prototype. It was rolled out in 1987 and used to validate initial flying
> qualities. It is easy to spot in pictures because it was grey with black
> leading edges before the refurb, not black all over as is the operational
> fleet.

Do you understand the difference between a Nyquist shake and stress testing?
I expect not, but such a shake produces a nice mathematical model of the
airframe. Using those methods, the breaking point is completely
predictable.

Tarver Engineering

January 7th 04, 07:26 PM

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> >> Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after the
program
> >> was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to be
flight
> >> test assets
> >
> >AV-2 thru AV-6 were flight test assets and were always intended to be
> >brought up to production configuration; I have the complte set of crew
> >shirts. Including my wife's, "ship from hell", crew shirt.
>
> Still wrong.

No, the conversion of the 5 airframes to production configuration was
planned from the very beginning.

> Under the 132 and 75 plane programs, pre 1991, they were the
> pre-production LRIP (Limited Rate Initial Production) planes to be used
as
> life cycle flight test assets. Possibly AVs 5 - 6 could be made
operational
> because they were close to the rate production configuration but the AVs
2-4
> and especially AV-1 were so far from the production configuration that
they
> wouldn't be supportable as they were.

The Government had no way of knowing that AV-1 would be drasticly different,
until after first flight. You are shoveling bull****, my friend.

Smartace11

January 7th 04, 07:54 PM

>"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
>> >> Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after the
>program
>> >> was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to be
>flight
>> >> test assets
>> >
>> >AV-2 thru AV-6 were flight test assets and were always intended to be
>> >brought up to production configuration; I have the complte set of crew
>> >shirts. Including my wife's, "ship from hell", crew shirt.
>>
>> Still wrong.
>
>No, the conversion of the 5 airframes to production configuration was
>planned from the very beginning.

Beginning of what? I don't need to argue the pount becaue I was there when
the decision was made. You are free to believe whatever you want. In truth
they are not production configuration to this day. They are opeational but are
in varying degress of difference from the rest of the fleet, AV- being the most
different. Mainly structural differences. Therefore they are not the final
approved (meaning accepted at the milestone called the Critical Design Review)
"prduction configuration". Ditto with the early LRIP/test models of most
planes, including the B-1, F-117, and F-22, several of which are now at the AF
Museum because thier configuration isn't easily supported. We had planned to
either use AV-1 as a part task trainer at Whiteman or turn it over to the AF
Museum. Theother planes were made operational because of cost - too expensive
to use strictly as test assets.
>
>> Under the 132 and 75 plane programs, pre 1991, they were the
>> pre-production LRIP (Limited Rate Initial Production) planes to be used
>as
>> life cycle flight test assets. Possibly AVs 5 - 6 could be made
>operational
>> because they were close to the rate production configuration but the AVs
>2-4
>> and especially AV-1 were so far from the production configuration that
>they
>> wouldn't be supportable as they were.
>
>The Government had no way of knowing that AV-1 would be drasticly different,
>until after first flight. You are shoveling bull****, my friend.

Youi obviously know little about the weapn system acquisition process. The
plane went through numerous design reviews and flight test readiness reviews
long before it flew and each change from AV to AV went through a configuration
control review board so the design of AV-1 and changes incorporated in in each
subsequent AV was well known as they were being built.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Smartace11

January 7th 04, 08:09 PM

>> AV-1 was never subjected to stress testing. It was the first flying
>> prototype. It was rolled out in 1987 and used to validate initial flying
>> qualities. It is easy to spot in pictures because it was grey with black
>> leading edges before the refurb, not black all over as is the operational
>> fleet.
>
>Do you understand the difference between a Nyquist shake and stress testing?
>I expect not, but such a shake produces a nice mathematical model of the
>airframe. Using those methods, the breaking point is completely
>predictable.

I am not a structures guy nor do I claim to be other than having had several
college level courses in finite element analysis studying for my degree in
aerospace engneering.. Do I need to know Nyquist to manage projects on a
major weapon system acquisition program?

This must be the beginning of the" if you can't dazzle them with brilliance,
baffle them with bull****" phase of the discussion.

So far you have talked about stress testing of the iron bird and of AV-1,
neither of which happened. What does this have to do with anything, especially
with the configuration of the 21 operational B-2s and the evolution of the
fleet which I thought was the subject at hand?

Oh well, this is all very entertaining just seeing what you can come upt with
in a legitmate discussion but I have to go now, John.

Tarver Engineering

January 7th 04, 08:12 PM

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> >"Smartace11" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >> Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after
the program
> >> >> was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to
be flight
> >> >> test assets
> >> >
> >> >AV-2 thru AV-6 were flight test assets and were always intended to be
> >> >brought up to production configuration; I have the complte set of crew
> >> >shirts. Including my wife's, "ship from hell", crew shirt.
> >>
> >> Still wrong.
> >
> >No, the conversion of the 5 airframes to production configuration was
> >planned from the very beginning.

> Beginning of what?

The decision was made before AV-1 ever flew that the next 5 airframes would
be converted to production. I know this because my wife took delivery of
the first three at Palmdale. She, having bought south base at Edwards as a
Captain, was then instrumentation FTE and instrumenter for AV-3, as a civil
servant.

> I don't need to argue the pount becaue I was there when
> the decision was made.

You know what you were instructed at the point where you needed to know.
Outside that criterion, you knew nada.

> You are free to believe whatever you want. In truth
> they are not production configuration to this day. They are opeational
but are
> in varying degress of difference from the rest of the fleet, AV- being the
most
> different.

Sure, they were full scale the development vehicles, as planned from the
beginning.

> Mainly structural differences. Therefore they are not the final
> approved (meaning accepted at the milestone called the Critical Design
Review)
> "prduction configuration". Ditto with the early LRIP/test models of most
> planes, including the B-1, F-117, and F-22, several of which are now at
the AF
> Museum because thier configuration isn't easily supported. We had planned
to
> either use AV-1 as a part task trainer at Whiteman or turn it over to the
AF
> Museum. Theother planes were made operational because of cost - too
expensive
> to use strictly as test assets.

The museum was the best place to go, as it would have been cheaper to
assemble another ship from the already delivered parts.

> >> Under the 132 and 75 plane programs, pre 1991, they were the
> >> pre-production LRIP (Limited Rate Initial Production) planes to be
used as
> >> life cycle flight test assets. Possibly AVs 5 - 6 could be made
operational
> >> because they were close to the rate production configuration but the
AVs 2-4
> >> and especially AV-1 were so far from the production configuration that
they
> >> wouldn't be supportable as they were.
> >
> >The Government had no way of knowing that AV-1 would be drasticly
different,
> >until after first flight. You are shoveling bull****, my friend.
>
> Youi obviously know little about the weapn system acquisition process.
The
> plane went through numerous design reviews and flight test readiness
reviews
> long before it flew and each change from AV to AV went through a
configuration
> control review board so the design of AV-1 and changes incorporated in in
each
> subsequent AV was well known as they were being built.

Let me say it for you once more, Lt. Col Couch rejected the 5 tube EFIS
Hughes delivered with AV-1 after first flight. There was no possibility for
Northrop, or Hughes, to have know that information in advance. The four and
four configuration is something we discussed after Couch made a presentation
to Reserve Officers at a dinner at Edwards. You may have found out what the
deal was the next day, but you cold not have known what Couch was going to
do, until after he did it. Deliver the package sinerios invalidated Hughes'
airliner type system.

Tarver Engineering

January 7th 04, 08:32 PM

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> AV-1 was never subjected to stress testing. It was the first flying
> >> prototype. It was rolled out in 1987 and used to validate initial
flying
> >> qualities. It is easy to spot in pictures because it was grey with
black
> >> leading edges before the refurb, not black all over as is the
operational
> >> fleet.
> >
> >Do you understand the difference between a Nyquist shake and stress
testing?
> >I expect not, but such a shake produces a nice mathematical model of the
> >airframe. Using those methods, the breaking point is completely
> >predictable.
>
> I am not a structures guy nor do I claim to be other than having had
several
> college level courses in finite element analysis studying for my degree in
> aerospace engneering.. Do I need to know Nyquist to manage projects on a
> major weapon system acquisition program?

I would suggest you bypass that level of contols and leave it to EEs and
MEs. Aeros generally lack a proper education in physics and mathematics to
understand nonlinear feedback control systems.

I think after the "law of the wall", while regulatory, turned out to be
dimensionally an equation with no basis in physical reality, we all lowered
our expectaions as to Aeros to less than what the rest of Engineering would
expect a college freshman to know.

> This must be the beginning of the" if you can't dazzle them with
brilliance,
> baffle them with bull****" phase of the discussion.

I suspect that has been your tactic from the beginning, Mr. sock.

> So far you have talked about stress testing of the iron bird and of AV-1,
> neither of which happened.

So far your reading and comprehension skills have been stressed beyond their
capacity, Mr. sock.

> What does this have to do with anything, especially
> with the configuration of the 21 operational B-2s and the evolution of the
> fleet which I thought was the subject at hand?

You ran off in this direction to dazzle us with your brilliance, but your
story turned out to be bull****. I am just responding to you with the level
of respect you are giving me.

> Oh well, this is all very entertaining just seeing what you can come upt
with
> in a legitmate discussion but I have to go now, John.

Glad to educate you.

Smartace11

January 7th 04, 11:34 PM

>I would suggest you bypass that level of contols and leave it to EEs and
>MEs. Aeros generally lack a proper education in physics and mathematics to
>understand nonlinear feedback control systems.
>
>I think after the "law of the wall", while regulatory, turned out to be
>dimensionally an equation with no basis in physical reality, we all lowered
>our expectaions as to Aeros to less than what the rest of Engineering would
>expect a college freshman to know.
>
Brilliant, John, You've probably just written something not even you can
understand. I can hardly wait to share with my ME and EE friends and
especially my lawyer friends who will no doubt want to quote you in their
future endeavors. You sir would be the perfect expert witness as no one would
understand a thing you say. I won't hesitate to recommend you, especially for
contractor vs government litigation where it is no one's best interests to deal
with the real issues.

Smartace11

January 7th 04, 11:46 PM

>
>The decision was made before AV-1 ever flew that the next 5 airframes would
>be converted to production. I know this because my wife took delivery of
>the first three at Palmdale. She, having bought south base at Edwards as a
>Captain, was then instrumentation FTE and instrumenter for AV-3, as a civil
>servant.
>
Then how come they never were? They were upgraded to full operational
capability but not full production configuration. AV-1 flew in 87when SAC was
planning a 132 plane fleet and 2 - 6 were to be assigned to EDW.

Don't recall ever meeting your wife on my trips to the CTF for test readiness
not at Plant 42 at the DPRO when the planes were accepted. I guess her
signature wold be on file in SPO records though, sonething that I could check
if I knew her name. Kind of unusual because the other planes were bought off
by MG Ralph Torino, the program director.

Lets quit. You have twisted my pea brain around enough. Interesting to see
how far you will go though.

Thanks for the laughs...

Denyav

January 8th 04, 05:19 PM

>Stealth aircraft have a need for protection from the weather. It's got
>nada to do with security from photos. And, many military bases don't
>allow flight line pictures, even

Right,the passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" technology.Any
trained eye could figure out threat and non threat zones if he or she gets a
glimpse of the platform.
That was the reason why even the security personel were not allowed to look at
f117 during tests three decades ago.
But have you any idea why every US passive stealth platform is on display now
almost on daily basis?
Because you dont even need to know the shape of stealth platform in order to
effectively counter it now.
Technology did not stop thirty years ago.

Denyav

January 8th 04, 05:32 PM

>The B-1 came "online" about twenty years ago. The "A" aspect of F/A-22
>doesn't require "stretch" and quiet clearly there is a huge difference
>in payload between a strategic heavy bomber like B-1 or B-2 and a
>tactical asset like F/A-22. Whether

The "super maneuverarability" criteria is the reason why the jurassicfighter
cannot and will not meet its original range criteria and its derivatives.
A solution,which offers a face saving solution to range problem will have a
better cruise L/D ratio,but less maneuverability.period.

Tarver Engineering

January 8th 04, 05:32 PM

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >The decision was made before AV-1 ever flew that the next 5 airframes
would
> >be converted to production. I know this because my wife took delivery of
> >the first three at Palmdale. She, having bought south base at Edwards as
a
> >Captain, was then instrumentation FTE and instrumenter for AV-3, as a
civil
> >servant.

> Then how come they never were? They were upgraded to full operational
> capability but not full production configuration. AV-1 flew in 87when SAC
was
> planning a 132 plane fleet and 2 - 6 were to be assigned to EDW.

Money.

> Don't recall ever meeting your wife on my trips to the CTF for test
readiness
> not at Plant 42 at the DPRO when the planes were accepted. I guess her
> signature wold be on file in SPO records though, sonething that I could
check
> if I knew her name. Kind of unusual because the other planes were bought
off
> by MG Ralph Torino, the program director.

Those 6 were bought off by instrumentation, long before Torino stamped off
on them.

> Lets quit. You have twisted my pea brain around enough.

Odd that you would not know, unless you are one of those pico coffee bean
chewers.

Tarver Engineering

January 8th 04, 05:55 PM

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> >I would suggest you bypass that level of contols and leave it to EEs and
> >MEs. Aeros generally lack a proper education in physics and mathematics
to
> >understand nonlinear feedback control systems.
> >
> >I think after the "law of the wall", while regulatory, turned out to be
> >dimensionally an equation with no basis in physical reality, we all
lowered
> >our expectaions as to Aeros to less than what the rest of Engineering
would
> >expect a college freshman to know.
> >
> Brilliant, John, You've probably just written something not even you can
> understand.

A freshman physics student can do a dimensional analysis of an equation.
The question becomes, why couldn't an Aero? After all, it was silly to call
the equation a law in the first place and doubly humiliating for it to be
Regulatory.

Thanks to rec.aviation.misc, the law of the wall is dead. All it took was
some old physics professor selling his "reports" on usenet, while being
attacked by the areo mafia. Did you know Boeing reads there? I mean,
within days the "sonic cruiser" became a possibility.

> I can hardly wait to share with my ME and EE friends and
> especially my lawyer friends who will no doubt want to quote you in their
> future endeavors.

You might want to just look up some young physics studet and save yourself
the humiliation.

> You sir would be the perfect expert witness as no one would
> understand a thing you say.

I am pre-qualified as an expert witness, in California and Washington, WRT
electrical engineering matters.

> I won't hesitate to recommend you, especially for
> contractor vs government litigation where it is no one's best interests to
deal
> with the real issues.

I make plenty of money now, co-operating with the government.

The government didn't have to take the blame for Aero engineering's
deficiencies in basic math and physics.

Chad Irby

January 8th 04, 05:56 PM

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >Stealth aircraft have a need for protection from the weather. It's got
> >nada to do with security from photos. And, many military bases don't
> >allow flight line pictures, even
>
> Right,the passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" technology.

Not exactly. Sure, someone with a lot of training could figure out one
or two angles that the plane could theoretically be detected from, but
if someone could defets stealth by just looking at it, then why is the
F-117 still flying over heavily defended airspace basically unchallenged
(except for one close-range lucky shot by *one* Russian-made missile a
few years back)? Thousands of sorties over heavily-defended airspace,
and for some reason, people can't seem to get a good lock on it. And
the F-117 is 30 year old tech...

> Any trained eye could figure out threat and non threat zones if he or
> she gets a glimpse of the platform.

Not really useful, though, unless you know not only the best angles for
a return, but also the exact flight plan the plane's going to take past
your radar. And "threat zones" are relative.

> That was the reason why even the security personel were not allowed to look at
> f117 during tests three decades ago.

The reason they weren't allowed to see the plane is that nobody was
supposed to know it even *existed*.

> But have you any idea why every US passive stealth platform is on display now
> almost on daily basis?

Because stealth works so well, and because everyone knows we *have*
stealth planes now. And because there's not a damned thing anyone can
do about them.

> Because you dont even need to know the shape of stealth platform in order to
> effectively counter it now.

No, you need to know its shape, its composition, and then you have to
figure out how to detect it.

> Technology did not stop thirty years ago.

Yep, stealth technology didn't stop evolving. It got even better.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.