Shouldn't the purchase of the F/A-22s wait until they have been tested?

[Henry J. Cobb]

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
hundreds more are planned.
....
But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
actually works -- hasn't yet begun.

So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
complete?

-HJC

[Tarver Engineering]

"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
> The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
> fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
> hundreds more are planned.
> ...
> But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
> actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
>
> So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
> complete?

Georgia pork.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

> So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
> complete?

Define "complete." For a lot of folks, testing would never *be*
"complete." We've had planes in the inventory for *years* before some
problems showed up. That's the nature of complex systems. Testing them
to a certain point is quite sufficient.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[walt moffett]

On 22 Feb 2004 14:00:17 -0800,
Henry J. Cobb > wrote:
> http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
> The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
> fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
> hundreds more are planned.
> ...
> But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
> actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
>

To conduct rigorous, independent field testing you need planes to test
and it is a unfortunate part of the arms business that it costs money
to design, build, test and field the things.

Imagine the same conversation has occurred over and over going back to the
invention of the sharp stick.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
> The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
> fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
> hundreds more are planned.
> ...
> But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
> actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
>
> So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
> complete?

Henry, your ceaseless efforts to out-think the DoD (and I recently noted
where you are now looking to take on the Canadian defense
establishment--hopefully then you are about done with our own forces?) are
becoming increasingly ridiculous. Are you really so utterly clueless as to
think that you can just put that F-22 production on "hold" for "a few
years", after the production line is already up and running? And what other
weapons system has EVER undergone "rigorous, independent field testing" for
"a few years" while the assembly line sits idle?

Brooks

Note: For those not knowledgable of Henry's history, he has driven quite a
few of the more sensible regulars over in SMN up the wall with his
continuous, emphatic, and frequently baseless critiques of the USN's LCS,
DDX, etc., programs, seemingly convinced that he alone (none of those
pedantic professional naval officers having a clue, of course) has a clear
view of what the Navy *really* needs. God forbid he now is apparently going
to stretch his grasp towards the USAF, for which he undoubtedly will have a
plethora of criticisms in store...

>
> -HJC

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
> m...
> > http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
> > The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
> > fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
> > hundreds more are planned.
> > ...
> > But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
> > actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
> >
> > So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
> > complete?
>
> Henry, your ceaseless efforts to out-think the DoD (and I recently noted
> where you are now looking to take on the Canadian defense
> establishment--hopefully then you are about done with our own forces?) are
> becoming increasingly ridiculous. Are you really so utterly clueless as to
> think that you can just put that F-22 production on "hold" for "a few
> years", after the production line is already up and running? And what other
> weapons system has EVER undergone "rigorous, independent field testing" for
> "a few years" while the assembly line sits idle?
>
> Brooks
>
> Note: For those not knowledgable of Henry's history, he has driven quite a
> few of the more sensible regulars over in SMN up the wall with his
> continuous, emphatic, and frequently baseless critiques of the USN's LCS,
> DDX, etc., programs, seemingly convinced that he alone (none of those
> pedantic professional naval officers having a clue, of course) has a clear
> view of what the Navy *really* needs. God forbid he now is apparently going
> to stretch his grasp towards the USAF, for which he undoubtedly will have a
> plethora of criticisms in store...

The simplest answer is to just ignore/killfile him for the terminally clueless
sort he is, because it's clear that he'll continue this ad nauseum as long as
anyone's willing to reply to his nonsense. Since he's more of a minor
irritation than a plague, for the moment I'm just ignoring him.

Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
> > > The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
> > > fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
> > > hundreds more are planned.
> > > ...
> > > But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
> > > actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
> > >
> > > So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
> > > complete?
> >
> > Henry, your ceaseless efforts to out-think the DoD (and I recently noted
> > where you are now looking to take on the Canadian defense
> > establishment--hopefully then you are about done with our own forces?)
are
> > becoming increasingly ridiculous. Are you really so utterly clueless as
to
> > think that you can just put that F-22 production on "hold" for "a few
> > years", after the production line is already up and running? And what
other
> > weapons system has EVER undergone "rigorous, independent field testing"
for
> > "a few years" while the assembly line sits idle?
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > Note: For those not knowledgable of Henry's history, he has driven quite
a
> > few of the more sensible regulars over in SMN up the wall with his
> > continuous, emphatic, and frequently baseless critiques of the USN's
LCS,
> > DDX, etc., programs, seemingly convinced that he alone (none of those
> > pedantic professional naval officers having a clue, of course) has a
clear
> > view of what the Navy *really* needs. God forbid he now is apparently
going
> > to stretch his grasp towards the USAF, for which he undoubtedly will
have a
> > plethora of criticisms in store...
>
> The simplest answer is to just ignore/killfile him for the terminally
clueless
> sort he is, because it's clear that he'll continue this ad nauseum as long
as
> anyone's willing to reply to his nonsense. Since he's more of a minor
> irritation than a plague, for the moment I'm just ignoring him.

Boy, you got the "ad nauseum" part right! He has on occasion touched upon
some kernal of truth in his posts, but he just keeps going, and going, and
going... sort of the "Energizer Bunny" of "I know better than the folks who
know better" types. You are probably right as to the ignoring approach
(which is why I have refrained from jumping into his "LCS is stupid" threads
in SMN), but since his past exploits have been concentrated in the SMN
group, I thought it might be useful for the regulars over here to know his
kinks.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>

[John Cook]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:13:36 GMT, walt moffett >
wrote:

>On 22 Feb 2004 14:00:17 -0800,
> Henry J. Cobb > wrote:
>> http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
>> The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
>> fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
>> hundreds more are planned.
>> ...
>> But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
>> actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
>>
>
>To conduct rigorous, independent field testing you need planes to test
>and it is a unfortunate part of the arms business that it costs money
>to design, build, test and field the things.
>
>Imagine the same conversation has occurred over and over going back to the
>invention of the sharp stick.

Sharp sticks don't cost $150M, I agree that some testing can wait
till after production starts, but you now have a situation where
you have 20 F-22 all of which are at different builds...

Its going to be an absolute nightmare to keep the fleet at any one
build standard.

Cheers

>
>
>

[Alfred Loo]

That is why they each and every aircraft has a fin number.
"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:13:36 GMT, walt moffett >
> wrote:
>
> >On 22 Feb 2004 14:00:17 -0800,
> > Henry J. Cobb > wrote:
> >> http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
> >> The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
> >> fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
> >> hundreds more are planned.
> >> ...
> >> But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
> >> actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
> >>
> >
> >To conduct rigorous, independent field testing you need planes to test
> >and it is a unfortunate part of the arms business that it costs money
> >to design, build, test and field the things.
> >
> >Imagine the same conversation has occurred over and over going back to
the
> >invention of the sharp stick.
>
> Sharp sticks don't cost $150M, I agree that some testing can wait
> till after production starts, but you now have a situation where
> you have 20 F-22 all of which are at different builds...
>
> Its going to be an absolute nightmare to keep the fleet at any one
> build standard.
>
> Cheers
>
> >
> >
> >
>

[Lawrence Dillard]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:13:36 GMT, walt moffett >
> wrote:
>
SNIP

SNIPS

> Sharp sticks don't cost $150M, I agree that some testing can wait
> till after production starts, but you now have a situation where
> you have 20 F-22 all of which are at different builds...
>
> Its going to be an absolute nightmare to keep the fleet at any one
> build standard.
>
> Cheers

Late last year, Lockheed installed a new guy in charge at its GA plant. One
of his first actions was to place a sort of "freeze" on the F/A-22, meaning
no more engineering tweaks, and proceeding with "serial" if slow-rate
production, from that point forward.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
> The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
> fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
> hundreds more are planned.
> ...
> But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
> actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
>

Who do you plan on being the 'independent' tester ?

The Russian Air Force perhaps ?

> So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
> complete?
>

Because rigorous testing is worthless unless its done on production
aircraft, the F-22 is in low rate initial production so just that can
happen.

Keith

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
m...
>> http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
>> The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
>> fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
>> hundreds more are planned.
>> ...
>> But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
>> actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
>>
>> So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
>> complete?
>
>Georgia pork

Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
> m...
> >> http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
> >> The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
> >> fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
> >> hundreds more are planned.
> >> ...
> >> But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
> >> actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
> >>
> >> So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
> >> complete?
> >
> >Georgia pork
>
> Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".

USAF was so hot to contract a fighter to Lockheed that they selected a
design that would not even fly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Scott Ferrin > wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >Georgia pork
>
> Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".

Any airframe that Tarver can't make any money off of is, apparently,
evil.

Contrariwise, any airframe that Tarver ever had any involvement in is,
by his definition, perfect.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Georgia pork
> >
> > Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".
>
> Any airframe that Tarver can't make any money off of is, apparently,
> evil.

The USAF was so hot to contract an a fighter from Lockheed that they
selected a design that would not even fly.

> Contrariwise, any airframe that Tarver ever had any involvement in is,
> by his definition, perfect.

I am very careful.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:zxz_b.112749$uV3.605839@attbi_s51...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > I am very careful.
>
> ...but just last week you told us you are lazy!

Being lazy is an excellent quality in an engineer.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...

> > Any airframe that Tarver can't make any money off of is, apparently,
> > evil.
>
> The USAF was so hot to contract an a fighter from Lockheed that they
> selected a design that would not even fly.

Funny... I've actually seen an F-22 in the air, as have a whole lot of
other folks. "Would not even fly" has a whole different meaning for
you, eh?

> > Contrariwise, any airframe that Tarver ever had any involvement in is,
> > by his definition, perfect.
>
> I am very careful.

Except in your research, your reading comprehension, and your logic...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
>
> > > Any airframe that Tarver can't make any money off of is, apparently,
> > > evil.
> >
> > The USAF was so hot to contract an a fighter from Lockheed that they
> > selected a design that would not even fly.
>
> Funny... I've actually seen an F-22 in the air, as have a whole lot of
> other folks. "Would not even fly" has a whole different meaning for
> you, eh?

I mean Lockheed built DG's entry in the design competition.

Didn't you know?

> > > Contrariwise, any airframe that Tarver ever had any involvement in is,
> > > by his definition, perfect.
> >
> > I am very careful.
>
> Except in your research, your reading comprehension, and your logic...

In your fantasy world things are much different than here on Earth, Irby.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> I mean Lockheed built DG's entry in the design competition.

Backpedaling again.

> In your fantasy world things are much different than here on Earth, Irby.

Fantasy world?

Like your current "Lockheed Martin sold all of their avionics" bit, when
they still have huge avionics business units making things for current
aircraft?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

> http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
> The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
> fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
> hundreds more are planned.
> ...
> But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
> actually works -- hasn't yet begun.
>
> So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
> complete?

Having a production line going takes thousands of people and millions
of $ per day. You can't just stop it because you still have to keep all
those people employed. If you fire them while you screw around, you'll
never get half of them back, and then it will cost you twice as much to
re-start production again. Stopping and re-starting has been tried
before and it's very risky and very costly. It's actually cheaper to
retro-fit an aircraft fleet than stop production.

Your comments strike me as very naive. Suggest you get a job in
industry and a little experience.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > I mean Lockheed built DG's entry in the design competition.
>
> Backpedaling again.

Nope.

USAF was so hot to let a fighter contract to Lockheed that they seleced a
design that could not even fly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> USAF was so hot to let a fighter contract to Lockheed that they seleced a
> design that could not even fly.

You're still telling us that the F-22 isn't flying.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > USAF was so hot to let a fighter contract to Lockheed that they seleced
a
> > design that could not even fly.
>
> You're still telling us that the F-22 isn't flying.

Put down the crack pipe, Irby.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Put down the crack pipe, Irby.

Best way to tell you've lost. Sixth-grade insults.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Put down the crack pipe, Irby.
>
> Best way to tell you've lost. Sixth-grade insults.

Does it upset you that I can post on your level, Irby?

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:10:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
>> In article >,
>> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Georgia pork
>> >
>> > Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".
>>
>> Any airframe that Tarver can't make any money off of is, apparently,
>> evil.
>
>The USAF was so hot to contract an a fighter from Lockheed that they
>selected a design that would not even fly.


For once you have a good point but honestly I think it had more to do
with they knew Lockheed and Northrop could deliver stealth. GD's
didn't appear to be particularly stealthy with that huge vertical tail
and Boeing. . .well, was Boeing. If they'd wanted Pork I'd think
they'd have chosen GD's design and built theirs in Texas. Bush senior
was VP at the time of the down-selecting to two designs. However you
boil it down though why would the USAF be hot to buy from Lockheed
over the tried and proven McDonnell Douglas team?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Does it upset you that I can post on your level, Irby?

We'll let you know if you ever manage to.

On the other hand, we're still waiting for those strake photos.

Or references on mud bees in pitot tubes.

Or the name of someone who got arrested for taking photos of F-22s.

Or, well, *anything* to back up the stuff you post.

And we get to add "F-22s can't fly" and "Lockheed-Martin sold all of
their avionics businesses" to the ever-growing list of Tarverisms.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Does it upset you that I can post on your level, Irby?
>
> We'll let you know if you ever manage to.

It is difficult for me, but your childishness is a special case.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:10:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> >> In article >,
> >> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Georgia pork
> >> >
> >> > Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".
> >>
> >> Any airframe that Tarver can't make any money off of is, apparently,
> >> evil.
> >
> >The USAF was so hot to contract an a fighter from Lockheed that they
> >selected a design that would not even fly.
>
>
> For once you have a good point but honestly I think it had more to do
> with they knew Lockheed and Northrop could deliver stealth.

GD had the Ft Worth line.
Northrop had the B-2.
McDonnell had the F-15 and the F-18.

The Military Industrial complex needed another player.

> GD's
> didn't appear to be particularly stealthy with that huge vertical tail
> and Boeing. . .well, was Boeing. If they'd wanted Pork I'd think
> they'd have chosen GD's design and built theirs in Texas.

GD already had a fighter in production.

> Bush senior
> was VP at the time of the down-selecting to two designs. However you
> boil it down though why would the USAF be hot to buy from Lockheed
> over the tried and proven McDonnell Douglas team?

See above.