Cold War relic F/A-22 initially designed for air-to-air combat with Soviet MiGs

[Larry Dighera]

The U.S. General Accounting Office raised concerns about LOCKHEED
MARTIN CORP.'s F/A-22 fighter jet, saying the Pentagon should
weigh the high risk of future cost increases and program delays
before deciding in December to start full production. The
investigative arm of Congress said costs for the program that
began during the Cold War era were expected to grow to $80
billion from an Air Force estimate of $72 billion, and the
Pentagon had not explained why it still needed the fighter in a
changed military environment. In an annual report to Congress,
GAO said the Pentagon estimated it would cost $11.7 billion to
expand the air-to-ground attack capability of the F/A-22, which
some critics decry as a Cold War relic, a stealthy jet initially
designed for air-to-air combat with Soviet MiGs.
(Reuters 03:06 PM ET 03/15/2004)

More:
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=936184&m=1006240563d9805025431a&s=rb040315

================================================== ==============

[Kevin Brooks]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The U.S. General Accounting Office raised concerns about LOCKHEED
> MARTIN CORP.'s F/A-22 fighter jet, saying the Pentagon should

Yadda-yadda-yadda... First, this is already the subject of another current
thread in this NG. Second, if the GAO is claiming that the cost of turning
the F-22 into the F/A-22 is $11.7 billion, then the GAO is lying, as their
own report indicates that the $11.7 billion is actually for *all* spiral
development costs related to the F/A-22, to include future upgrades of the
air-to-air and ISR capabilities. Thirdly, why do you persist in posting
nothing but excerpts of press reports/releases? You are beginning to sound
like the infamous "Otis Willie"...

Brooks

<snip>

[Henry J Cobb]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> Yadda-yadda-yadda... First, this is already the subject of another current
> thread in this NG. Second, if the GAO is claiming that the cost of turning
> the F-22 into the F/A-22 is $11.7 billion, then the GAO is lying, as their
> own report indicates that the $11.7 billion is actually for *all* spiral
> development costs related to the F/A-22, to include future upgrades of the
> air-to-air and ISR capabilities. Thirdly, why do you persist in posting
> nothing but excerpts of press reports/releases? You are beginning to sound
> like the infamous "Otis Willie"...

Yes you are correct.

It's also to fix the software so that it runs for at least five hours
every once in a while before crashing.

-HJC

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > Yadda-yadda-yadda... First, this is already the subject of another
current
> > thread in this NG. Second, if the GAO is claiming that the cost of
turning
> > the F-22 into the F/A-22 is $11.7 billion, then the GAO is lying, as
their
> > own report indicates that the $11.7 billion is actually for *all* spiral
> > development costs related to the F/A-22, to include future upgrades of
the
> > air-to-air and ISR capabilities. Thirdly, why do you persist in posting
> > nothing but excerpts of press reports/releases? You are beginning to
sound
> > like the infamous "Otis Willie"...
>
> Yes you are correct.
>
> It's also to fix the software so that it runs for at least five hours
> every once in a while before crashing.

Zzzzz...oops, excuse me; were you offering something of relevance to the
discussion at hand, Henry? No? Figures. You really need to get back to
untangling that whole construction of your's that has Okinawa being a day's
flight away from Taiwan, and how the Su-30 is only a potential threat if it
is being operated by PLAAF or Russian pilots; you don't have time for
side-discussions. Back to the grindstone, Henry!

Brooks

>
> -HJC
>

[Boomer]

the great advantage of the F-22 is that it's stealth alows us to fight in
someone elses backyard with MUCH less chance of SAMs busting up a perfectly
good "clubbing baby seals" session lol.

--



Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > Yadda-yadda-yadda... First, this is already the subject of another
> current
> > > thread in this NG. Second, if the GAO is claiming that the cost of
> turning
> > > the F-22 into the F/A-22 is $11.7 billion, then the GAO is lying, as
> their
> > > own report indicates that the $11.7 billion is actually for *all*
spiral
> > > development costs related to the F/A-22, to include future upgrades of
> the
> > > air-to-air and ISR capabilities. Thirdly, why do you persist in
posting
> > > nothing but excerpts of press reports/releases? You are beginning to
> sound
> > > like the infamous "Otis Willie"...
> >
> > Yes you are correct.
> >
> > It's also to fix the software so that it runs for at least five hours
> > every once in a while before crashing.
>
> Zzzzz...oops, excuse me; were you offering something of relevance to the
> discussion at hand, Henry? No? Figures. You really need to get back to
> untangling that whole construction of your's that has Okinawa being a
day's
> flight away from Taiwan, and how the Su-30 is only a potential threat if
it
> is being operated by PLAAF or Russian pilots; you don't have time for
> side-discussions. Back to the grindstone, Henry!
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > -HJC
> >
>
>

[Henry J Cobb]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
>>It's also to fix the software so that it runs for at least five hours
>>every once in a while before crashing.
>
> Zzzzz...oops, excuse me; were you offering something of relevance to the
> discussion at hand, Henry? No? Figures.

Nope, lots of development effort is needed to fix the software.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/03/17/rtr1302919.html
> But several software headaches remain "as well as numerous deficiencies
> in functionality that will potentially affect mission performance,"
> Christie wrote at the time.

-HJC

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>It's also to fix the software so that it runs for at least five hours
> >>every once in a while before crashing.
> >
> > Zzzzz...oops, excuse me; were you offering something of relevance to the
> > discussion at hand, Henry? No? Figures.
>
> Nope, lots of development effort is needed to fix the software.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/03/17/rtr1302919.html
> > But several software headaches remain "as well as numerous deficiencies
> > in functionality that will potentially affect mission performance,"
> > Christie wrote at the time.

Again, were you offering anything relevant to the discussion then at hand?
The above is not.

Brooks

>
> -HJC
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:51:23 -0800, Henry J Cobb > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>Nope, lots of development effort is needed to fix the software.
>
>http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/03/17/rtr1302919.html
>> But several software headaches remain "as well as numerous deficiencies
> > in functionality that will potentially affect mission performance,"
> > Christie wrote at the time.


LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.'s $71 billion F/A-22 fighter jet program
has failed to meet important reliability goals and could face
new price hikes and schedule slips, congressional auditors said
in a big weapons review late Wednesday. The Air Force has not
demonstrated the aircraft "can achieve its reliability goal of
three hours' mean time between maintenance," said the General
Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm. The Air Force
does not expect to achieve this goal until 2008, by which time
most of the aircraft will have been bought, GAO said. In its
report, the auditors assessed 51 defense programs ranging from
the Missile Defense Agency's Airborne Laser to the Air Force's
Global Hawk remotely piloted aircraft.
(Reuters 06:16 PM ET 03/31/2004)

More:
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=942594&m=10062406ca88b05025682a&s=rb040331

----------------------------------------------------------------