Goodbye F/A-22!

[noname]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to scrap
its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news -
web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
Services Committee, said on Sunday.

"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said
on NBC's "Meet the Press."

McCain said both the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps must be expanded
overall, a position at odds with President Bush (news - web sites)'s
administration. The United States has about 135,000 troops in Iraq, a
number that McCain, an influential member of the Armed Services
Committee, said must rise.

As part of a broad overhaul of U.S. priorities, he said, the Pentagon
may have to scrap the $71 billion Air Force program to buy F/A-22
air-to-air fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp. .

"We may have to cancel this airplane that's going to cost between $250
million and $300 million a copy," said McCain, floating what could
become a major new legislative hurdle to a top Air Force priority.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040411/us_nm/iraq_usa_mccain_dc_2

[Thomas Schoene]

noname wrote:
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to
> scrap
> its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news
> -
> web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
> Services Committee, said on Sunday.

McCain has been saying stuff like this for a few years. Doesn't mean it's
actually going to happen.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname > wrote:

>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to scrap
>its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news -
>web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
>Services Committee, said on Sunday.
>
>"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
>had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said
>on NBC's "Meet the Press."


But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

The thing that is truely disgusting about the whole thing (the war) is
that the terrorists are right. Bloody us a little and we run home
like a little Chihuahua who got it's ass handed to it by a hamster.
Granted it's just a CNN poll but one the other day showed the majority
of those taking the vote thought we ought to withdraw from Iraq and
today's majority 68% say we shouldn't be in Iraq. No doubt the
terrorists are reading the same polls with glee. F----ing sickening.


What the hell does it take people before you'll stand up for what's
right instead of running home to hide under the blankets and hoping
the boogey man won't come to call?


No doubt that same majority will vote Kerry in come November thinking
that somehow everything will be better. Well we'll deserve everything
that comes of it. (rant over. ndtwemdaaatdwtft)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname > wrote:
>
> >WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to scrap
> >its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news -
> >web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
> >Services Committee, said on Sunday.
> >
> >"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
> >had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said
> >on NBC's "Meet the Press."
>
>
> But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
> conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
> whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
> the field and we're right".

Perhaps what you wrote can be formed into the F-22 motto, Ferrin. The
fighter mafia really screwed the pooch on this one. Being split across the
2000 production break did not help either. The whole F-22 mess has been
like watching a man play soliare with a deck of 51.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:21:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname > wrote:
>>
>> >WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to scrap
>> >its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news -
>> >web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
>> >Services Committee, said on Sunday.
>> >
>> >"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
>> >had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said
>> >on NBC's "Meet the Press."
>>
>>
>> But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
>> conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
>> whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
>> the field and we're right".
>
>Perhaps what you wrote can be formed into the F-22 motto, Ferrin. The
>fighter mafia really screwed the pooch on this one. Being split across the
>2000 production break did not help either. The whole F-22 mess has been
>like watching a man play soliare with a deck of 51.
>

You are SO predictable.

"rant over. ndtwemdaaatdwtft"

No Doubt Tarver Will Eqaute My Disgust At Average Americans To
Disapopointment With The F-22 Thing.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:21:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname > wrote:
> >>
> >> >WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to
scrap
> >> >its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq
(news -
> >> >web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
> >> >Services Committee, said on Sunday.
> >> >
> >> >"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
> >> >had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican
said
> >> >on NBC's "Meet the Press."
> >>
> >>
> >> But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
> >> conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
> >> whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
> >> the field and we're right".
> >
> >Perhaps what you wrote can be formed into the F-22 motto, Ferrin. The
> >fighter mafia really screwed the pooch on this one. Being split across
the
> >2000 production break did not help either. The whole F-22 mess has been
> >like watching a man play soliare with a deck of 51.
> >
>
> You are SO predictable.

The unified wave therom and probabilities is my game.

Reliability -> Availability -> Revenue

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:32:38 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:21:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to
>scrap
>> >> >its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq
>(news -
>> >> >web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
>> >> >Services Committee, said on Sunday.
>> >> >
>> >> >"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having
>> >> >had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican
>said
>> >> >on NBC's "Meet the Press."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
>> >> conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
>> >> whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
>> >> the field and we're right".
>> >
>> >Perhaps what you wrote can be formed into the F-22 motto, Ferrin. The
>> >fighter mafia really screwed the pooch on this one. Being split across
>the
>> >2000 production break did not help either. The whole F-22 mess has been
>> >like watching a man play soliare with a deck of 51.
>> >
>>
>> You are SO predictable.
>
>The unified wave therom and probabilities is my game.
>
>Reliability -> Availability -> Revenue
>


Pavlov made a dog drooling predictable so is your response suppose to
impress me?


I'll conceed one one point with a qualifier. Our ongoing fued hasn't
ever been WOULD the F-22 be cancelled but SHOULD it. That being said,
I still maintain (as does the USAF) that the F-22 is the best of the
available choices. The F-22 as an aircraft that is. As a *program*
meaning mainly the the way it's being managed, funded, scheduled etc.
it looks to have all the finesse of a monkey trying to **** a
football. I hope for the sake of the pilots who'll have to fight that
we get it but who knows what will happen.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:32:38 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:21:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:25:10 +0300, noname >
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to
scrap
> >> >> >its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in
Iraq(news -
> >> >> >web sites), Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed
> >> >> >Services Committee, said on Sunday.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not
having
> >> >> >had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican
said
> >> >> >on NBC's "Meet the Press."
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
> >> >> conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
> >> >> whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
> >> >> the field and we're right".
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps what you wrote can be formed into the F-22 motto, Ferrin. The
> >> >fighter mafia really screwed the pooch on this one. Being split
across the
> >> >2000 production break did not help either. The whole F-22 mess has
been
> >> >like watching a man play soliare with a deck of 51.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are SO predictable.
> >
> >The unified wave therom and probabilities is my game.
> >
> >Reliability -> Availability -> Revenue
> >
>
>
> Pavlov made a dog drooling predictable so is your response suppose to
> impress me?

Just because what I have always posted about the F-22 has turned out to have
always been true does not change my tendancy to post it.

> I'll conceed one one point with a qualifier. Our ongoing fued hasn't
> ever been WOULD the F-22 be cancelled but SHOULD it.

The F-22 should have been cancelled in 1998. The question of will the F-22
be cancelled is still open.

> That being said,
> I still maintain (as does the USAF) that the F-22 is the best of the
> available choices. The F-22 as an aircraft that is.

In for a penny, in for a pound ...

I don't see the Pentagon buying that and McCain has reason to be proud of
USN's airplane procurement right now.

> As a *program*
> meaning mainly the the way it's being managed, funded, scheduled etc.
> it looks to have all the finesse of a monkey trying to **** a
> football.

Wasn't there a lune CF-18 pilot aound ram by that name?

> I hope for the sake of the pilots who'll have to fight that
> we get it but who knows what will happen.

Why? For what?

[Scott Ferrin]

>> Pavlov made a dog drooling predictable so is your response suppose to
>> impress me?
>
>Just because what I have always posted about the F-22 has turned out to have
>always been true does not change my tendancy to post it.


Cancelled doesn't always equate to "bad". Nor does poorly managed
mean the platform in question sucks. The pilots who acutally FLY the
F-22 and have flown the F-22 like it better. Are they delusional?
The USAF has fought tooth and nail to get it. Are they not qualified
to determine what they need? Who is more qualified to decide what the
air force needs; a general who has to run the wing and fight the
fight, or a politician who doesn't even know the X-35 was suppose to
be the F-24? THAT is a scarey thought. I heard the annoucment.
Sounded like Barney from the Simpsons ". . .so what's it going to be
called? 'Duh. . .the F-35?'"


Oh yeah, and I still haven't seen any strakes.




>
>> I'll conceed one one point with a qualifier. Our ongoing fued hasn't
>> ever been WOULD the F-22 be cancelled but SHOULD it.
>
>The F-22 should have been cancelled in 1998. The question of will the F-22
>be cancelled is still open.
>
>> That being said,
>> I still maintain (as does the USAF) that the F-22 is the best of the
>> available choices. The F-22 as an aircraft that is.
>
>In for a penny, in for a pound ...
>
>I don't see the Pentagon buying that and McCain has reason to be proud of
>USN's airplane procurement right now.



Proud that the USN has that dog of a "Super" Hornet? More like Cheney
should be kicking himself in the ass for shutting down the Tomcat
production line. The so-called "Super" Hornet now has to fill the
role of whatver it is it does when it was only intended as an interim
fighter. Seeing how in the end it will likely be used more for
tanking and EW than air combat it should be obvious that it's lacking
in that particular area.




>
>> As a *program*
>> meaning mainly the the way it's being managed, funded, scheduled etc.
>> it looks to have all the finesse of a monkey trying to **** a
>> football.
>
>Wasn't there a lune CF-18 pilot aound ram by that name?


I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. First time I heard the saying
I about fell out of my chair but it *does* get the point across :-)




>
>> I hope for the sake of the pilots who'll have to fight that
>> we get it but who knows what will happen.
>
>Why? For what?


China. They've already got Flankers with AA-12s. What is an F-15
going to do when it comes up against a Flanker with KS-172s? (Which
China is trying to get from Russia.). It would be like shooting the
proverbial fish in a barrel.

[Yama]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
> conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
> whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
> the field and we're right".
>
> The thing that is truely disgusting about the whole thing (the war) is
> that the terrorists are right. Bloody us a little and we run home
> like a little Chihuahua who got it's ass handed to it by a hamster.
> Granted it's just a CNN poll but one the other day showed the majority
> of those taking the vote thought we ought to withdraw from Iraq and
> today's majority 68% say we shouldn't be in Iraq.

It's part of how media works these days - when there is no major news, minor
news are reported as major news, and things in public can get blown out of
proportions.

Bit of a same is going on with F-22. Although the program has seen some
difficulties, I've never thought there was much real ground to cancel it,
but some people have speculated about it or pushing for it for years and
after much repetition, message has been going through...will be
psychologically interesting to see whether the opponents of the program
really do prevail.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Pavlov made a dog drooling predictable so is your response suppose to
> >> impress me?
> >
> >Just because what I have always posted about the F-22 has turned out to
have
> >always been true does not change my tendancy to post it.
>
>
> Cancelled doesn't always equate to "bad".

While bad does not always lead to cancelled.

> Nor does poorly managed
> mean the platform in question sucks.

That all depends on how management stacks the cards against the engineers.
I never placed my "feelings" about the F-22, or Lockheed's usenet trolls,
decide my position on the airplane. My judgement is based soley on a risk
assessment of the practices employed by the program and any probabilty of
success.

> The pilots who acutally FLY the
> F-22 and have flown the F-22 like it better. Are they delusional?

It would be impossible to know if there is any more than politics behind
those claims.

> The USAF has fought tooth and nail to get it. Are they not qualified
> to determine what they need? Who is more qualified to decide what the
> air force needs; a general who has to run the wing and fight the
> fight, or a politician who doesn't even know the X-35 was suppose to
> be the F-24?

The X-35 seems to be moving along nicely, although it's costs will be higher
due to the lack of technology transfer from the F-22. If the F-22 survives
there is some possible benifit of F-35 to F-22 technology flow in the
future. There is something less than satisfying about an airplane that is
obsolete before it can be delivered, only to find it's flyaway costs at four
times initial expectations.

> THAT is a scarey thought. I heard the annoucment.
> Sounded like Barney from the Simpsons ". . .so what's it going to be
> called? 'Duh. . .the F-35?'"

Why do you dislike the F-35?

> Oh yeah, and I still haven't seen any strakes.

I won't be providing you with any such data.

> >> I'll conceed one one point with a qualifier. Our ongoing fued hasn't
> >> ever been WOULD the F-22 be cancelled but SHOULD it.
> >
> >The F-22 should have been cancelled in 1998. The question of will the
F-22
> >be cancelled is still open.
> >
> >> That being said,
> >> I still maintain (as does the USAF) that the F-22 is the best of the
> >> available choices. The F-22 as an aircraft that is.
> >
> >In for a penny, in for a pound ...
> >
> >I don't see the Pentagon buying that and McCain has reason to be proud of
> >USN's airplane procurement right now.

> Proud that the USN has that dog of a "Super" Hornet?

The availability of a reliable airborn weapons platform is what the Navy
needed.

> More like Cheney
> should be kicking himself in the ass for shutting down the Tomcat
> production line.

The Tomcat's 0.4 hours between pilot initiated maintenance makes Cheney look
like a genius when compared the the Super Bug.

> The so-called "Super" Hornet now has to fill the
> role of whatver it is it does when it was only intended as an interim
> fighter. Seeing how in the end it will likely be used more for
> tanking and EW than air combat it should be obvious that it's lacking
> in that particular area.

The Hornet is the future of USN EW.

> >> As a *program*
> >> meaning mainly the the way it's being managed, funded, scheduled etc.
> >> it looks to have all the finesse of a monkey trying to **** a
> >> football.
> >
> >Wasn't there a lune CF-18 pilot aound ram by that name?

> I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. First time I heard the saying
> I about fell out of my chair but it *does* get the point across :-)

It sounds like something he might be involved in.

> >> I hope for the sake of the pilots who'll have to fight that
> >> we get it but who knows what will happen.
> >
> >Why? For what?
>
>
> China. They've already got Flankers with AA-12s. What is an F-15
> going to do when it comes up against a Flanker with KS-172s? (Which
> China is trying to get from Russia.). It would be like shooting the
> proverbial fish in a barrel.

Until Flankers are delivered with electric FCS there is no real need to fear
them past day three. A Hornet avionics equiped F-15 might just be the
ticket, until the X-45 UCAV comes on line.

[Scott Ferrin]

>> Cancelled doesn't always equate to "bad".
>
>While bad does not always lead to cancelled.
>
>> Nor does poorly managed
>> mean the platform in question sucks.
>
>That all depends on how management stacks the cards against the engineers.
>I never placed my "feelings" about the F-22, or Lockheed's usenet trolls,
>decide my position on the airplane. My judgement is based soley on a risk
>assessment of the practices employed by the program and any probabilty of
>success.
>
>> The pilots who acutally FLY the
>> F-22 and have flown the F-22 like it better. Are they delusional?
>
>It would be impossible to know if there is any more than politics behind
>those claims.
>
>> The USAF has fought tooth and nail to get it. Are they not qualified
>> to determine what they need? Who is more qualified to decide what the
>> air force needs; a general who has to run the wing and fight the
>> fight, or a politician who doesn't even know the X-35 was suppose to
>> be the F-24?
>
>The X-35 seems to be moving along nicely, although it's costs will be higher
>due to the lack of technology transfer from the F-22. If the F-22 survives
>there is some possible benifit of F-35 to F-22 technology flow in the
>future. There is something less than satisfying about an airplane that is
>obsolete before it can be delivered, only to find it's flyaway costs at four
>times initial expectations.
>
>> THAT is a scarey thought. I heard the annoucment.
>> Sounded like Barney from the Simpsons ". . .so what's it going to be
>> called? 'Duh. . .the F-35?'"
>
>Why do you dislike the F-35?


I don't. I like it but like the F-16 isn't an F-15, the F-35 is no
substitue for the F-22. All I was pointing out is that you have a
person in the decision making chain that doesn't even know the
designation system. If they aren't familiar with something as basic
as that how can their judgement be trusted? My point was that
politicians have enough power and little enough knowledge to be
dangerous to any program no matter how good if someone says something
bad about it. I hope the F-35 can manage to loose the 2000 pounds it
needs to but I'm not holding my breath on it. The latest AvWeek
mentions them discussing the possibility of changing the outer mold
line which would necessitate recalculating the RCS and coming up with
fixes for the inevitable increases in it. Which adds more $$$ which
means more stretch, the inevitable hysteria and threats of cutbacks
etc. etc. etc. In another post I mentioned that anymore, big ticket
items are starting to sound like one cluster f----after another and
the F-35 is starting to deliver on that. We'll see how the DG-21 or
DDX or DD/X or whatver the hell they're calling it this week will do.



>
>> Oh yeah, and I still haven't seen any strakes.
>
>I won't be providing you with any such data.
>


Is anybody surprised?






>> >> I'll conceed one one point with a qualifier. Our ongoing fued hasn't
>> >> ever been WOULD the F-22 be cancelled but SHOULD it.
>> >
>> >The F-22 should have been cancelled in 1998. The question of will the
>F-22
>> >be cancelled is still open.
>> >
>> >> That being said,
>> >> I still maintain (as does the USAF) that the F-22 is the best of the
>> >> available choices. The F-22 as an aircraft that is.
>> >
>> >In for a penny, in for a pound ...
>> >
>> >I don't see the Pentagon buying that and McCain has reason to be proud of
>> >USN's airplane procurement right now.
>
>> Proud that the USN has that dog of a "Super" Hornet?
>
>The availability of a reliable airborn weapons platform is what the Navy
>needed.


That's all they got. Heaven help to poor sap who ever has to dogfight
in the thing.







>
>> More like Cheney
>> should be kicking himself in the ass for shutting down the Tomcat
>> production line.
>
>The Tomcat's 0.4 hours between pilot initiated maintenance makes Cheney look
>like a genius when compared the the Super Bug.

The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.



>> The so-called "Super" Hornet now has to fill the
>> role of whatver it is it does when it was only intended as an interim
>> fighter. Seeing how in the end it will likely be used more for
>> tanking and EW than air combat it should be obvious that it's lacking
>> in that particular area.
>
>The Hornet is the future of USN EW.


Yep. Tanking, EW, and dropping JDAMs at short range is about all it's
good for. Don't ask it to enter air combat against any modern,
decently flown adversary.





>
>> >> As a *program*
>> >> meaning mainly the the way it's being managed, funded, scheduled etc.
>> >> it looks to have all the finesse of a monkey trying to **** a
>> >> football.
>> >
>> >Wasn't there a lune CF-18 pilot aound ram by that name?
>
>> I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. First time I heard the saying
>> I about fell out of my chair but it *does* get the point across :-)
>
>It sounds like something he might be involved in.
>
>> >> I hope for the sake of the pilots who'll have to fight that
>> >> we get it but who knows what will happen.
>> >
>> >Why? For what?
>>
>>
>> China. They've already got Flankers with AA-12s. What is an F-15
>> going to do when it comes up against a Flanker with KS-172s? (Which
>> China is trying to get from Russia.). It would be like shooting the
>> proverbial fish in a barrel.
>
>Until Flankers are delivered with electric FCS there is no real need to fear
>them past day three. A Hornet avionics equiped F-15 might just be the
>ticket, until the X-45 UCAV comes on line.


The thing is the UCAV isn't going to do air to air. And a Flanker
doesn't need an electric FCS when it's already got the HMS and missile
to go with it and longer ranged AAMs than the Eagle. It outguns it at
both close range and long range and outmanuevers it in the dogfight.
The ONLY thing the Eagles would have going for them is the pilots. Is
canceling the F-22 AND hoping China doesn't increase pilot training a
smart gamble? And long range BVR shots even reduce the qualitry of
pilot you need. If the KS-172 and ramjet R-77 perform as designed the
best pilot in the world isn't going to be able to save his F-15. Then
factor in SA-10s and their ilk and it becomes that much more dangerous
for the Eagle. The whole point of the F-22 is to bring stealth into
the equation. Supercruise is gravy.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...

>
> The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
> made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
> Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
> the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.

Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.

Lets try this again:

Reliability -> Availability -> Revenue

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:27:14 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
>> made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
>> Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
>> the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.
>
>Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.

"It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as the
Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet."


Which part of that did ya miss? They wouldn't have been simply
sticking new sensors on a D. It would have been essentially all new.
New engines, new avionics, new and redesigned airframe, etc. It would
have incorporated a lot of "lessons learned" from a maintainability
standpoint. Would it have been exaclty as good as a Super Hornet re.
maintianability? Who knows. It would have been a hell of a lot
better than a D's though.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f14_13.html






>
>Lets try this again:
>
>Reliability -> Availability -> Revenue
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:27:14 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>
> >> The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
> >> made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
> >> Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
> >> the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.
> >
> >Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.
>
> "It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as the
> Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet."

The Tomcat is not an electric FCS airplane. What you are suggesting is back
to the future.

> Which part of that did ya miss? They wouldn't have been simply
> sticking new sensors on a D. It would have been essentially all new.
> New engines, new avionics, new and redesigned airframe, etc. It would
> have incorporated a lot of "lessons learned" from a maintainability
> standpoint. Would it have been exaclty as good as a Super Hornet re.
> maintianability? Who knows. It would have been a hell of a lot
> better than a D's though.

Why?

US missiles finally worked through a lot of hard work at RPL and later
Phillips to get the propellent mixes right for the first Gulf War. Sensor
and guidance technology has made an additional leap since then. Technology
has changed the nature of war and if the best you can do is apply the F-22
to some war with China, you need to join us in the new millenia. The end of
mannned flight is near.

[John R Weiss]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote...
>
>>> The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
>>> made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
>>> Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
>>> the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.
>>
>>Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.
>
> "It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as the
> Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet."
>
>
> Which part of that did ya miss? They wouldn't have been simply
> sticking new sensors on a D. It would have been essentially all new.
> New engines, new avionics, new and redesigned airframe, etc. It would
> have incorporated a lot of "lessons learned" from a maintainability
> standpoint. Would it have been exaclty as good as a Super Hornet re.
> maintianability? Who knows. It would have been a hell of a lot
> better than a D's though.

Tarver can't see through the fog of his prejudices. The Tomcat 21 might well
have been a great airplane, and actually had the range to replace the A-6 in the
Attack role.

However, the bean counters bought the McAir hype, and the A-12 debacle sealed
the fate of Navy TacAir to rely on a sole-source platform to try to do
everything. It might have even worked if "From the Sea" was a real, viable
philosophy.

However, experience in Afghanistan has proven that "From the Sea" is NOT the
appropriate Navy/Marine philosophy for the 21st century. We're barely making do
with what we have (so far). Too bad we can't compare what we could have had...

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:30:35 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:27:14 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
>> >> made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
>> >> Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
>> >> the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.
>> >
>> >Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.
>>
>> "It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as the
>> Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet."
>
>The Tomcat is not an electric FCS airplane. What you are suggesting is back
>to the future.
>
>> Which part of that did ya miss? They wouldn't have been simply
>> sticking new sensors on a D. It would have been essentially all new.
>> New engines, new avionics, new and redesigned airframe, etc. It would
>> have incorporated a lot of "lessons learned" from a maintainability
>> standpoint. Would it have been exaclty as good as a Super Hornet re.
>> maintianability? Who knows. It would have been a hell of a lot
>> better than a D's though.
>
>Why?
>
>US missiles finally worked through a lot of hard work at RPL and later
>Phillips to get the propellent mixes right for the first Gulf War.

And this has *what* to do with what we've been talking about?



>Sensor
>and guidance technology has made an additional leap since then. Technology
>has changed the nature of war and if the best you can do is apply the F-22
>to some war with China, you need to join us in the new millenia.

Would you share with us the technology that makes a non stealth
aircraft safe from double-digit SAMs and advanced fighters? Saying
"bomb them all with UCAVs" won't even come CLOSE to cutting it until
there are hundreds in service if then. And you can take to the bank
that the first time one accidentally drops on a populated area all the
politicians will line up to complain about the need for a man in the
loop. And I'd hardly call a country with hundreds of Flankers and
counting, J-10s in the pipline, defenses equipped with SA-10s and
-12s, and at last count 500 tactical ballistic missiles pointed a
Taiwan (who we've promised to protect) a trivial threat. Of course we
could always pull an Iraq and say "uh, that's too hot for US to touch.
Good luck to ya". Or maybe you could explain how these F-15s we have
are going to last another thirty or forty years without falling apart.

Or better yet, explain how we're going to maintain any fighter
building expertise by continuing to churn out 30 year old designs
(that's thirty years TODAY). The fact that the F-22 and F-35 are
experiencing the problems they are suggests we've already started
losing it. Someone pointed out "but the F-22 and F-35 are much more
complicated that aircraft of yesterday". No doubt they are, but then
again our tools are much better than those we had back in the day. Is
an F-22 really THAT much more difficult to build TODAY than a YF-12A
was in 1960? And I don't mean difficult because we've lost all of our
talent to retirement or because the perishable skills have perished.
I mean based on current state of the art is it as far ahead as the
YF-12A was in it's day?



> The end of
>mannned flight is near.

I would not be at all surprised if in the end that line of reasoning
looks as premature as saying the dogfight was history back in the day
of the original F-4.

A few questions:

1. How do you do CAS with a UCAV?

2. How do you protect your high value assets like airborne command
posts, tankers, and recon with UCAVs?

3. How do you CAP with UCAVs?

4. If you keep a man in the link how do you keep that link from
getting jammed or just plain going tits up?

5. If you take the man out of the loop how do you IFF?

6. Soldiers are on the ground and the only thing close enough is a
UCAV with no man in the loop. How do you help the troops?


No matter how hard they try they will never be able to duplicate the
flexibility of a human in the cockpit. UCAVs will always stay niche.

[John Carrier]

> But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
> conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
> whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
> the field and we're right".

I'm inclined to agree. I think there is no real concept of what the
transformed military will look like, only that it will manage and share
information better ... maybe.

R / John

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> > But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
> > conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
> > whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
> > the field and we're right".
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I think there is no real concept of what the
> transformed military will look like, only that it will manage and share
> information better ... maybe.

While I hate the overuse of the word, there is plenty of merit to the
concept, and the increased quality, scope, and distribution of information
as it applies to situational awareness is not only of great future promise,
but is also yielding benefits *now*. Examples of systems in current use
abound, from the USMC's datalinking of its AV-8B's Lightning targeting pod
imagery to ground combat HQ's during OIF to the use of digital C3I systems
in Army maneuver units up through the corps level and down through (at
present) the BTF or BCT levels. I have no doubt whatsoever that we are
better at desseminating information more rapidly today to the military
commanders who have to make decisions at all levels than we were ten years
ago. In 1996 I participated in my first division level Warfighter exercise,
and we were doing everything pretty much the same we had for the last thirty
or fourty years in terms of battle tracking; but by 1999 and 2000, when that
same division performed back-to-back corps level WFX's, we were utilizing
digital command and control packages that really did improve our SA, and
that of our subordinate units. Of course, achieving a more "network centric"
joint force is not the only transformational goal.

In regards to what the final transformed force will "look like"...it won't.
Look like anything, that is. Why? Because transformation is an open-ended
process; it will result in continuous evolution of the forces to face the
emerging and evolving threats. At least that is what DoD says:
(http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/library_files/document_297_MT_StrategyDoc1.p
df)

Brooks

>
> R / John
>
>