"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.