"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
news
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.