"Bjørnar" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
robert arndt wrote:
http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm


Why yes, POGO has been known to lie on ocasion. Not what I'd call a
great source. And Colonel Riccioni is far from unbiased.

He (the rather odd Colonel) was apparently a bit desperate as well;
his explanation of why he concluded the F-22 was allegedly NOT
stealthy was sort of infantile (and wrong), and his conclusions
regarding supercruise were kind of weird, too.

In what way?

From the good Colonel:

"Stealth means the proper suppression of all its important
"signatures"-Visual Signature, Radar Signature, Infrared Signature,
Electromagnetic Emissions, and Sound."

But stealth is largely mission dependent. For example, "sound" is of little
or no import to the F-22's ability to conduct its missions, while OTOH it
might be a viable consideration in developing a "stealthy" Comanche
scout/attack helicopter. He then goes on to claim that the F-22's radar
signature is "not adequately reported". Well, duh! The details he wants are
ridiculous--it would be tantamount to handing likely foes the results of the
radar signature studies so that they can fine tune or develop
countermeasures, which would hardly be considered a wise course for the USAF
to follow. Then he contradicts himself by claiming that, "Stealth operations
are night operations" immediately after attacking the F-22 for allegedly
having too large a visual signature for daylight operations...uhmmm, so his
point was? He compounds that by making the ridiculous claim that, "Its role
is in daylight"--uhmmm, no, its role will be performed around the clock.
Finally, he offers that, "Unfortunately stealth against radar invariably
increases the size of a fighter", which would be news to the folks designing
the F-35, which is a whopping seven *inches* longer than the good Colonel's
pet F-16, and with a wingspan only about three feet greater than the Viper;
the F-22 is almost identical in length to the F-15 it is replacing and its
wingspan exceeds that of the Eagle by only about two feet. He then hammers
the F-22 for allegedly having a radar that will alert "modern,
sophisticated, Russian equipment " , ignoring the fact that the F-22
integrates the radar, EW, IFF, and communications package and can regulate
their emissions according to the tactical situation (not to mention ignoring
the fact that Russian equipment has not been racking up much of a reputation
of late; witness the dismal performance of their vaunted "GPS jammers"
during OIF). And this guy supposedly knows what he is talking about? Sounds
to me more like a guy with an axe to grind and a tenuous grasp on the truth.

Oddly enough, I am no great fan of the F-22--I am one of those folks who
would be quite happy capping production at the 180-200 aircraft figure. But
in spite of my own feelings in regard tothe F-22, I don't find it very
difficult to describe the Colonel's article as a none too well prepared
"hatchet job".

Brooks


Here is an interesting article on the Starfighter, speed and
maneuvering and also mentions Riccioni on the issue of supercruise:


http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm

"In his comments on the F-22, retired Colonel Everest Riccioni
(one of three legendary "Fighter Mafia" mavericks who forced
the Pentagon to produce the F-16 to improve U.S. air superiority,
who flew 55 different types of military aircraft, and worked in
the defense industry for 17 years managing aircraft programs,
including the B-2 bomber) compared it unfavorably to the F-104-19
in several categories, including supercruise range.)



Regards...