"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I've only *done* weapon system acceptance and integration, so what do I
know?

Not as much as the USAF, I'd wager. At least about the F/A-22 and its
capabilities.

"The USAF who will fly and fight the aircraft", or "the USAF press
releases and contractual acceptance schedules"? Big difference.

In your mind.


I know this for su all "capable" means is "has not been proved
impossible".

I don't think so. Must be Brit-speak, huh?

British and several other nations, including the US.

I don't think so.


I don't tell you combat engineering, you don't tell me how to integrate
weapons onto airframes.

Why don't you not tell the USAF how to define what the initial
capabilities
of the F/A-22 are/will be when it enters into operational service?

I have. Release certification and clearance to carry and drop the live
weapon.

Good on you--you go keep those USAF types in line, Paul; God only knows how
we have managed to muddle through thus far without your editorial input to
the folks who fly these things and fight in them.


So far all that's been published is some wind-tunnel model work. Nowhere
near actual operational utility.

Tell it to the USAF. Go ahead--tell them they just HAVE to delete any
reference to the F/A-22 being JDAM capable when it enters front-line service
'cause you say so...



That's "capable" according to some contracts: but for actual real-world
utility, unless you can persuade the enemy to occupy the relevant
wind-tunnel right under the model aircraft it's not much use.

"Software in place" is relatively straightforward when the weapon's in
use elsewhere and the software is developmental: "dummy tests
conducted"
can be as simple as "flew with a blivet" or "conducted one safe
jettison
from safe, slow and level" and certainly does not imply "cleared for
operational use".

Argue it with the USAF-

Where would you suggest?

Do a google.


-they appear quite confident that the "A" in the
title will be justified when it starts flying with the 1st TFW sometime
during the next year or two.

Been there, done that, seen the pencil-whipping. Give me a single F/A-22
JDAM warshot drop. There must be _some_ news article _somewhere_ to
report an event like that.

Or is it "fully operational" except that the first actual live-fire test
will be in combat? Yeah, *that* has worked really well in the past.

Note that it has yet to enter into front-line combat unit service; those
fielded thus far are either at Edwards or joining the conversion/opeval unit
at Tyndall.


That you are not is not going to cause me any
loss of sleep, OK Paul?

I'm not paying for the 'A' designator and it's not my military trusting
that 'capability' will mean 'can actually put warheads on target'.

Who really cares at this point. USAF says it will be JDAM capable when it
enters operational service--you say it won't be. Most folks will accept the
USAF version unless you can prove they are lying. Kind of hard for you to do
at this point.

Brooks


Pause and think, Kevin. The F-22 is, airframe versus airframe, the best
fighter in the world. But that tells you nothing about its air-to-ground
capability, and the notional ability to fit munitions into internal bays
means very little if you have not thoroughly tested the ability to get
the munitions _out_ of those bays (a thousand-pound blivet that doesn't
fully separate can thoroughly wreck a modern fighter) even before you
worry about presetting and arming.

You think it's easy and already handled? Then you're not paying
attention.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk