Bolkcom of the CRS against F/A-22

http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsA...toryID=4492902
"It does not appear that an aircraft as advanced and expensive as the
Raptor is required to address near-term defense threats," Christopher
Bolkcom, chief military aviation anlayst of the non-partisan
Congressional Research Service, told a panel of the House Armed Services
Committee.
....
Bolkcom said the Raptor's 540-nautical mile unrefueled combat radius
dictated it operated from forward bases -- another drawback for a
Pentagon facing potential conflict in distant lands with perhaps scant
bases nearby from which to operate.

Nothing can stop the US Air Force, once they have a permission slip.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsA...toryID=4492902

"It does not appear that an aircraft as advanced and expensive as the
Raptor is required to address near-term defense threats," Christopher
Bolkcom, chief military aviation anlayst of the non-partisan
Congressional Research Service, told a panel of the House Armed Services
Committee.

Thank goodness we don't let the CRS handle our military development
decisions.

...
Bolkcom said the Raptor's 540-nautical mile unrefueled combat radius
dictated it operated from forward bases -- another drawback for a
Pentagon facing potential conflict in distant lands with perhaps scant
bases nearby from which to operate.

Or it could be (gasp!) refueled; gotta wonder how the good Mr. Bolkcom
thinks the F-15E's and F-16's got from various Gulf States to Afghanistan
and back. And I believe that radius he mentions is for a clean aircraft; no
reason it could not depart with external tanks and then clean itself up when
it hits the threat zone. But that would mess up his argument, wouldn't it?


Nothing can stop the US Air Force, once they have a permission slip.

And apparently nothing can stop Henry, as long as he has a keyboard, no
matter how inane the subject.

Brooks


-HJC

snip

Bolkcom said the Raptor's 540-nautical mile unrefueled combat radius
dictated it operated from forward bases -- another drawback for a
Pentagon facing potential conflict in distant lands with perhaps scant
bases nearby from which to operate.

Only 540 nautical miles!!! its funny some were predicting it was going
to be a bit further...

This could cock up a few peoples AtoA refueling tanker sums

cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
snip

Bolkcom said the Raptor's 540-nautical mile unrefueled combat radius
dictated it operated from forward bases -- another drawback for a
Pentagon facing potential conflict in distant lands with perhaps scant
bases nearby from which to operate.

Only 540 nautical miles!!! its funny some were predicting it was going
to be a bit further...

Oddly enough, the development team's official website indicates that the
F/A-22 has "superior range" when compared to the existing F-15C.


This could cock up a few peoples AtoA refueling tanker sums

Well, I guess if you just buy into whatever the CRS says as being undisputed
fact, then you could be right...

Brooks


cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:41:56 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

snip

Bolkcom said the Raptor's 540-nautical mile unrefueled combat radius
dictated it operated from forward bases -- another drawback for a
Pentagon facing potential conflict in distant lands with perhaps scant
bases nearby from which to operate.

Only 540 nautical miles!!! its funny some were predicting it was going
to be a bit further...
John Cook

Don't know what you expect from a fighter, but 540 nm "unrefueled
combat radius" is impressive to this career fighter driver. It means
you go 540 miles, have some combat play time (which is
characteristically fuel-consumption-intensive) and then return 540
miles.

Since typical endurance for most tactical types (big medium bombers
excepted, i.e. F-111), is an hour and a half under optimum conditions,
that's not only long range, but fast as well.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Only 540 nautical miles!!! its funny some were predicting it was going
to be a bit further...

This could cock up a few peoples AtoA refueling tanker sums

I bet it's a conspiracy for Halliburt, er, Boeing. Yeah, that's it.
Conspiracy.

"Bolkcom played down the chief threat to U.S. dominance of the skies --
Russian-made SA-10 and SA-12 surface-to-air missiles. The U.S. armed
services have flown more than 400,000 combat sorties since 1991 and lost
only 39 combat aircraft -- a survival rate of 99.99 percent, he said."

Have we flown against either of these 2 systems in combat?


"t_mark" wrote in message
news:2kH1c.8940$Pc.8501@okepread02...
Only 540 nautical miles!!! its funny some were predicting it was going
to be a bit further...

This could cock up a few peoples AtoA refueling tanker sums

I bet it's a conspiracy for Halliburt, er, Boeing. Yeah, that's it.
Conspiracy.

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Bolkcom said the Raptor's 540-nautical mile unrefueled combat radius
dictated it operated from forward bases -- another drawback for a
Pentagon facing potential conflict in distant lands with perhaps scant
bases nearby from which to operate.

Or it could be (gasp!) refueled;

Or, more to the point, it has a *lot* more than a 540 mile combat
radius, over 840 miles.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
John Cook wrote:

snip

Bolkcom said the Raptor's 540-nautical mile unrefueled combat radius
dictated it operated from forward bases -- another drawback for a
Pentagon facing potential conflict in distant lands with perhaps scant
bases nearby from which to operate.

Only 540 nautical miles!!! its funny some were predicting it was going
to be a bit further...


This could cock up a few peoples AtoA refueling tanker sums

Or someone could have typed "540" instead of "840."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

I would really like to counsel that dumb - well, I'll be nice. 540
miles unrefueled combat radius? Man that's only about 400 miles more
than an F4. we used to go to Mu Gia pass from Danang and ISTR that's
about 160 or so - and we sure as hell didn't have alternate fuel for
the flight. Miss an approach at Danang and too bad, GI. As for the
missile threat, easy for him to say - I haven't heard of a desk-homer
yet. Brave sonofabitch. Typical empty suit. BTW if anyone has a
desk-homer for sale cheap, I can scrounge up a few bucks. Wonder what
that weasel's email address is?
Walty BJ