If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"WaltBJ" wrote in message om... ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:55:05 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin wrote: What is needed, clearly, is a revised approach to aircraft development. SNIP: No mierda, Dick Tracy. One of Kelly's aids to success was that no one stuck their fingers in his pies. He knew where he was going, herded his troops in the right direction, overrode (mostly) the impediments (Viz. A11 security) and got the job done in an outstanding manner. Now every swinging SOB sticks his nose in the tent and stirs the pot - it's a wonder anything gets done, and all the while Congress is both slowing things down with investigations and continuing pressures to build something/anything 'in my district' and meanwhile the overhead keeps piling up day after day, year after year, and it's all added to the cost of the airplane. The 22 should have been in service test in 1990. And by 1998 the F-22 should have been cancelled as obsolete. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:37:10 +1000, John Cook wrote:
That would be nice, but it appears that *nobody* has that kind of cash around; ISTR that earlier projected Eurofighter Typhoon production estimates have been reduced over the years, The Eurofighters order number (620) have been stable since about 1996, so far that is!!! Tranche 2 negotiations may yet hold some surprises, but all governments have restated their commitment to the full numbers. I dion't know if this is a true story, but aparently in the 1990s the British were concerned that the Germans were lacking in enthusiasm for the project so they inserted big penalty clauses in for any nation that reduces its order. So if there was a British cut now, it would be embarrassing, to say the least. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:46:05 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "WaltBJ" wrote in message . com... ess (phil hunt) wrote in message g... On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:55:05 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin wrote: What is needed, clearly, is a revised approach to aircraft development. SNIP: No mierda, Dick Tracy. One of Kelly's aids to success was that no one stuck their fingers in his pies. He knew where he was going, herded his troops in the right direction, overrode (mostly) the impediments (Viz. A11 security) and got the job done in an outstanding manner. Now every swinging SOB sticks his nose in the tent and stirs the pot - it's a wonder anything gets done, and all the while Congress is both slowing things down with investigations and continuing pressures to build something/anything 'in my district' and meanwhile the overhead keeps piling up day after day, year after year, and it's all added to the cost of the airplane. The 22 should have been in service test in 1990. And by 1998 the F-22 should have been cancelled as obsolete. As compared to what? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:52:29 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Tarver Engineering wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:33 +0100, ess (phil hunt) wrote: An air superiority system needs high thrust/weight ratio, high manueverability, reasonable range, short response time etc. It also needs a sensor suite that can find, sort and allocate weapons to the enemy. Ideally it should have longer reach than the enemy platform and possess sufficient stealth to allow first-look/first-shot. The sensor suite for US operations is increasingly space based with Global capability. Only as long as the birdies above don't sustain interference or attack. What then? You still need the traditional means of reliably delivering the weapons to the target. Hotshot fighter jocks could probably still succeed with a grease pencil mark on the sight glass, and memorizing a set of direct bomb tables... but must we resort to WW I tactics every time Ivan, Mustafa, or Won Hung Lo geek out a way to scramble the RF? If they start jamming communications it won't matter if the information is space based, or comming from an AWACS. In order to make any kind of comparison you would ahve to compare to what is done today. Who is "they" and when did they develop a frequency agile comm-jamm capability? Millimeter wave for intra-flight data sharing? A reliable airborn weapons platform with data link capability is what is needed. Sure. As long as you never transmit the good stuff in the clear until you REALLY need it in a war. Wipe out the other guy within the first ten days or so, and you're home free; after that, he'll be turning your displays into masses of grass... I don't believe there is much support in the system for the lone wolf fighter pilot scenerio. There may be soem of that inside the F-22 community, but that space is not the rocking chair career booster it onece was. Tactically you seem to be out of step with the last fifty years of fighter operations. There hasn't been a "lone wolf fighter pilot scenario" in any plans since pre-Korean war. What is being discussed is the ability to survive on Day One, to go where you need to and then to dismantle the command/control/communications and the defensive reaction capability without attriting yourself. There's no "lone wolf" involved. Colin Powell spoke of putting out their eyes in DS. That's part of the big picture. The F-22 allows intrusion of a mature IADS and dissection of it. It isn't about "career booster" it's about winning wars. That takes people at the pointy end. The USAF airplane procurement cycle is too slow and bogged down with politics to produce tech advantages in individual manned airborn equipments. Not to mention the scads of college boys writing code to do things they don't understand - and feel (erroneously) that the GIs - from E-1s to generals - can never understand. Libraries, libraries, libraries; if it doesn't work as spec'd with existing, just add others to bog it down some more. Yes, that kind of thing even comes to the fore in the commercial World. Tremble spent a fortune trying to be in the aviation avionics business, only to find that their softhead small GA pilots could not follow a specification. Dare I suggest that comparing GA to military tactical aviation is a bit of apples/oranges? Dentists will continue to kill themselves in Bonanzas while fighter pilots will develop new ways to de-fur the feline. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:52:29 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Tarver Engineering wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:33 +0100, ess (phil hunt) wrote: An air superiority system needs high thrust/weight ratio, high manueverability, reasonable range, short response time etc. It also needs a sensor suite that can find, sort and allocate weapons to the enemy. Ideally it should have longer reach than the enemy platform and possess sufficient stealth to allow first-look/first-shot. The sensor suite for US operations is increasingly space based with Global capability. Only as long as the birdies above don't sustain interference or attack. What then? You still need the traditional means of reliably delivering the weapons to the target. Hotshot fighter jocks could probably still succeed with a grease pencil mark on the sight glass, and memorizing a set of direct bomb tables... but must we resort to WW I tactics every time Ivan, Mustafa, or Won Hung Lo geek out a way to scramble the RF? If they start jamming communications it won't matter if the information is space based, or comming from an AWACS. In order to make any kind of comparison you would ahve to compare to what is done today. Who is "they" and when did they develop a frequency agile comm-jamm capability? Millimeter wave for intra-flight data sharing? I don't believe there is a they, but John T makes a good point that there is some possible vulnerability to jamming. A reliable airborn weapons platform with data link capability is what is needed. Sure. As long as you never transmit the good stuff in the clear until you REALLY need it in a war. Wipe out the other guy within the first ten days or so, and you're home free; after that, he'll be turning your displays into masses of grass... I don't believe there is much support in the system for the lone wolf fighter pilot scenerio. There may be some of that inside the F-22 community, but that space is not the rocking chair career booster it onece was. Tactically you seem to be out of step with the last fifty years of fighter operations. There hasn't been a "lone wolf fighter pilot scenario" in any plans since pre-Korean war. What is being discussed is the ability to survive on Day One, to go where you need to and then to dismantle the command/control/communications and the defensive reaction capability without attriting yourself. Sure. There's no "lone wolf" involved. Colin Powell spoke of putting out their eyes in DS. That's part of the big picture. The F-22 allows intrusion of a mature IADS and dissection of it. It isn't about "career booster" it's about winning wars. That takes people at the pointy end. The only target for the F-22 is Europe and killing Eurofighters is it's only sold mission. The USAF airplane procurement cycle is too slow and bogged down with politics to produce tech advantages in individual manned airborn equipments. Not to mention the scads of college boys writing code to do things they don't understand - and feel (erroneously) that the GIs - from E-1s to generals - can never understand. Libraries, libraries, libraries; if it doesn't work as spec'd with existing, just add others to bog it down some more. Yes, that kind of thing even comes to the fore in the commercial World. Tremble spent a fortune trying to be in the aviation avionics business, only to find that their softhead small GA pilots could not follow a specification. Dare I suggest that comparing GA to military tactical aviation is a bit of apples/oranges? Dentists will continue to kill themselves in Bonanzas while fighter pilots will develop new ways to de-fur the feline. Well now, Trimble still sells to the military. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:46:05 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "WaltBJ" wrote in message . com... ess (phil hunt) wrote in message g... On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:55:05 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin wrote: What is needed, clearly, is a revised approach to aircraft development. SNIP: No mierda, Dick Tracy. One of Kelly's aids to success was that no one stuck their fingers in his pies. He knew where he was going, herded his troops in the right direction, overrode (mostly) the impediments (Viz. A11 security) and got the job done in an outstanding manner. Now every swinging SOB sticks his nose in the tent and stirs the pot - it's a wonder anything gets done, and all the while Congress is both slowing things down with investigations and continuing pressures to build something/anything 'in my district' and meanwhile the overhead keeps piling up day after day, year after year, and it's all added to the cost of the airplane. The 22 should have been in service test in 1990. And by 1998 the F-22 should have been cancelled as obsolete. As compared to what? The Avro Arrow is probably the only fighter program to be so long in the tooth prior to delivery. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On 13 Apr 2004 11:48:15 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote: (phil hunt) wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:55:05 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin wrote: What is needed, clearly, is a revised approach to aircraft development. SNIP: No mierda, Dick Tracy. One of Kelly's aids to success was that no one stuck their fingers in his pies. He knew where he was going, herded his troops in the right direction, overrode (mostly) the impediments (Viz. A11 security) and got the job done in an outstanding manner. Now every swinging SOB sticks his nose in the tent and stirs the pot - it's a wonder anything gets done, and all the while Congress is both slowing things down with investigations and continuing pressures to build something/anything 'in my district' and meanwhile the overhead keeps piling up day after day, year after year, and it's all added to the cost of the airplane. The 22 should have been in service test in 1990. Walt BJ While what you say is esssentially correct, the 1990 date is a bit excessive. I left ATF at Northrop in mid-'88 and at that time metal-bending was just commencing for FSD. The only real full-scale mock-up was plywood. Gotta assume that F-22 wasn't that different than -23. There was no FSD, only Prototype and Production. Was probably pretty good that airframes were airborne in '90, but avionics were still mostly conceptual. Will definitely agree that the decade of the '90s really showed a slow-down in development. I'll agree with Walt that the airplane needed to be delivered a decade ago. A few USAF F/A-18s should get the point across. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:20:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On 13 Apr 2004 11:48:15 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote: The 22 should have been in service test in 1990. Walt BJ While what you say is esssentially correct, the 1990 date is a bit excessive. I left ATF at Northrop in mid-'88 and at that time metal-bending was just commencing for FSD. The only real full-scale mock-up was plywood. Gotta assume that F-22 wasn't that different than -23. There was no FSD, only Prototype and Production. Dem-Val ended in Fall of '88 and FSD commenced leading to the selection two years later. The program phases were pretty clearly spelled out in the RFP and again in the selection contract. Asserting "there was no FSD, only Prototype and Production" seems to be little more than an opinion and not in consonance with the readily apparent sequence of past events. Was probably pretty good that airframes were airborne in '90, but avionics were still mostly conceptual. Will definitely agree that the decade of the '90s really showed a slow-down in development. I'll agree with Walt that the airplane needed to be delivered a decade ago. A few USAF F/A-18s should get the point across. I don't understand your fascination with USAF F/A-18s. It is most assuredly a non-stealthy airframe and one not dedicated or even very well suited to the air dominance mission. IOW, it isn't an A/A fighter by any stretch. If (and this is a very big IF), the F-22 should collapse, then a better choice for all-wx, day/night ground attack is another buy of F-15E and an update of sensor/weapons suite on F-15C with maybe a modified F-16 update as well. These would allow continuity of already deployed systems with the supporting infrastructure--engines, avionics, training, qualified weapons, simulators. etc. etc. Not a single factor that I can think of would aim any decision maker toward F/A-18 for USAF as a substitute for F-22 or F-35. I will, however, agree with Walt (as I almost inevitably do) that had the program remained on timeline and operational airframes been delivered a decade ago, the unit cost would be lower, the avionics would be more mature and the politics would be irrelevant. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |