Did the F/A-22 Raptor turn the corner in 2003?

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Now even Air Force wants to get rid of Jurassicfighter. It was
aready too late for cancellation in year 2001,thats the only reason
why it survived up to now.

Georgia pork is the only thing keeping the jurassic turd alive.

So now we have Denyav *and* Tarver against the F-22.

As always Chad, havn't you been paying attention?

Safe to say it's going to be one of the greatest figher planes, *ever*,
looking at their past records...

Either that, or Chad is an idiot.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:38:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
"They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.


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.



Well it's official. The broompusher knows more than a fighter pilot
who worked on the ATF program and flew several hundred missions. He's
also smarter than Mary who works for NASA. All bow and hail the
broompusher Tarver.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:38:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:26 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On 4 Jan 2004 14:13:53 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
"They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

Ed's a nice guy, but he's spent his lifetime advocating light-weight
fighters. He was an original member of the LWF mafia, back in the
pre-YF-12/YF-17 days. He's just a little biased on the subject.


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.

Well it's official. The broompusher knows more than a fighter pilot
who worked on the ATF program and flew several hundred missions.
also smarter than Mary who works for NASA. All bow and hail the
broompusher Tarver.

Hmmm, Ed took the article as critical of the F-22 and now Ferrin attacks me
with the opposite conclusion. Perhaps Scott should suspend his posting,
until he has enough cognitive ability to understand that a fighter pilot and
a PE agreeing about an article pretty well blows out whatever Scot is
smoking.

Perhaps there will be some future turnaround for the F-22, but 2003 was not
the year.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:51:22 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:12:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
. com...
http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm
"They're just trying to find a role for this plane because they've
sunk so much money into it," Riccioni said.

"The way Air Force officials and Lockheed Martin executives tell it,
2003
marked a turning point in the development of the F/A-22 Raptor fighter
jet.
"

Odd that, considering 2003 saw tail delamination, departure from
controlled
flight, failure to integrate the joint standoff munition and
continueing
problems integrating weapons sensors. Especailly with Congress
offering
the
program one year to get their act together, with the passage of the
FY04
budget.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Right on schedule.

So now the F-22 program has gone from "there is no problem" to "we have
turned the program around. Were they lying before, or now. (ie both)


I'd have to say it depends on how long passed inbetween the statements
and what they meant when they said "problem".

Jesus, Ferrin, what are you smoking?

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.

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.

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?

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.




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

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

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's a damned shame they have to actually *fly* the darned things, and
do TV shows on them, and such.

They must have *shot* that guy who flew the one over the Rose Bowl...

And still, nobody else has ever seen, or heard, of any of them having
wing strakes, like you keep claiming.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote:

So now we have Denyav *and* Tarver against the F-22.

As always Chad, havn't you been paying attention?

No, Denyav never got that silly about it.

*You*, however, are getting worse and worse.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"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.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

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's a damned shame they have to actually *fly* the darned things, and
do TV shows on them, and such.

Certain ones.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:11:14 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:




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.

Every system has to be produced somewhere. It used to be Texas at
GD/Ft. Worth, or St. Louis/MacAir, or Seattle/Boeing, or now LockMart.
It always creates jobs and has a local economic impact. There will
always be a local "pork" aspect. But, if the contract is the result of
competitive fly-off (F-22-vs-F-23) then what's the problem?

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.

Edwards has always had plenty of work. It might be upgrades, it might
be "black", it might be weapons release, it might be advanced
technology vehicles.

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.

Developmental aircraft are generally secured by other assets than
military police. (You may also recall from your USAF experience that
the terminology for USAF security forces is Security Police.) Any time
is a poor time to get arrested for law breaking. It doesn't have a lot
to do with F-22 performance.


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.

The B-1 came "online" about twenty years ago. The "A" aspect of F/A-22
doesn't require "stretch" and quiet clearly there is a huge difference
in payload between a strategic heavy bomber like B-1 or B-2 and a
tactical asset like F/A-22. Whether or not a stretch would have
anything to do with "buffeting" would be more work for Edwards. For
that matter, virtually all swept wing aircraft buffet at high AOA.
Whether "buffeting" is related to the slab delaminations is yet
another matter for conjecture.

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.

That makes very little sense. (Sorry, but that's my opinion.) While
war games are occasionally insightful, they aren't a basis for funding
allocation between services. That is typically handled at higher
levels and is seriously impacted by Congress, which while they play
"games", don't usually participate in "war games."

Certainly questions of forward basing are critical, but with the
collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, as well as the
integration of a number of former Pact nations into NATO, you can make
a good argument for MORE forward basing opportunities rather than
less. Additionally, the Navy support for carrier ops as "forward
basing" is always questioned by the reach of Navy tactical assets from
blue water boats--there's a huge chunk of the globe unreachable by
CVBG forces.

USAF was never "keen on the idea of stopping B-2 production." Don't
know where you got that.

So, your argument is that USAF eagerly bought on to a NAVY argument
that resulted in lower funding and admission that they couldn't bring
forces to bear in the future? That makes no sense whatsoever!




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