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

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:45:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"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.

What, so you're claiming you DO know more than Mary and Ed?



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.

They both agreed that the guy pretty much has an agenda and that the
article made little sense. Looks like YOU need to work on your
reading comprehension.





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

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:11:56 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"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.



I guess those ones with the strakes are top secret huh?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
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?

Georgia has become a very Republican State, so I am not opposed to the
manufacturing location. Like I wrote before, the F-22 is keeping the doors
open for rpopel who live here.

I don't really believe the flyoff was competitive, but Northrop had the B-2.

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.

I think you underestimate boxer's incompetence.

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.

You made an issue of me not having a picture of an airplane in a specific
configuration, as have several of the newsgroup monkeys.


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

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:08:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

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.

You made an issue of me not having a picture of an airplane in a specific
configuration, as have several of the newsgroup monkeys.

No. Don't have a dog in that hunt. I have not been involved in the
argument regarding a picture with or without strakes.

I've been trying to engage in a dialogue, without personal insult that
might provide some information and perspective for folks in the news
group. Join me or not, your choice.



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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:08:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

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.

You made an issue of me not having a picture of an airplane in a specific
configuration, as have several of the newsgroup monkeys.

No. Don't have a dog in that hunt. I have not been involved in the
argument regarding a picture with or without strakes.

OK

I've been trying to engage in a dialogue, without personal insult that
might provide some information and perspective for folks in the news
group. Join me or not, your choice.

I think we are already doing that.

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.

I'm fairly certain he's referring to the concept of stretching the
F-22, giving it a different wing, and dropping the verticals tails.
The idea being a stealthy, faster, F-111 so to speak.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviatio...2063-1,00.html



Apparently Lockheed has already done some research on the idea.



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.

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

On this one point I would have to agree though the rest of the argument doesn't
ring true - I worked on both the F-22 and B-2 all through the 90s.

In 96 0r 97, Congress wanted the AF to "have" another 20 B-2s beyond the first
20. They even wanted to appropriate $550M for long lead spares. The AF
Generals at the five sided wind tunnel and ACC HQ at Langley then went enmasse
to Congress to tell then the DID NOT want more B-2s. Instead they wanted more
funding to accelerate the F-22.

The $550M was appropriated anyway and and instead of being spent on long lead,
it went, by direction of Bill Clinton, in an election year, to refurbish Air
Vehicle #1, a prototype that ACC wanted to turn into a static
display/maintenance trainer.

Guess it delivered SOCal to him and got Diane Feinstein re-elected though, IMHO
the only reason why it was made operational.

"Smartace11" wrote in message
...
USAF was never "keen on the idea of stopping B-2 production." Don't
know where you got that.

On this one point I would have to agree though the rest of the argument
doesn't
ring true - I worked on both the F-22 and B-2 all through the 90s.

Whatever.

In 96 0r 97, Congress wanted the AF to "have" another 20 B-2s beyond the
first
20. They even wanted to appropriate $550M for long lead spares. The AF
Generals at the five sided wind tunnel and ACC HQ at Langley then went
enmasse
to Congress to tell then the DID NOT want more B-2s. Instead they wanted
more
funding to accelerate the F-22.

So then, you attempt to discredit me on the causal portion, but only agree
with the result. How can you possibly disagree with something you have no
clue about?

The $550M was appropriated anyway and and instead of being spent on long
lead,
it went, by direction of Bill Clinton, in an election year, to refurbish
Air
Vehicle #1, a prototype that ACC wanted to turn into a static
display/maintenance trainer.

Strange.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Chad Irby" wrote:
"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.

They had it on a friggin' *football* game. Sheesh, you couldn't get
more public.

Not to mention a dozen or so episodes of various shows on Discovery
Wings (one was on yesterday, with multiple F-22s on screen at a time).

And on the official F-22 Raptor site, Raptors 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12 and 14
all have very clear photos, and none have strakes.

The strakes are in your head, Tarver.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:29:13 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Chad Irby" wrote:
"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.

They had it on a friggin' *football* game. Sheesh, you couldn't get
more public.

Not to mention a dozen or so episodes of various shows on Discovery
Wings (one was on yesterday, with multiple F-22s on screen at a time).

And on the official F-22 Raptor site, Raptors 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12 and 14
all have very clear photos, and none have strakes.

The strakes are in your head, Tarver.


I'm wondering if maybe he just saw a picture that looked like they had
strakes. I noticed a picture the other day of one taken from the side
and there is a panel towards the rear going up onto the spine a bit
that is has off color paint. It makes it look EXACTLY like one of
those added onto the Hornet.