Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"gizmo-goddard" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...

Wrong, as usual.

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Get a room, guys!

Poor Chad, so distantly seperated from reality.

So, if the Commanche is dead, can USAF justify pouring more money down the
F-22 rathole?

And neither can I: It is Boscombe Down.
"john macpherson" john.d.macphersonnot wrote in message
...
He has earned the right to be considered credible when speaking ex
cathedra.
Can you spell Bascombe Down TPS? You are arguing with the real deal. Not
wise.
"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will
be
replacing them as soon as they are available.

You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
published information, but providing no evidence to support said
claims.

Thus, you're not credible.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Lights years ahead in terms of...what? Predicted vs actual performance?
Avionics? ...Give us a better picture of the context of the comment.

What test programs have you been involved in?

Having flown both, they are not even close to being the same aircraft. The
35 is already light years ahead of the 22. My X/F35 experience was one of
my most memorable test programs I have been involved in.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Funny how you can't ever seem to find anything to back your opinions
up...

It's like talking to a movie PR person.

"Lockheed Martin Sells One of Many Avionics Subsidiaries."

Tarver reads:

"Lockheed Martin Sells... Avionics Subsidiaries."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

R. David Steele wrote:
Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
to plan for this potential war.

Actually, you're the one who seems out of touch. The Joint Staff
plans for all sorts of wars all the time. But Presidents don't pick
Chairmen of the JCS to plan any particular wars. Indeed, the
Chairman's job is mostly to supervise current ops; the Staff does
long-term planning regardless of who is in charge.

There were several articles in the Washington Post here, when the
GWOT started (just after Sept 11th), on how Gen. Myers was
selected to plan for a possible war with China.

Strange, I cna't find any such articles in their archives. The only
relevant articles I could find with the words Myewrs and China were about
his recent visit, where the rtalked about the improvement of relations
between the US and China.

Please cite a specific article (or even a specific date).

And how he was
out of his element with the GWOT. It is common knowledge, at
here in DC,

That "here in DC" stuff won't play. Whatever was "common knowledge" in your
world certianly wasn't common knowledge in Crystal City (which is where I
was on 9/11).

Not everyone in the world sees appeasement as being fair minded.
Many see those who use appeasement as being weak thus prey.

I said not a word in favor of appeasement. If China were demanding what you
say, yes, I'd agree with your conclusions. But they aren't.

Look, I know I won't convince you, and you certainly won't convince me. So
I'm not going to argue with you. Just promise to come back in a decade when
there hasn't been a war with China.

A war over Taiwean doesn't count, BTW. That is the one area I could easily
see a war breaking out, but it won't be about excluding the US from Asia or
any such nonsense. .

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...

| Did everyone read the last 15 posts by Tarver, Chad and R.
| David about software and programming? LOL, I'm sure it means a lot to
| them but it gives perfect credence to my philosophy that all engineers
| should be locked up in a rubber room at night! Too Funny!!
| Hey guys! When you get that software and programming crap
| worked out,,, let me know so I can go fly the jet ok??? Holy cow!
|
|Perhaps never. The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
|airplane yourself are long gone. The software is always there.
|

In other words it is an UAV with pilot on board?

As are most civilian transports. Software driven electric control systems
are the future, UAV, or fighter.

John,

I hope that was intended for Mr Toppan.

Typo on your part - Boscombe Down / Empire Test School ETPS

(But I was told ages ago spelling and grammar do not count on the Internet
;-) )

Jake


"john macpherson" john.d.macphersonnot wrote in message
...
He has earned the right to be considered credible when speaking ex
cathedra.
Can you spell Bascombe Down TPS? You are arguing with the real deal. Not
wise.
"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will
be
replacing them as soon as they are available.

You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
published information, but providing no evidence to support said
claims.

Thus, you're not credible.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

nafod40,

Then you can appreciate why I rarely post. I read a lot. Once in awhile
some one who will post something so off the wall it gets my dander up and I
speak up. The google search you mentioned is a good example. If you
followed the thread you will see my "credibility" was established very
quickly. I actually chatted with the original poster and knew who he was
refering to and what program the SEAL had been through. Once the dust
settled, he understood why every one was up and arms over the wording he was
a Navy Pilot.

There are some good friends of mine that read this NG and rarely post
anymore for the same reasons. Many who are reading this know me in real
life so as I stated earlier, Joe Smith doesn't give me credibility, I really
dont care and I shouldn't have let it get to me the way it did.

Let's call it a bad day at the office.

Jake

PS - As for insider tidbits, I have never done so. Any comments I make or
have made can be found in the mainstream press and unclassified material
that if you know where to look, you can find it.




"nafod40" wrote in message
...
Jake Donovan wrote:
Ya know,

I just had to comment again. There are quite a few folks who use this
group
know me personally, professionally and by association.

You do not, and are one of the reasons I rarely post here.

I could give a flying **** if I am credible to you or not.

Jake

I googled your name, and found a link to a thread you participated in
arguing over whether an enlisted Seal was actually an aviator or not.
You argued strongly that he wasn't. You also made reference to the large
number of folks that are Seal and aviator posers, and people who wear
devices they did not earn, and the need to "trust but verify" (my words).

You should therefore be able to appreciate any scepticism from this
audience. It comes with the territory. It's the rare CAPT USN
non-retired that participates on this group, and tosses out insider
tidbits.

In article ,
R. David Steele wrote:

|So, if the Commanche is dead, can USAF justify pouring more money down the
|F-22 rathole?

The Comanche was an Army project, different pile of money.

Tarver can't tell the difference between Army and Air Force programs,
which isn't a shock to the rest of us.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

John,

Thank you. You restored my faith that people actually read full posts and
not what they want to read in to it.

As for it being used as an asset to an CVN Deployed Airwing?

Jake

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
Carrier
Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
carrier
but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
Cat
launches.

True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a
tailhook).
I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41
in their latest incarnations.

R / John