Goodbye F/A-22!

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

Pavlov made a dog drooling predictable so is your response suppose to
impress me?

Just because what I have always posted about the F-22 has turned out to
have
always been true does not change my tendancy to post it.


Cancelled doesn't always equate to "bad".

While bad does not always lead to cancelled.

Nor does poorly managed
mean the platform in question sucks.

That all depends on how management stacks the cards against the engineers.
I never placed my "feelings" about the F-22, or Lockheed's usenet trolls,
decide my position on the airplane. My judgement is based soley on a risk
assessment of the practices employed by the program and any probabilty of
success.

The pilots who acutally FLY the
F-22 and have flown the F-22 like it better. Are they delusional?

It would be impossible to know if there is any more than politics behind
those claims.

The USAF has fought tooth and nail to get it. Are they not qualified
to determine what they need? Who is more qualified to decide what the
air force needs; a general who has to run the wing and fight the
fight, or a politician who doesn't even know the X-35 was suppose to
be the F-24?

The X-35 seems to be moving along nicely, although it's costs will be higher
due to the lack of technology transfer from the F-22. If the F-22 survives
there is some possible benifit of F-35 to F-22 technology flow in the
future. There is something less than satisfying about an airplane that is
obsolete before it can be delivered, only to find it's flyaway costs at four
times initial expectations.

THAT is a scarey thought. I heard the annoucment.
Sounded like Barney from the Simpsons ". . .so what's it going to be
called? 'Duh. . .the F-35?'"

Why do you dislike the F-35?

Oh yeah, and I still haven't seen any strakes.

I won't be providing you with any such data.

I'll conceed one one point with a qualifier. Our ongoing fued hasn't
ever been WOULD the F-22 be cancelled but SHOULD it.

The F-22 should have been cancelled in 1998. The question of will the
F-22
be cancelled is still open.

That being said,
I still maintain (as does the USAF) that the F-22 is the best of the
available choices. The F-22 as an aircraft that is.

In for a penny, in for a pound ...

I don't see the Pentagon buying that and McCain has reason to be proud of
USN's airplane procurement right now.

Proud that the USN has that dog of a "Super" Hornet?

The availability of a reliable airborn weapons platform is what the Navy
needed.

More like Cheney
should be kicking himself in the ass for shutting down the Tomcat
production line.

The Tomcat's 0.4 hours between pilot initiated maintenance makes Cheney look
like a genius when compared the the Super Bug.

The so-called "Super" Hornet now has to fill the
role of whatver it is it does when it was only intended as an interim
fighter. Seeing how in the end it will likely be used more for
tanking and EW than air combat it should be obvious that it's lacking
in that particular area.

The Hornet is the future of USN EW.

As a *program*
meaning mainly the the way it's being managed, funded, scheduled etc.
it looks to have all the finesse of a monkey trying to **** a
football.

Wasn't there a lune CF-18 pilot aound ram by that name?

I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. First time I heard the saying
I about fell out of my chair but it *does* get the point across :-)

It sounds like something he might be involved in.

I hope for the sake of the pilots who'll have to fight that
we get it but who knows what will happen.

Why? For what?


China. They've already got Flankers with AA-12s. What is an F-15
going to do when it comes up against a Flanker with KS-172s? (Which
China is trying to get from Russia.). It would be like shooting the
proverbial fish in a barrel.

Until Flankers are delivered with electric FCS there is no real need to fear
them past day three. A Hornet avionics equiped F-15 might just be the
ticket, until the X-45 UCAV comes on line.

Cancelled doesn't always equate to "bad".

While bad does not always lead to cancelled.

Nor does poorly managed
mean the platform in question sucks.

That all depends on how management stacks the cards against the engineers.
I never placed my "feelings" about the F-22, or Lockheed's usenet trolls,
decide my position on the airplane. My judgement is based soley on a risk
assessment of the practices employed by the program and any probabilty of
success.

The pilots who acutally FLY the
F-22 and have flown the F-22 like it better. Are they delusional?

It would be impossible to know if there is any more than politics behind
those claims.

The USAF has fought tooth and nail to get it. Are they not qualified
to determine what they need? Who is more qualified to decide what the
air force needs; a general who has to run the wing and fight the
fight, or a politician who doesn't even know the X-35 was suppose to
be the F-24?

The X-35 seems to be moving along nicely, although it's costs will be higher
due to the lack of technology transfer from the F-22. If the F-22 survives
there is some possible benifit of F-35 to F-22 technology flow in the
future. There is something less than satisfying about an airplane that is
obsolete before it can be delivered, only to find it's flyaway costs at four
times initial expectations.

THAT is a scarey thought. I heard the annoucment.
Sounded like Barney from the Simpsons ". . .so what's it going to be
called? 'Duh. . .the F-35?'"

Why do you dislike the F-35?


I don't. I like it but like the F-16 isn't an F-15, the F-35 is no
substitue for the F-22. All I was pointing out is that you have a
person in the decision making chain that doesn't even know the
designation system. If they aren't familiar with something as basic
as that how can their judgement be trusted? My point was that
politicians have enough power and little enough knowledge to be
dangerous to any program no matter how good if someone says something
bad about it. I hope the F-35 can manage to loose the 2000 pounds it
needs to but I'm not holding my breath on it. The latest AvWeek
mentions them discussing the possibility of changing the outer mold
line which would necessitate recalculating the RCS and coming up with
fixes for the inevitable increases in it. Which adds more $$$ which
means more stretch, the inevitable hysteria and threats of cutbacks
etc. etc. etc. In another post I mentioned that anymore, big ticket
items are starting to sound like one cluster f----after another and
the F-35 is starting to deliver on that. We'll see how the DG-21 or
DDX or DD/X or whatver the hell they're calling it this week will do.




Oh yeah, and I still haven't seen any strakes.

I won't be providing you with any such data.



Is anybody surprised?






I'll conceed one one point with a qualifier. Our ongoing fued hasn't
ever been WOULD the F-22 be cancelled but SHOULD it.

The F-22 should have been cancelled in 1998. The question of will the
F-22
be cancelled is still open.

That being said,
I still maintain (as does the USAF) that the F-22 is the best of the
available choices. The F-22 as an aircraft that is.

In for a penny, in for a pound ...

I don't see the Pentagon buying that and McCain has reason to be proud of
USN's airplane procurement right now.

Proud that the USN has that dog of a "Super" Hornet?

The availability of a reliable airborn weapons platform is what the Navy
needed.


That's all they got. Heaven help to poor sap who ever has to dogfight
in the thing.








More like Cheney
should be kicking himself in the ass for shutting down the Tomcat
production line.

The Tomcat's 0.4 hours between pilot initiated maintenance makes Cheney look
like a genius when compared the the Super Bug.

The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.



The so-called "Super" Hornet now has to fill the
role of whatver it is it does when it was only intended as an interim
fighter. Seeing how in the end it will likely be used more for
tanking and EW than air combat it should be obvious that it's lacking
in that particular area.

The Hornet is the future of USN EW.


Yep. Tanking, EW, and dropping JDAMs at short range is about all it's
good for. Don't ask it to enter air combat against any modern,
decently flown adversary.






As a *program*
meaning mainly the the way it's being managed, funded, scheduled etc.
it looks to have all the finesse of a monkey trying to **** a
football.

Wasn't there a lune CF-18 pilot aound ram by that name?

I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. First time I heard the saying
I about fell out of my chair but it *does* get the point across :-)

It sounds like something he might be involved in.

I hope for the sake of the pilots who'll have to fight that
we get it but who knows what will happen.

Why? For what?


China. They've already got Flankers with AA-12s. What is an F-15
going to do when it comes up against a Flanker with KS-172s? (Which
China is trying to get from Russia.). It would be like shooting the
proverbial fish in a barrel.

Until Flankers are delivered with electric FCS there is no real need to fear
them past day three. A Hornet avionics equiped F-15 might just be the
ticket, until the X-45 UCAV comes on line.


The thing is the UCAV isn't going to do air to air. And a Flanker
doesn't need an electric FCS when it's already got the HMS and missile
to go with it and longer ranged AAMs than the Eagle. It outguns it at
both close range and long range and outmanuevers it in the dogfight.
The ONLY thing the Eagles would have going for them is the pilots. Is
canceling the F-22 AND hoping China doesn't increase pilot training a
smart gamble? And long range BVR shots even reduce the qualitry of
pilot you need. If the KS-172 and ramjet R-77 perform as designed the
best pilot in the world isn't going to be able to save his F-15. Then
factor in SA-10s and their ilk and it becomes that much more dangerous
for the Eagle. The whole point of the F-22 is to bring stealth into
the equation. Supercruise is gravy.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...


The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.

Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.

Lets try this again:

Reliability - Availability - Revenue

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:27:14 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.

Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.

"It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as the
Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet."


Which part of that did ya miss? They wouldn't have been simply
sticking new sensors on a D. It would have been essentially all new.
New engines, new avionics, new and redesigned airframe, etc. It would
have incorporated a lot of "lessons learned" from a maintainability
standpoint. Would it have been exaclty as good as a Super Hornet re.
maintianability? Who knows. It would have been a hell of a lot
better than a D's though.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f14_13.html







Lets try this again:

Reliability - Availability - Revenue

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:27:14 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.

Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.

"It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as the
Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet."

The Tomcat is not an electric FCS airplane. What you are suggesting is back
to the future.

Which part of that did ya miss? They wouldn't have been simply
sticking new sensors on a D. It would have been essentially all new.
New engines, new avionics, new and redesigned airframe, etc. It would
have incorporated a lot of "lessons learned" from a maintainability
standpoint. Would it have been exaclty as good as a Super Hornet re.
maintianability? Who knows. It would have been a hell of a lot
better than a D's though.

Why?

US missiles finally worked through a lot of hard work at RPL and later
Phillips to get the propellent mixes right for the first Gulf War. Sensor
and guidance technology has made an additional leap since then. Technology
has changed the nature of war and if the best you can do is apply the F-22
to some war with China, you need to join us in the new millenia. The end of
mannned flight is near.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote...

The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.

Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.

"It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as the
Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet."


Which part of that did ya miss? They wouldn't have been simply
sticking new sensors on a D. It would have been essentially all new.
New engines, new avionics, new and redesigned airframe, etc. It would
have incorporated a lot of "lessons learned" from a maintainability
standpoint. Would it have been exaclty as good as a Super Hornet re.
maintianability? Who knows. It would have been a hell of a lot
better than a D's though.

Tarver can't see through the fog of his prejudices. The Tomcat 21 might well
have been a great airplane, and actually had the range to replace the A-6 in the
Attack role.

However, the bean counters bought the McAir hype, and the A-12 debacle sealed
the fate of Navy TacAir to rely on a sole-source platform to try to do
everything. It might have even worked if "From the Sea" was a real, viable
philosophy.

However, experience in Afghanistan has proven that "From the Sea" is NOT the
appropriate Navy/Marine philosophy for the 21st century. We're barely making do
with what we have (so far). Too bad we can't compare what we could have had...

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:30:35 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:27:14 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.

Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.

"It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as the
Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet."

The Tomcat is not an electric FCS airplane. What you are suggesting is back
to the future.

Which part of that did ya miss? They wouldn't have been simply
sticking new sensors on a D. It would have been essentially all new.
New engines, new avionics, new and redesigned airframe, etc. It would
have incorporated a lot of "lessons learned" from a maintainability
standpoint. Would it have been exaclty as good as a Super Hornet re.
maintianability? Who knows. It would have been a hell of a lot
better than a D's though.

Why?

US missiles finally worked through a lot of hard work at RPL and later
Phillips to get the propellent mixes right for the first Gulf War.

And this has *what* to do with what we've been talking about?



Sensor
and guidance technology has made an additional leap since then. Technology
has changed the nature of war and if the best you can do is apply the F-22
to some war with China, you need to join us in the new millenia.

Would you share with us the technology that makes a non stealth
aircraft safe from double-digit SAMs and advanced fighters? Saying
"bomb them all with UCAVs" won't even come CLOSE to cutting it until
there are hundreds in service if then. And you can take to the bank
that the first time one accidentally drops on a populated area all the
politicians will line up to complain about the need for a man in the
loop. And I'd hardly call a country with hundreds of Flankers and
counting, J-10s in the pipline, defenses equipped with SA-10s and
-12s, and at last count 500 tactical ballistic missiles pointed a
Taiwan (who we've promised to protect) a trivial threat. Of course we
could always pull an Iraq and say "uh, that's too hot for US to touch.
Good luck to ya". Or maybe you could explain how these F-15s we have
are going to last another thirty or forty years without falling apart.

Or better yet, explain how we're going to maintain any fighter
building expertise by continuing to churn out 30 year old designs
(that's thirty years TODAY). The fact that the F-22 and F-35 are
experiencing the problems they are suggests we've already started
losing it. Someone pointed out "but the F-22 and F-35 are much more
complicated that aircraft of yesterday". No doubt they are, but then
again our tools are much better than those we had back in the day. Is
an F-22 really THAT much more difficult to build TODAY than a YF-12A
was in 1960? And I don't mean difficult because we've lost all of our
talent to retirement or because the perishable skills have perished.
I mean based on current state of the art is it as far ahead as the
YF-12A was in it's day?



The end of
mannned flight is near.

I would not be at all surprised if in the end that line of reasoning
looks as premature as saying the dogfight was history back in the day
of the original F-4.

A few questions:

1. How do you do CAS with a UCAV?

2. How do you protect your high value assets like airborne command
posts, tankers, and recon with UCAVs?

3. How do you CAP with UCAVs?

4. If you keep a man in the link how do you keep that link from
getting jammed or just plain going tits up?

5. If you take the man out of the loop how do you IFF?

6. Soldiers are on the ground and the only thing close enough is a
UCAV with no man in the loop. How do you help the troops?


No matter how hard they try they will never be able to duplicate the
flexibility of a human in the cockpit. UCAVs will always stay niche.

But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

I'm inclined to agree. I think there is no real concept of what the
transformed military will look like, only that it will manage and share
information better ... maybe.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
But hey, we're "transformational" don't ya know? I've come to the
conclusion that "transformational" is politic-speak for "we'll do
whatever the hell we want no matter how it short-changes the guy in
the field and we're right".

I'm inclined to agree. I think there is no real concept of what the
transformed military will look like, only that it will manage and share
information better ... maybe.

While I hate the overuse of the word, there is plenty of merit to the
concept, and the increased quality, scope, and distribution of information
as it applies to situational awareness is not only of great future promise,
but is also yielding benefits *now*. Examples of systems in current use
abound, from the USMC's datalinking of its AV-8B's Lightning targeting pod
imagery to ground combat HQ's during OIF to the use of digital C3I systems
in Army maneuver units up through the corps level and down through (at
present) the BTF or BCT levels. I have no doubt whatsoever that we are
better at desseminating information more rapidly today to the military
commanders who have to make decisions at all levels than we were ten years
ago. In 1996 I participated in my first division level Warfighter exercise,
and we were doing everything pretty much the same we had for the last thirty
or fourty years in terms of battle tracking; but by 1999 and 2000, when that
same division performed back-to-back corps level WFX's, we were utilizing
digital command and control packages that really did improve our SA, and
that of our subordinate units. Of course, achieving a more "network centric"
joint force is not the only transformational goal.

In regards to what the final transformed force will "look like"...it won't.
Look like anything, that is. Why? Because transformation is an open-ended
process; it will result in continuous evolution of the forces to face the
emerging and evolving threats. At least that is what DoD says:
(http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/libra...StrategyDoc1.p
df)

Brooks


R / John