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

In article ,
fudog50 wrote:

For cryin out loud!
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!

Well, according to Tarver, the F-22 will never fly because the tail will
fall off or something, has big old strakes attached to it, ruining the
stealth, and is running unmodified 20 year old software.

So you can't fly it... ever. At least according to old Splapsy.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
news


|
|Last time I checked the port of San Diego was a Public Benefit
|Corporation

Yes, it is contracted out to operations of the PRC and PRA.

Boeing contracts out work to Chinese companies
that doesnt mean its Chinese owned either.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

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

The FB-22 would replace the Air Force's F-15E and take
over some missions for long-range bombers such as the B-2 and
B-1. The initial design envisioned a plane that could carry 24
Small Diameter Bombs, which weigh only 250 pounds. Using Global
Positioning System guidance, the small bomb would be as lethal as
a 2,000-pound bomb.

No sir , GPS guidance systems are already available for
2000lb bombs

Depends on what that SDB is aimed at. A 250lb rock is just as lethal for a
tank as a 2000lb bomb would be.


Just so but ISTR GPS guidance isnt optimum for a mobile target

8 x 250lb bombs would be (assuming they all hit their targets) more lethal
for an enemy tank company than one 2000lb bomb.


None of which makes a 250lb more accurated than its 2000 lb
brother which was the claim to which I responded.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Boomer" wrote in message
...
The SDB will have an autopilot which will allow it to reach the target
with
more kinetic energy than a standard JDAM flight profile. Combine that with
a
new explosive package and they SAY it will have the same effectiveness as
a
2000lb bomb. The ER (or is it EX) version will have a potential range of
60
miles.



I rather doubt that the KE fraction will be high enough to
offset more than 1000lbs of HE

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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



And they define that "territory" as everything from India to
Australia to Siberia and Japan. The whole of the far East. This
has been China's "domain" for thousands of years. The question
is do you want to be shut out of that area?


Siberia has never been part of China's domain and the only attempted
invasion of Japan happened when China itself was occupied
by the Mongols. The large Russian nuclear arsenal is apt
to make the Chinese think twice before any incursion as
would the diffciulties of maintaining a large army.

They simply couldnt bring large enough numbers to
bear to outweight their technological inferiority, the
logistical support just isnt there

Border clashes with India are scarcely likely to lead to major
territorial claims, India has a large population and
nuclear weapons as well as lacking anything that would make it
worth the trouble

As fro Australasia the Chinese cant even muster enough
naval power to take Taiwan let alone cross those distances.

Japan has historically been far more expansionist than China
It invaded parts of Manchuria, Mongolia, China and most
other far eastern nations withing living memory but note that
Korea and Taiwan were part of the Japanese Empire before
WW2

As I recall the only major territorial claims China has
at present are to Taiwan and the Spratly Islands

Keith

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
news

| | I thought that we had moved beyond ADA?
| |
| |How?
|
| Had we not stopped programming in ADA? C++ or something has
| replaced it? Good lord, ADA is like PL1.
|
|The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

I am not even aware of an university that teaches ADA.

ADA is certainly taught at a number of universities
and is widely used for real time programming not just
by the military.

I
remember when ADA was first talked about. It was joked about as
the new and improved PL1.

Can't C++ do as well?



For secure real time systems no. The strength of ADA is implementing
error detection at an early stage,. The compiler keeps track of
the relationships between every associated entity in the product
right down to the real-time and concurrent facets of the software
design since tasking is built-in to the language.

Real time systems have to use modules with known, bounded
execution times and a scheduler that can restrict dynamic
process creations to guarantee performance and dymnamic
structures such as pointers and arbitrarily long strings need
to be rigidly controlled.

Keith

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

R. David Steele wrote:

I am not a fan of idea of taking an airliner design and making it
a cargo plane.

The 747 had its cockpit placed above the main cabin so they could open
the nose for loading in the cargo variant, i.e., it was designed from
the beginning to carry cargo.

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

| 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.

Bullpoopie. Such planning is handled in the J-3 Operations section of the
Joint Staff, under the direction of a three star. The unified command
responsible for the AO in question (in this case that would have been PACOM)
would also be contributing to the planning process while it updates its own
theater level plans. Firstly, I don't recall the Washington Pravda saying
any such thing; and secondly, since when has that media source been a
reliable source for military-specific information?

And how he was
out of his element with the GWOT. It is common knowledge, at
here in DC, that we do have a war in the making with China.

I live within spitting distance of you and have not picked up on any such
"common knowledge". Stop making stuff up, for gosh sakes.

It
would be nice to avoid that war. But Gen Myers does have that
mission.

As I believe Tom already told you, the JCS staff routinely plans for all
sorts of contingency operations, no matter how likely. We have done that for
eons; hell, we had contingency plans for going to war against the Brits and
canucks long after they were any sort of major threat to the US. Do we have
OPLAN's that are directed at a potential war with the PRC? Of course. That
does not mean that we have a "war in the making" with China.


| China has let it be known, there
| are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
| school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
| east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
| Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
|
|China's policy appears to be primarily focussed on ensuring that no one
else
|interfrres with their own territory.

And they define that "territory" as everything from India to
Australia to Siberia and Japan. The whole of the far East. This
has been China's "domain" for thousands of years. The question
is do you want to be shut out of that area?

While China no doubt would love to be the big dog in that lot, it knows that
right now, and in the immediate future, it can't be.


| Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
| 5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
| throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
| San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
| North Africa.
|
|Oh, good grief. China has commercial intereasts worldwide, yes. But
|there's no evidence that running port operations in Panama (NOT running
the
|Canal proper, BTW) translates into any sort of aggressive intent.
INdeed,
|the company that runs those ops is a Hong Kong-based multinational, not
|controlled by the Chinese government as the fearmongers would have you
|believe.

Since much of "business" in China is owned by the People's
Republican Army (PRA), business is seen as an arm of the
military.

The "Peoples Republican Army"? You can't even identify the largest freakin'
army in the worl properly, and you want us to believe your rants about them
going to war with us in the near term??! Try "Liberation" in place of
"Republican".


Whether we like it or not, things change. China has been looking
for a chance to be player.

OK.

With the USSR gone, and Russia weak,
they have their chance.

Not really. They have to have the tools and expertise to back such a
strategy up, and they don't have them now, and won't have them anytime in
this decade. How many AWACS do they have? None really, just a few somewhat
capable AEW platforms. How well have they managed to integrate their
operations between components? Their 1979 Vietnam fiasco showed us they had
virtually NO capability there, and while they have undoubtedly improved
since then, they are not in any shpe to confront the US. How about their
naval capability versus the USN? Laughable at present.

Most of us have no problem if they play
fair and equal. But if they treat business much the way the
mafia does then we will have to learn to be equally aggressive.

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

What the hell does your rant have to do with "appeasement"? Recognizing the
true level of the current threat does not equal "appeasement". Does China
want to be able to confront the US? Yes. Can they do it now? No. By 2010?
No. By 2020? Maybe, but only if the US completely scotches its military
development.

Brooks

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.