Shouldn't the purchase of the F/A-22s wait until they have been tested?

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
hundreds more are planned.
....
But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
actually works -- hasn't yet begun.

So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
complete?

-HJC

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
m...
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
hundreds more are planned.
...
But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
actually works -- hasn't yet begun.

So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
complete?

Georgia pork.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
om...
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
hundreds more are planned.
...
But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
actually works -- hasn't yet begun.

So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
complete?

Georgia pork

Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
om...
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
hundreds more are planned.
...
But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
actually works -- hasn't yet begun.

So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
complete?

Georgia pork

Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".

USAF was so hot to contract a fighter to Lockheed that they selected a
design that would not even fly.

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

Georgia pork

Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".

Any airframe that Tarver can't make any money off of is, apparently,
evil.

Contrariwise, any airframe that Tarver ever had any involvement in is,
by his definition, perfect.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

Georgia pork

Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".

Any airframe that Tarver can't make any money off of is, apparently,
evil.

The USAF was so hot to contract an a fighter from Lockheed that they
selected a design that would not even fly.

Contrariwise, any airframe that Tarver ever had any involvement in is,
by his definition, perfect.

I am very careful.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Any airframe that Tarver can't make any money off of is, apparently,
evil.

The USAF was so hot to contract an a fighter from Lockheed that they
selected a design that would not even fly.

Funny... I've actually seen an F-22 in the air, as have a whole lot of
other folks. "Would not even fly" has a whole different meaning for
you, eh?

Contrariwise, any airframe that Tarver ever had any involvement in is,
by his definition, perfect.

I am very careful.

Except in your research, your reading comprehension, and your logic...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:10:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:09:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

Georgia pork

Explain how the airforce wanting the aircraft is "pork".

Any airframe that Tarver can't make any money off of is, apparently,
evil.

The USAF was so hot to contract an a fighter from Lockheed that they
selected a design that would not even fly.


For once you have a good point but honestly I think it had more to do
with they knew Lockheed and Northrop could deliver stealth. GD's
didn't appear to be particularly stealthy with that huge vertical tail
and Boeing. . .well, was Boeing. If they'd wanted Pork I'd think
they'd have chosen GD's design and built theirs in Texas. Bush senior
was VP at the time of the down-selecting to two designs. However you
boil it down though why would the USAF be hot to buy from Lockheed
over the tried and proven McDonnell Douglas team?

In article ,
(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

So why not pause production for a few years until the testing is
complete?

Define "complete." For a lot of folks, testing would never *be*
"complete." We've had planes in the inventory for *years* before some
problems showed up. That's the nature of complex systems. Testing them
to a certain point is quite sufficient.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On 22 Feb 2004 14:00:17 -0800,
Henry J. Cobb wrote:
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood021204.html
The Air Force has spent $32 billion on its new F-22 supersonic stealth
fighter. Twenty aircraft have come off the production line and
hundreds more are planned.
...
But rigorous, independent field testing -- to find out if the F-22
actually works -- hasn't yet begun.


To conduct rigorous, independent field testing you need planes to test
and it is a unfortunate part of the arms business that it costs money
to design, build, test and field the things.

Imagine the same conversation has occurred over and over going back to the
invention of the sharp stick.