WT Forums

I have absolutlely no experience testing air craft and think the F-22 is absolutely vital.

LOL, wonder if Mudd will agree.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

Didn't the F-15B have high-bypass turbo fans?
How did it attain supercruise when the F-22's engines are just the opposite?

[quote]
[what do you think of the F-22 program? A needless extravagence?



--------

As the Raptor approaches the 40 billion taxbuck range for R&D. They have come up with a new acronym. MTBAA=mean time between avionics anomly. Gives you a hint they are hurting with their computer coding and computers going tits up far to often inflight.

Just think what half of that 40 billion taxbucks could do. Updated Hog, actual depot level maintenance on Hercs, etc.

Strike Eagle with the big motors is an awesome machine.

Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>When we did some engine testing and mind you this was on a F-15B model. The top speed listed was 2.55+ with it's true actual top speed classified. This plane was able to do a true "supercruise" just as the F-22... <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Mudd,
You probably have the most experience here on directly testing airframes- what do you think of the F-22 program? A needless extravagence? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I was involved in the Raptor Improvement Program. There is really nothing I can entertain you with on that topic.

The Biggest issue I see with defense procurement, is not The technology, but those that develop it. More to ofton its the companies that delay the program and not the services. They all want to implement their uniqness to keep the door open for further income, yet will not share or ask for assistance from the other partners in Project development. In my opinion, This is the Flaw of Getting a design from paper to operational use.

In the 60's we could design a fighter on a napkin and have a foriegn advesary tremble in fear of it flying over their airspace in a short 12 months. Sure the technology was old by todays standards and not as complex, however for that era it was just as much of a challenge then as new programs are for us today. The 60's industrial machine had a concept of "will make it happen, can do attitude", todays industrial machine says "sure we will think about it, but we have ideas of our own...But if ya want us to build your idea, we need more money."

"actual depot level maintenance on Hercs"........hmmmmmm... I have some friends that might disagree that this doesnt exist already.

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

[quote]
"actual depot level maintenance on Hercs"........hmmmmmm... I have some friends that might disagree that this doesnt exist already.

----------

They are parking older Hercs left and right over corrosioin and wing cracking. My major point being, if the bucks were spent on a proper depot level maintenance they would still be flying.

I use to fly Hercs into depot level events. Lake City, Florida being one of them and run by the Force. Funny thing about depots, you never see the contract nor the bucks spent for an overhaul. This applies to Naval overhaul facilities also.

The J model Herc is now in flight test finally at Edwards. It has less than 30% commonality with the rest of the Herc fleet. Some countries consider it a new aircraft.

If they keep the Buffs and other old aircraft flying. Why not the Hercs??

AC-130s are still staying with the basic Herc platform and not upgrading to the J model.

Don't get me wrong that at the wrench turner level they aren't doing their job. It's the Star level short changing a proper overhaul.

Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>They have come up with a new acronym. MTBAA=mean time between avionics anomly. Gives you a hint they are hurting with their computer coding and computers going tits up far to often inflight.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

A-10 Stress recently posted articles that the avionics were improving vastly, before he freakin' erased eeverything.