quote]Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm attacking statements that you never made? I made a mistake when I said 400 instead of 800. As for the B-1 stealth remark, you very clearly said in your reply "B-1, B-2, and F-117 stealth".

Yes and 'Stealth' can be used interchangeable to mean anything that reduces the RCS of the system in question.

How is that twisting what you said or how is that not something you said? Now please, explain how they're going to take stealth from a B-1 that uses very little ram, and uses primarily SHAPE and transfer that to an F-22?

Exactly; why does the planform not translate well enough to make the F-22 stealthier in more aspects? Why doesn't the F-117 and B-2 RAM not lead to a far better and more easily maintained lowered RCS on the F-22?

And while you're at it, explain how you didn't say it? Here just to make sure, I'll go quote where you said it.

I said what you quoted but true to form you managed to connect the dots without forming any sort of strait line between them.

Originally posted by StellarX
But you're right. My reply about the B-1 stealth had nothing to do with what you said.

No, it does not. As i indicated all the knowledge gained from three different operational stealth ( meaning much reduced RCS ) somehow did not relate to either large cost savings in designing and building the F-22 or in fact to a more durable RAM. How is that so hard to understand?

As for private conversations and T.O. sources the people that maintain the equipment know a little bit more than the GAO does sometimes.

Because the GOA can only know as much as they are told and if the GOA isn't funded very well there is no effective way for them to double check the numbers they are receiving. So yes, the GOA does not have to be the last word on information and that is why i cite defense and intelligence specialist as well as the USAF/Army as well.

The GAO is looking at every aircraft that falls under every maintenance code, whether it's PMC, NMC, or FMC.

The GAO can but draw from the information the air force generates for itself so if your argument is that the USAF have many different standards that can be applied to determine operational capabilities who is kidding who? Is the USAF deliberately destroying the reputation with it's submissions of reports to the GAO while claiming that it's a great aircraft in the press? Why deceive the GAO with lower readiness numbers while trying to paint a great picture to the popular media? You will have to explain to me why the USAF would behave in that way.

Then they take those aircraft and they show the availability rate. A B-1 that is PMCM for a radio antenna doesn't make it non-available, but since it's under the PMC code ON PAPER it isn't available. So the paper sources aren't the be all, end all.

Admittedly not and for anyone who had any doubts you can just inspect the Financial industry at present to see how large institutions can lie to themselves, each other and do it in such complex well that at some point no one really knows who or what to believe. As the USAF wars of recent decades were low intensity affairs it's hard to say just how high USAF operational tempo's can be made ( per type) while retaining the technological advantage gained by properly functioning systems.

They're going by the rule book, and marking an aircraft that's PMCM not available when in reality it might very well be. At one point almost every B-1 was PMCM, but yet they were still flying missions and doing TDYs.

Fine. Any specific reason the B-52's, F-117's , and B-2's are not subjected to the same 'high standards' then?

As for the F-22, it's going to get a little better every year. As they learn new tricks it will go up.

I hope it gets 'better' at a faster rate than the B-1 otherwise it's going to be clogging up hanger space for at least a decade to come.

The B-2 had a horrid MA rate for awhile, but as the crew chiefs learned short cuts, it climbed a little every year. And as they flew aircraft that were PMCM for minor issues, it climbed.

And this is to be expected from professionals who are in fact trying to serve their country to the best of their abilities. I have not attempted to blame ground crews or crew chiefs for very good reason and the sole argument here is that they ( and the American people thus) should not receive weapon systems that were improperly tested or compromised by the implementation of technologies that are simply not mature.

Stellar

[edit on 11-12-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
Exactly; why does the planform not translate well enough to make the F-22 stealthier in more aspects? Why doesn't the F-117 and B-2 RAM not lead to a far better and more easily maintained lowered RCS on the F-22?

This is going to be my last post on this.
The F-117 and B-2 RAM were designed for a different type of mission than the F-22. I said that in another post. The F-22 RAM had to be hardier than the B-2/F-117 because of thermal envelope differences. Supercruising at the speed the F-222 does gets it a bit hotter than subsonic speeds at high altitudes.

The GAO can but draw from the information the air force generates for itself so if your argument is that the USAF have many different standards that can be applied to determine operational capabilities who is kidding who? Is the USAF deliberately destroying the reputation with it's submissions of reports to the GAO while claiming that it's a great aircraft in the press? Why deceive the GAO with lower readiness numbers while trying to paint a great picture to the popular media? You will have to explain to me why the USAF would behave in that way.

They're NOT different standards to determine operational capabilities. They're codes used to show what work needs to be done on them or if they're waiting for parts.

As for "deceiving" anyone, Wing Commanders are humans. In the past a Wing Commander that rated his wing a "2" saying they're not ready for combat has been fired. They don't want to lose their jobs/careers, so they rate them a "1" that they are ready.

Fine. Any specific reason the B-52's, F-117's , and B-2's are not subjected to the same 'high standards' then?

ALL USAF fall under the same standards. I've had B-52s come through that were officially PMCS waiting for some part or another to come in. That part didn't affect the mission they were flying, so they flew it. Officially, the aircraft wasn't available.

I hope it gets 'better' at a faster rate than the B-1 otherwise it's going to be clogging up hanger space for at least a decade to come.

The B-1 is kind of a unique case. After they cancelled it the first time, they changed the design specs for the mission. When it came back they had to make big changes to it that hurt the program. The crew chiefs did wonders with the planes but when you make such radical changes to it like they did with the B-1, you have to work three times harder to get it operational and mature.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
This is going to be my last post on this.
The F-117 and B-2 RAM were designed for a different type of mission than the F-22. I said that in another post. The F-22 RAM had to be hardier than the B-2/F-117 because of thermal envelope differences. Supercruising at the speed the F-222 does gets it a bit hotter than subsonic speeds at high altitudes.

Right, 'your' 'excuse' for the massive cost overruns have been noted.

The GAO can but draw from the information the air force generates for itself so if your argument is that the USAF have many different standards that can be applied to determine operational capabilities who is kidding who? Is the USAF deliberately destroying the reputation with it's submissions of reports to the GAO while claiming that it's a great aircraft in the press?

Well in fact the GAO can be draw from what is submitted to it ( it's manpower has been consistently reduced so it can verify ever less) which may or may not reflect what the USAF knows or believes about it's aircraft and personal. As to your question that is basically my question; why talk a great game in the press but admit so much more of the truth when it submits data to the GAO? Isn't it obvious that they expect that they can fool the public far more often than the GAO?

Why deceive the GAO with lower readiness numbers while trying to paint a great picture to the popular media? You will have to explain to me why the USAF would behave in that way.

Well since the GAO stafff are presumably trained to spot deception is it far fetched to believe that the USAF paints a more accurate picture of itself to the GAO than to the American public?

They're NOT different standards to determine operational capabilities. They're codes used to show what work needs to be done on them or if they're waiting for parts.

I didn't say anything because frankly i just don't know that much about it. Unless you can explain to me why the the USAF will give the US public 'the truth' while lying to the GAO your just avoiding the point i am trying to make.

As for "deceiving" anyone, Wing Commanders are humans. In the past a Wing Commander that rated his wing a "2" saying they're not ready for combat has been fired. They don't want to lose their jobs/careers, so they rate them a "1" that they are ready.

Should i take this as a admission that , as i earlier suggested, the data submitted to the GAO still paints a rosier picture of readiness levels than is known to be the case? Isn't that what i have been suggesting all along?

ALL USAF fall under the same standards. I've had B-52s come through that were officially PMCS waiting for some part or another to come in. That part didn't affect the mission they were flying, so they flew it. Officially, the aircraft wasn't available.

Right and are you suggesting that the data submitted to the GAO or higher up's won't somehow include the positive fact that the plane while not always mentioning the fact that there were long term problems with it? Why can you say that the USAF paints a rosier picture to the GAO , and certainly the US public, but when others try to do the same they are not to be believed?

The B-1 is kind of a unique case. After they cancelled it the first time, they changed the design specs for the mission.

I know they changed the specs and frankly that isn't such a unique case either.

When it came back they had to make big changes to it that hurt the program. The crew chiefs did wonders with the planes but when you make such radical changes to it like they did with the B-1, you have to work three times harder to get it operational and mature.

And i don't often suggest that the low readiness and general operational problems are to do with ground crew who are not up to the task. I am sure that they did a good job but as we could all see that didn't mean that even the significant issues have now been resolved.

Stellar