Forum: F-22A Raptor

johnwill wrote:

One of the basics of our court system is that the "state" accuses people of crimes or misdemeanors, then has to provide proof to back up the accusation. The jury doesn't tell the prosecutor how to prove the accusation. The accused doesn't have to prove his innocence.

That's where we are in the case of you vs Gordon. You have accused him, now prove it or go away.

Must be nice to be that naive. Laughing

I guess it makes perfect sense to you then that pretty much every study out there says more F-22s are required yet he stubornly insists they aren't needed. Not "we can't afford them". Not needed. Like I said; thank god he's gone in 6 months before he can do anymore damage.

F-16.net Sponsor

You have a superior capability to accuse people of things, call them names, etc. All without basis of FACT. Get a grip man, it's really possible you do not have a lock on all-knowing wisdom. Are you really Karnak? Feel free to disagree with him, me, or whomever, but until you have proof, you have nothing. Criticize his judgment all you want, but your accusation is out of line.

Repeated - I said I disagreed with his decision, but I have no reason to believe it is for any other reason than that is what he believes is best for America. If you have something else, put it out there. Otherwise, don't waste any more bandwidth.

johnwill wrote:

You have a superior capability to accuse people of things, call them names, etc.

I pointed out the article and gave my opinion, you gave your's. If you don't agree with mine that's fine, it's a free country.

johnwill wrote:

Notice I said the accused doesn't HAVE to prove his innocence, but he is allowed to. No one goes to jail solely because he can't prove his innocence. The state cannot just accuse someone and say, "OK, prove your innocent of these charges". The state has to provide evidence to prove the guilt.

All these people getting out of jail would not have been convicted if the technology had been available. Just be glad we have the technology now.

Glad I don't have your sour opinion of our justice system. I'd guess that more guilty people go free than innocent ones go to jail. (OJ for example). That is little comfort to those wrongly convicted, but lf you have any suggestions on how to improve the system, let's hear them.

All of which is totally irrelevant to the Sferrin vs Gordon case.

Kind of splitting hairs with the *doesn't have to* and the *allowed to* arent ya? I realize the prosecution submits what they call evidence. BUT, if you do NOT then come back and PROVE what they say is not right, you will go to jail. Its just that simple. So seems to me is essence you ARE haveing to prove yur innocence by the mere fact you MUST disprove their evidence. And No I have no idead how to improve it. I think it is the best system goin. But that doesnt change the fact you had better be able to prove your innocent or yur going straight to jail is all I was saying.

Although it seems to be gettin more and more ridiculous. When you can order a cup of HOT coffe, then spill it on yurself and then sure the place that sold it to you and win, something is bad wrong with the system. Thirty years ago that nonsense would never even get to court, let alone win!
Beazz

For what it's worth, it does seem to me, as it does to many other observers, that Gordon England does indeed have an ax to grind with the folks over at the Raptor program, who are not necessarily the same folks involved with the F-35. And while yes, they both involve LM, let's not forget one group is led from Marietta, GA (F-22, originally LM) while the other hails from Fort Worth, TX (F-35, originally GD). The GD folks, of whom John Will is one, were always rather sore that LM took over leadership of the ATF program, although it was thanks largely to the GD folks that LM's program was saved and went from an unflyable paper tiger to an actually flyable aircraft (GD's experience with the F-16 in this regard was invaluable, while Lockheed hadn't built an actual fighter in decades, and it showed). So it would in fact seem logical that England would take it easy on the folks from Fort Worth, many of whom were former colleagues, while making life difficult for the folks from Marietta, thanks to whom he was pushed out of a job back when GD's Fort Worth division was sold to LM. And so, while there is no "smoking gun", there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suspect, though not convict, Gordon England of being petty.

And yes, I am one of those who is immensely gratified that England, whom I consider incompetent and personally biased, will soon be out of a job in the public sector.

Obamanite,

All true, and fairly stated. The key word you use is "suspect", while Sferrin accuses. Big difference.

johnwill wrote:

Obamanite,

All true, and fairly stated. The key word you use is "suspect", while Sferrin accuses. Big difference.

I'm willing to listen to your explanation for why he'd dismiss so many reports supporting increased F-22 production, USAF statements to that effect, and so on. It can't be cost as we are all well aware of the USAF being force-fed C-17s and C-130Js. If someone can makes sense of a single civilian telling everybody else they're wrong about the F-22 I'm willing to listen. The fact is he does have motive, and the means, and he certainly DOING his damnedest to get the F-22 program ended. And last I heard a conviction doesn't REQUIRE an admission of guilt. If you want me to think Gordon England doesn't have questionable ethics then make sense of his behavior re. the F-22. Otherwise we can just agree to disagree.

sferrin wrote:

johnwill wrote:

Obamanite,

All true, and fairly stated. The key word you use is "suspect", while Sferrin accuses. Big difference.

I'm willing to listen to your explanation for why he'd dismiss so many reports supporting increased F-22 production, USAF statements to that effect, and so on. It can't be cost as we are all well aware of the USAF being force-fed C-17s and C-130Js. If someone can makes sense of a single civilian telling everybody else they're wrong about the F-22 I'm willing to listen. The fact is he does have motive, and the means, and he certainly DOING his damnedest to get the F-22 program ended. And last I heard a conviction doesn't REQUIRE an admission of guilt. If you want me to think Gordon England doesn't have questionable ethics then make sense of his behavior re. the F-22. Otherwise we can just agree to disagree.

Far be it for me to respond for Mr. Will but the explanation is simple: the more funds assigned to the F-22, the less are available for the F-35. One can also make the case the F-35 is more flexible than the F-22, and that the two are not so vastly apart in AA capability that the F-22 can do things the F-35 can't (it can, but both are so vastly superior to the current and forecast threat that, again, it's like the difference between a Porsche and a Ferrari vs. a Chevette). Moreover, the longer the F-35 remains in LRIP, the more costly it will remain for a longer period of time, initiating a "death spiral" such as that which afflicted the Raptor in the early years. These are all arguments I don't necessarily agree with. Or rather, I agree with them but I don't necessarily think they outweigh arguments in favor of buying more Raptors in the short term, even if it means purchasing fewer F-35s (in particular, when the "other side" begins getting their own, fully LO aircraft, the F-35 will, in fact, be overmatched in AA, while the F-22 will still have sheer aerodynamic performance in its favor). To imagine the U.S. and its allies will have a monopoly on stealth for longer than, say, a decade, is to not have learned anything from history. At some point, when both sides field VLO aircraft, AA engagements will "degrade" almost exclusively to WVR engagements, unless new methods of BVR detection are invented. When that happens, sheer aerodynamic performance will once again reign supreme, and in that score the F-35 appears to be a thoroughly unexceptional performer.

Obamanite wrote:

Far be it for me to respond for Mr. Will but the explanation is simple: the more funds assigned to the F-22, the less are available for the F-35.

That's simplistic at best. The government is forcing the USAF to buy C-17s they don't want (as they did with the C-130Js) so apparently the money is there. The USAF has said they'd cut the number of F-35s purchased to buy more F-22s so the overall cost is no different. The government capped the dollar amount on the F-22 program, LM and the USAF figured out how to reduce cost, so the government came back and capped the NUMBERS. Explain that.

Obamanite, that was a rather interesting and articulate snap-shot analysis of the current F-35 vs F-22 vs England vs USAF drama. Worth the read. And I share your personal relief of England's departure if anything for the need of a less biased executive, making critical, tactical USAF related policy. (as it is publicly perceived).

And sferrin, interesting perspective about the current admin seemingly wishing to out-right cap the numbers as a final solution, vis-a-vis F-22 program. It would appear that there is indeed a political element (or classified military issue) to this policy being stressed, and I would be very interested to have a better handle on it for my own personal analysis and comfort.

Perhaps it will be 12 months until the program's fate is known.

sferrin wrote:

Obamanite wrote:

Far be it for me to respond for Mr. Will but the explanation is simple: the more funds assigned to the F-22, the less are available for the F-35.

That's simplistic at best. The government is forcing the USAF to buy C-17s they don't want (as they did with the C-130Js) so apparently the money is there. The USAF has said they'd cut the number of F-35s purchased to buy more F-22s so the overall cost is no different. The government capped the dollar amount on the F-22 program, LM and the USAF figured out how to reduce cost, so the government came back and capped the NUMBERS. Explain that.

I don't think that's quite accurate. I may be mistaken but I do remember additional C-17s being among the USAF's "unfunded priorities". So Congress is not, in fact, force-feeding the USAF unwanted C-17s. As for the future of the F-22, Congress looks like they will provide enough money in this year's budget either for long-lead funding for another 20 Raptors next year or to shut down the production line and leaving it to the next administration to decide what they want to do. Despite accusations to the contrary, and in contrast to the conventional wisdow, an Obama administration is more likely to continue the Raptor program than would a McCain presidency, as the latter has never been a big fan of the Raptor (nor of the USAF, for that matter, the whole tanker mess to wit). Although the final decission will be up to Congress and if that is so, I would place my bets on an additional 20 Raptors next year, at least.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

A case for more F-22s: Assured Air dominance