Ship no one is really doubting the inteligence of the man or his credentials or war decorations etc etc . Have you seen how many STAR generals are activly lobying for one thing or the other within the DOD ? how many ex star generals are being used by defence companies to promote their products ? How many of them are becoming consultants and strategists for the various consultancy houses and how many of them are independant voices trying to push along their own vision ! . Washington is full of this . When one is pushing an agenda one is blinded by it and no matter how inteligent a man or a woman is everything his mouth utters will be based upon trying to proove himself right . Many learned men have dug their reputations into graves by claiming and clinging to a false belief (Either influenced by monetary considerations (read : JOB) or by others) then trying their every best to prove it.

The USAF on its part has gone in depth to try to proove him wrong and others that still use claims that the USAF clearly refutes . Either dogfighting or BVR , similar or dissimilar training , Strong Agressors with greater numbers etc the F-22 blokes have come up with better kill rates then anything currently with the USAF and done so by MILES , and with little training (how many hours do raptor drivers have on their raptors as opposed to Agressor drivers on their aircrafts?) .

I agree with a lot of what you say.

However, I don’t know who is paying the Colonel. You seem to imply that he has been “bought.” We know that the USAF has a vested interest in getting their billions of appropriations, they seem to be more “bought and paid” for than the good Colonel to me. Their future as an independent force seems to be tied to this product.

FWIW, MHO is that the airplane is far, far superior to anything else flying or soon to fly, at exorbitant cost. I dispute any of his arguments otherwise. However, he does appear to have a point that our primary opponent for the near future are religous extremeists which won’t be defeated by pouring billions and billions into exotic equipment like the F-22. And of course, he has a lot more expertise than I, but isn’t the purpose of boards like this to exchange ideas and information?

I’d take ANYTHING Riccioni says about the F-22 with a truckload of salt.

I think, to be proper, you should refer to him as Col. Riccioni. He was, after all, an actual USAF pilot who achieved high rank and actually affected real policies and purchases.

I wonder how the qualifications of ANY of the posters on here compare to the Colonel’s? I know mine don’t. While I might not agree with every argument the man makes, it would be hard for me to believe that someone with his background is unable to make ANY (your word and caps) compelling argument.

Ceiling: Above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers). Way… above.

Currently, with the ability massive tanker support, the range of the F-22 is quite far.

Two thoughts:
1. Aviation Leak had in an article last year that the airplanes routinely cruise at 62-65,000 feet, so at least that much capability is pretty much public knowledge.
2. Doesn’t the prescence of tankers, even within a few hundred miles, let the enemy know something is up?

I wonder how the E-2D radar performance and processing capabilities compare to the original early 1970’s much larger E-3?

The E-3 has so many more personnel……I’ll bet the ability of the E-2D to gather data will greatly exceed the ability of the onboard personnel to handle it, even with all the computing capability improvements and one driver helping out.

The Aussies tagging along with this purchase would also be consistent with their other recent actions in purchasing Super Hornets and Growlers. They seem to be connected at the hip with the USN….it seems as if they value high connectivity and the way to gain it is buy as much of the same stuff as possible.

With reference to the E-2D and the much maligned SH, you gotta figure at some level (probably a classified level), their electronics are harmonized to work together. Another feather in the cap for the SH.

I believe the E-2D is a quantum leap ahead. With the SH, and the Growler, and the AEGIS ships, and the satellites, and the Virginia SSN’s, and the P-8, the USN should make a formidable team against any potential adversary for some time.

Friend of a friend gave me some ballpark info for DL 777.

777ER, 50/218 seats, 656,000lb MTOW, BOM-JFK, great circle dist. 6800 NM, usually performance (runway allowable) limited. It is a challenge to get all the people and bags on, this route is about the “real” limit of this plane.

777LR, 43/233 seats, 766,000lb MTOW makes the above route with full pax, bags, some cargo and still has 20-30,000lbs of performance margin to spare.

In general, winds, performance (hot/high), and routing issues (politics, suitability of enroute alternates, mountainous terrain/critical terrain, etc.) all greatly reduce the “book” range claims of Boeing and Airbus for their products.

I would be surprised (though pleased) if you get a lot of detailed responses for this thread due to mistaken perception that some of those with real operational experience have that they are revealing some secret competitive data. The reality is the air carriers all know what the others can do with their planes, it is not unlike a western democracy hiding classified aircraft from it’s own citizens (those who paid for it) when the adversary already knows all about said classified aircraft through other means.

PS WRT how come no 777LR operator flies longer routes than SQ and TG with A340-500, I would say the manufacturer is secondary. The reality is this ULR market is very limited, many in the industry question how many pax want to be on an airplane 16-20 hours (counting boarding/de-boarding, taxi times, etc.). It is so limited that Boeing only offered one engine option on the LR, they didn’t think they would see enough frames to recover the certification costs.