Hmm, noticed two references to the F-22 Raptor yesterday.  The first
equated the aircraft with the state-of-the-art in military aviation.
The second pointed out its delays and cost overruns and was most likely
based on the frequent question as to its necessity in a post Cold War
world.

Like most major military hardware programs around the world, the reality
is probably both characterizations are correct.  A glass whose content
is equal to half its volume is half full AND half empty.

As the F-22 program has progressed, more technical details have started
to show up in the mainstream media.  As a non-engineer, just a taxpayer
interested in military preparedness, I must say I am impressed with the
plane's capabilities and convinced of its necessity.  Most of the
fighters in the USAF inventory are already over 20 years old and a top
notch replacement will be necessary in the next millenium.

Furthermore, the flight restrictions during the recent Kosovo campaign
clearly illustrate the need for more capable military aircraft even
without a superpower as potential adversary.  The current generation of
missiles and aircraft are extremely lethal and easily acquired by
virtually any entity with the cash and connections.  Credit advances in
computing and CAD for this situation; we need to leverage our national
advantage in high technology just to maintain a slight edge.

I recall the criticisms of the M1 Abrams battle tank, Apache helicopter,
and Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the 1980's.  All experienced delays and
cost overruns, yet proved their overwhelming capabilities during the
Gulf War.

I know that Boeing relies on HP3000 systems; does anyone know if
Lockheed-Martin has any?  Perhaps if the F-22 program had some portion
of it reliant on our favorite platform we all could be more comfortable
with its continuation and ultimate success.

"Feeling a little like Wirt after this off-topic discourse",
Robert Joseph
The NPD Group
[log in to unmask]