Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Col. Everest E. Riccioni....
paul1970    1/10/2006 8:20:54 AM
what are the opinions on this guy's views on F22 and other things?
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
B.Smitty    RE:Col. Everest E. Riccioni....   1/10/2006 8:47:36 AM
His criticism of the Raptor's relatively low fuel fraction are probably justified.
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Col. Everest E. Riccioni....   1/10/2006 9:07:16 AM
I believe the scientific term for him is "wanker." Displacedjim
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Col. Everest E. Riccioni....   1/10/2006 9:19:39 AM
I believe the scientific term for him is "wanker." why?
Quote    Reply

Phaid    RE:Col. Everest E. Riccioni....   1/10/2006 10:25:57 AM
He's a wanker because none of what he says is factually supported. Also he's a wanker because it becomes really, really, really tiresome to have people bring up his drivel on these forums on a monthly basis. If you're really interested in finding out what people's opinions of his ludicrous rantings are on these board, go through the archives. Talking about him here is almost as tired as the endless my instantaneous turn rate is better than yours pissing contests.
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Col. Everest E. Riccioni....   1/10/2006 10:39:26 AM
not seen anything on him before on the boards... been around for less than a year. will look at his stuff with a pinch of salt.
Quote    Reply

Finnish-Sissi    RE:Col. Everest E. Riccioni....   1/10/2006 10:43:56 AM
I think Everest E. Riccioni is more concerned about a drop in number of aircrafts in the US inventory. That's maby the most important conclusion he says.
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Col. Everest E. Riccioni....   1/10/2006 2:22:32 PM
>>>what are the opinions on this guy's views on F22 and other things?<<< ---He is a lobbyist and professional critic. At first I could not believe his reports when I consider his experience. Then I realise he is paid to do that and was also part of the YF-23 program hardly making him objective. But I like his work and passion because it will pressure the Airforce and LM to deliver as advertised to avoid giving him credibility. A lot of his criticism has already been disproven by the F-22. Also he is using a lot of tricks and word games on his target audiance and taking advantage of their lack of knowledge/experience in regard to the current state of the art and concept of operation. You really have to love his comments about fighting at night and use of off board sensors in regard to the capabilities of the "USAF system" vs the platform capability in isolation. There are a lot of hole in his arguement but I am sure he is aware of it. Again his words are targeted at ignorant people.
Quote    Reply

Francois    RE:Col. Everest E. Riccioni....   1/10/2006 8:21:05 PM
I believe that, even he might not be completly funded, he has some good points at criticising the gov policy. Gov tend and want ppl to think that everything is easy and going fast and steady. Ppl like Riccioni are just hitting the antnest, and the military are learning to understand that ppl are not only here to pay the bill.
Quote    Reply

skrip00    RE:Col. Everest E. Riccioni....   1/11/2006 9:46:34 PM
What about what he said involving the comparison between the F-22A and F-104 range?
Quote    Reply

Phaid    RE:Col. Everest E. Riccioni....   1/12/2006 6:58:30 AM
What about what he said involving the comparison between the F-22A and F-104 range? See my post in the "The basic Problem with the F-22" thread regarding released data about the F-22A's range on missions including supercruise. The bottom line is, the F-22A exceeds the range requirements originally specified, including on missions using supercruise. There are other fighter aircraft which can sustain Mach 1.0-1.3 for brief periods without afterburner, but none, including the F-104, that can supercruise at Mach 1.7 for extended periods like the F-22A can. As has been shown over and over again, Riccioni's claims are baseless, and the production F-22A has clearly demonstrated that he is simply factually incorrect.
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT