Wickerman
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2012
- Messages
- 767
- Reaction score
- 0
The problem is you are saying people without technical expertise cannot comment on reliablity issue and the technology
This is what you said.......
I said it could either be cost issues, OR PROBABLY be reliability issues. I never branded the F22 as unreliable.
If you really believe what you just said, should you be shutting up too? As you also commenting on Reliability and technology isse and you have not any expertise....
I am not claiming anything with regards to reliability or technicality. Am just saying that these could PROBABLY BE the reasons. If you read my original post it is very clear. The reliability claim is your extrapolation of my statement. My statement was very balanced.
F-22 have issue so what is the problem? Do you think you can make an aircraft into service without any problem? I don't think you can, This is how an aircraft technology become mature, you find the problem when you have your hour logged and you fix it, Same goes a lot of thing in this world. You cannot error proof something so sophicated like a stealth jet.
Agreed Am not denying that. Am just saying it has issues. What is wrong with that?
I can tell you this, of the 5 aircraft i listed, B-2 and B-1 would have less hour than the F-22 as you train on a F-22 you don't train on a B1/B2. The thing is, you said probably and you bunch it to fact. You said probably mean you are not sure if F-22 have more or less hour than any other aircraft, you said fact to represent something you also think is uncertain, so where is that fact??
Can you give any sources for that?
I also said probably because I dont have exact figures. If you do, then please give me the exact figures. Plus you need to look at your answer to my first post. You compared the F22 (that hasnt flown in actual combat) with B2, B1 etc which actually have been in combat. And compared their crash rates. There is a difference. The B2,B1 if they had longer flying hours than the F22, then that explains why F22 has higher crash rates relative to the flying hours. So if you do have the exact figures for both flying hours and crashes for both types of planes, please do share it. Am not averse to accepting that F22 has the 2nd highest or 3rd highest crash rates or whatever.
You cannot use fact on a adjective (Costly is an adjective) as adjective is unquantifiable. You can say it's a fact the F-22 cost 150 millions (not 200 millions) but you cannot say it's a fact that 150 million is costly, COSTLY IS AN OPINION. As it doesn't, it depend on how people use it, how long people are gonna use it, what the function that provided.
I agree to an extent. Yes cost can be an opinion, but cost is not just an opinion always. It can be considered as a standalone figure, and it can be deemed high. It can also be used as a comparison. . I can compare 2 products providing the same service and compare costs. So I compared the F22 with other air superiority fighters. Agreed the F22 has so many features that other aircraft dont, but the fact that other aircraft serve, while the F22 doesnt casts doubt on the F22. It makes you wonder if it is just overpriced but actually cant deliver. This is a reasonable doubt.
You can say it's costly in your opinion, but you cannot say those are a fact
It is indeed a fact that the F22 is costlier than other fighter jets that serve in a similar role! This is undeniable. And this is indeed fact.
BTW this is an interesting read, or atleast it seems to be. I havent read it, its too late, am too tired. Ill read it tomorrow, nevertheless I'll leave the link here for you:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
According to that the F22 comes out to be the costliest. BTW the F22 might indeed turn out to be cheaper when it comes to variable costs, or operating costs, but please point those figures out to me. So we can actually compare.
Well, if you only count combat experience is forward deployment, then you have to say there are no forward deployment with F-14 as they have no yet been into combat situation. (Well, not the Iranian F-14...) A deployment is a deployment, you need to fly the aircraft doesn;t matter if you are gonna fight other, the fact (THis is fact) is you get more chacne to get damage or shot down in a combat situation only, but does that mean a no-fly zone patrol or airspace patrol not forward deployment? I don't think so.
I didnt get this paragraph of yours. How did F14 get into the discussion?
Personally i don't think F-22 is a good plane as i am a fan of boeing and my brother work for boeing as an engine technican. But you cannot denial the achievement of the F-22 regardless if you know anything in aviation. Military or Otherwise
I havent denied anywhere that the F22 has some amazing tech stuff in it. But the fact that it hasnt impressed anybody that much through its combat performance, makes you wonder if it is just an overpriced plane with spectacular technology, albeit at an immature state. In the light of all the crashes etc., it strengthens that doubt.