I was asked to address these points so here we go...
Its a beautiful piece of military art, but... it was never used in actual combat,...
Dummass criticism #1. The vast majority of high end weapons out there have never seen combat but that never stopped their fanboys from making claims about them. Some of the Chinese claims made for the J-20 bordered on defying the laws of physics.
and not because US didnt want to. Its too expensive to lose and with massive shortcomings:
1. F-22 cannot communicate with other planes, at all. I dont know what brilliant US specialists were thinking, but thats just <***>.
Dummass criticism #2. This was debunked a long time ago and recently explained again why...
DailyTech - Lockheed's F-22 Raptor Communications Too Limited, Capabilities Too Advanced for Libya Conflict
The F-22 also has a very limited capability to communicate with other coalition aircraft operating in Libya by design. Radio emission from data links that would enable the Raptor to communicate with other fighters would also potentially give the position of the stealthy F-22 away.
Analyst Loren Thompson from the Lexington Institute said, "The designers of the F-22 had a dilemma, which is whether to have the connectivity that would allow versatility or to have the radio silence that would facilitate stealthiest. What they opted for was a limited set of tactical data links."
In other words, this dummass criticism is based upon ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
An aircraft is an exercise in compromises between competing interests. For the F-22's limited communication issue, this is not so much about technical flaws or designers' stupidity but about the overriding need to maintain low EM emission of any type that the designers were compelled to subordinate communication flexibility to low EM signature.
This mean two possibilities:
- That the F-22's communication system could be 'stepped down' to allow it to communicate with older aircrafts at the expense of increased EM signature.
- That the older aircrafts' communication technology could be 'stepped up' to allow all aircrafts to communicate with each other over a much more secured system without compromising their positions, be they 'stealth' or 'non-stealth', after all, radio communication emissions are much more powerful than any radar reflections, singular or combined, coming off an aircraft.
Given the pace of upgrades of sub-systems the US continually perform on 'non-stealth' aircrafts, it would make eminent sense to 'step up' all older aircrafts to assure COMSEC advantage in combat. When Iranian and Chinese aircrafts start flaming down to Earth with their crews clueless on where the attackers are coming from, we will have the last laugh.
2. Air Force reported that the F-22 requires more than 30 hours of maintenance for every flight hour, with the total cost per flight hour of $44,000.
Dummass criticism #3. This is from ignorance of aviation maintenance and a gross misunderstanding of statistics.
For example...
Naval Aviation Aircraft Handling
1. Move Director
2. Brake Rider
3. Chock Walker
4. Safety Observer (Wing-Walker/Tail-Walker)
5. Tractor Driver
The above practice on how to ground move an aircraft from one location to another, be it on the flight line or to inside a hangar, is adopted by civilian aviation as well. In tabulating total manhours for maintenance,
ALL of the above personnel would be included in a task even though none of them will have anything directly to do with the task, such as changing out a FLCC. For the F-22, since surface integrity is crucial for its low radar observability, extra care will be used in moving the aircraft or removing access panels to reduce surface damages. Once an FLCC or a hydraulic actuator is exposed, neither will be more difficult to change out than their 'non-stealth' brothers. The extra time required to exercise care in maintaining surface integrity will be added to the total manhours, giving a false impression that the F-22 is maintenance intensive in all areas.
3. F-22 suffers from 1 critical error every 1.7 hours of flight on average. Technology malfunctions so much so, that is just weird, its not North Korea we are talking about.
Dummass criticism #4. No credible sources regarding these 'critical error'.
4. Plain high-tech cover has... vulnerability to rain.
Dummass criticism #5. If the F-22 is sooooooooo vulnerable to rain, then why is it assigned to Alaska and Hawaii? Is Rachel Maddow an expert in radar absorber technology? How gullible are you people? Further, if rain does compromise 'stealth' a little, then the same rain that compromise 'stealth' also will make it equally difficult to find the 'stealth' aircraft as if there were no rain in the first place. It has to do with how centimetric and millimetric radar signals behave when encounter hydrometeors whose diameter are approximate to their carrier freq. Of course, Rachel Maddow would be too busy trying to look intelligent on TV instead of actually researching relevant materials and consulting relevant experts.
5. Cover is so light, that even small guns can penetrate it, so it cant fly low either.
Dummass criticism #6. Same for majority of fighters out there. Not even the A-10 is immune to small arms fire.
6. F-22 has the highest accident rate of any USAF fighter aircraft in service.
Dummass criticism #7. No credible source for this claim.
...Do I need to remind how much each F-22 costs? Around 350 mln. At least they look good in Holywood movies, that should count for something
Losing a war is much more expensive. But then again, covering up the losses racked up because of the F-22 is the job of the Ministry of Propaganda.
