I know I can say whatever I want. And I am not asking people to not "debunk" my post. But fact is they cant, and they havent. Because I have only made a logical extrapolation. I have not claimed anything technical at all.
The problem is you are saying people without technical expertise cannot comment on reliablity issue and the technology
This is what you said......
Look the thing is there are a few people who really cannot comment on reliability, technology etc of the F22. Those people are:.
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 just saying, everyone have their right to say whatever they want, believe it or not is up to the reader.
That does not mean anything. We are talking about the F22 specifically. What does it matter whether other aircraft have problems or not? The F22 has issues. Thats all am saying. The issues could be technical, logistical, cost factor - anything. But F22s have issues. The fact that others have similar issues do not make the F22 any better. .
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.
How much have the other planes been used (flying hours) vis a vis the F22? The F22 probably has the least number of flying hours compared to others, that actually serve/served in the front lines and in those limited flying hours 5 have crashed. Thats why the F22 has the highest crash rate.
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??
No its a fact, not an opinion.
I am talking about unit cost, and a 200 million dollar jet, in the air superiority class, is the costliest out there as far as I know. Correct me if I am wrong and point me to a costlier airsuperiority fighter jet. Now yes, whether that cost is justified or not is another thing. But if it is indeed justified why hasnt it been pressed into frontline service? Dont answer it yet, I will answer it in reply to your next line..
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.
Look at it this way, if all you need is speed and you have money to spend would you think Ferrari is costly? Compare to average joe like me Ferrari is costly, but this is not a fact as people who can affort it will not think they are costly.
You can say it's costly in your opinion, but you cannot say those are a fact. There are somewhere someplace somepeople do not agree with you and if F-22 can last 60 year, was that less costly than the Whole F-15 program who only lasted 30 years? You just look at the pricetag and tell me it's a fact they are costly, well, you also need to consider other factor but not only just the pricetag. (Factor i listed in bolt)
Unless you talk to EVERYONE in the world and ask them how they feel if the F-22 are costly, and if they all say they are costly, then you can say
IT'S A FACT THE F-22 ARE COSTLY. Again, you cannot use fact to represent something it may not be true.
I am talking about Combat experience. Just like the F16s, the F15s, the F18s. F22s dont have combat experience. Its a fact. Hence they might have been stationed in Turkey or wherever, they may have even escorted a few straying Russian planes near Alaska, but this is not what it was designed for. It was designed for air superiority. Not to intimidate or escort. Hence why I say, it has not been pressed into frontline service. Its not doing what it was designed to do! As simple as that. If at all there was an opportunity to press it into actual service, it was in Libya to establish air superiority, but then they didnt.
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.
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.
