Claim or extrapolation? I call it tap dancing.
Did not say you made up any statistics. Said you were fast and loose with your interpretations. Looks like you need that reading comprehension as well as basic statistics.
That is funny. Now you need to learn critical thinking skills as well.
If my background does not grant me the latitude to speak about the F-22, then what make you think your non-experience in aviation any more credible? None. No one take your arguments/criticisms seriously when you insist no experience is on the same level as those who do have experience. No one sane in business, engineering, or even the fast food industry will take you seriously. You are like someone who have ridden only bicycles demanding to be as credible as someone who drives race cars talking about designing cars.
Really? Are you willing to put the same conditions on just about 90% of the world's military aircrafts as well if combat is your criteria. You do not 'see' anything other than your own biases.
There are always foundational principles, structures, and sometimes even component commonalities in diverse designs. Most basic of all: They all need lifting surfaces that can exploit aerodynamic forces. But that does not mean you share the same level in credibility with a hydraulics engineer when talking about aerodynamics because even though he does not design the airfoil, he must still have some understanding of pressures and stresses upon a stabilator in order to design his hydraulics. If you have no experience in aviation at all, keep quiet and wisely do not even 'extrapolate' about aerodynamics.
If you have no experience in manufacturing, for example, or particularly in managing efficiency and waste, then you would not understand how statistics can be misinterpreted to mislead the readers. A good example is how the journalist Rachel Maddow misled her audience about maintenance statistics on the F-22, as in how much manpower is required.
Basic information for you, the clueless one...
To tow an aircraft, you need the crew chief, the driver, two wing walkers, one tail walker, and one brake rider...
Naval Aviation Aircraft Handling
At the end of the day,
ALL will be tabulated as necessary 'maintenance' personnel and actions, even though no real maintenance was performed as generally expected by repairing something that is broken or replacing something that is worn out.
F-22 critics usually howled/jeered about X manhours to perform 'maintenance' for each hour of flight without detailing to the readers on what those 'maintenance' hours contains. Six manhours to tow an aircraft is not the same thing as six manhours to change out an ejection seat. The former literally requires six persons to move an aircraft from the flightline to an engine run pad, for example, while the ejection seat removal may involve only two person but roughly 2-3 hrs for each to do his/her share to do it safely since there is literally a rocket in the job. F-22 critics made the maintenance hours to be as if the moment an F-22 touched down, parts starts falling off and the aircraft must be towed into a hangar with a small army of personnel readied to pounce. The reality is much more mundane: Surface integrity. Since radar detection is possible with contact and reflection off a surface, then for a low radar observable body, extraordinary care must be taken to ensure that if any access panel is opened, extra time is used to reduce any odds of damaging the panel's outer surface. That extra time will be tabulated into that final maintenance manhours critics conveniently used.
Did you know that it took six persons just to move an aircraft, from an F-16 to an F-22 to a B-52, from one place to another? Thanks to me, now you do. And now you also have a slightly better understanding of how much peripheral work is involved, the no repairing kind, before the real repair work is done.
Code One Magazine: F-22 Sustainment
Never mind that 100,000 flight hours, which is a damn good milestone, but look at the magazine's title: CodeOne.
In aviation, a 'Code One' is when an aircraft returned from a sortie with literally no 'write-ups'. A 'Code Two' involve minor issues but does not affect flight and combat capability. A 'Code Three' is when an aircraft is grounded until the problem is resolved.
F-15 Eagle Specifications
For the F-22, a surface nick from a dropped tool or uncovered boot that took the aircraft beyond a certain RCS check qualifies as a 'Code Three', even though flight controls, radar, communication, hydraulics, and engines works just fine -- or very much 'Code One' for those items.
Defense.gov: Contracts for Friday, November 19, 2010
Basically, any disruption of surface continuity, from simple removal of a panel to inspect engine oil level to physical damage to the panel itself and replaced, an RVR check must be performed and that will take time and that time will be tabulated into that total manhours figure, even though no real repair work may have been performed.
So between you, who have no aviation experience whatsoever, and me who have nearly 19 yrs in and out of military service, if I debunk that manhours figure while you used it to criticize the aircraft, guess whose argument is the more credible?
