exactly mean_bird i like this part>>but then again we are told some of its technology is secret so how can we judge what we do not know?
And my conclusion is same as your we do not know the inside out of F-22 exactly so its too early to called this bird a failure by the writer..the F117 operation history if you read had initially gone under troubles after it was reveled officially by US that F117A a stealth exists..on first mission it missed target because of wrong coordinates and media labeled it as first mission failure..US has come long way down from 1978 and on till on working with stealth and its avionics and vise versa..and also thankyou for the useful link u provided.
Luftwaffe,
You and I do not know for sure exactly what technologies go into the F-22 but the writer of that article is the father of the F-16 and has contributed on many aircraft designs. Certainly, we cannot rubbish his arguments because he certainly knows much better than us.
I don't think the writer is saying F-22 is a useless plane but is saying there could have been better alternatives.
Firstly, is the cost-benefit analysis. When F-22 was started, it envisaged 648 plane to bring the cost down and the decision was based on that. But with reduction in orders, the price has shot up. Would DoD have decided in favor of this fighter if it had known the cost would be $350m a copy?
Then he says that less effort was put into considering combat effective agility and sortie rates. For example we know that the stealth is highly maintenance extensive so every few sorties the plane would be back to hanger or risk loosing its stealth which is its primary plus-point.
His third major point is that it has not been sufficiently tested. Like against enemy radars and way too much wishful thinking and over-confidence goes into BVR. What's interesting (and new to me at least) is that ordinary radars have been routinely detecting all of US stealth fighters. Well, we know for sure serbia brought down the F-117.
He also argues that all exercises conducted have rules that "cripple" the enemy and do not represent a realistic scenario of what an enemy can and will do, especially an enemy with a decent airforce where the F-22 will be used ( you dont need it in Iraq or A-tan).
We may assume that like most writers, he too may have some bias since he and his colleagues (Boyd) brought the E-M idea and that changing philosophies is not that easy. But he certainly makes some sense here.
that and the politicians on paks side......But hey the casualties were low right? or did you lose aircraft? 
