Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Guys,

What do you think about these:

**********
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/ ... cjam/5278/

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/ ... cjam/5279/
**********

I know some parts are exaggerated (like the "recent crash" which is obviously a YF-22, and the "canopy failed to open" which could happen to any other fighter aircraft at any time).

But what about the other claims? Are they really true ???

F-16.net Sponsor

The report is crap. We've reviewed this before. They can't even get terms/definitions correct.

The only thing this 'report' was geared to do was generate 'sensationalized bad press'

Maybe if CNN had reported on how bad the current fleet of 'legacy fighters' is aging and becoming a maintenance nightmare; the F-22 production would have continued?

Maybe LM/USAF should have made the F-22B to take the so-called experts and media for familiarizing flights, the media would have gotten behind the program in a more positive manner.

Think Ms Maddow would have the B@\\$ to step into the back-seat of a Raptor and pull 9G during an simulated A/A mission? (I highly doubt it)

Same reason the current administration won't give speeches with a Raptor as a back-drop!
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2009/12/03/ ... t-of-f-22/

TEG

The Raptor is like the unluckiest fighter in history. It's almost cool nowadays to rip on it. The amount of hippie propoganda surrounding it is absurd, and the fact that our leaders and even the Air Force itself are afraid to be proud of it because of political backwash is just sad. Air Force advertising and even Hollywood movies are glorifying UAV's instead of Raptors. Freaking Top Gun 2 is supposed to be about UAV pilots. Makes me want to tear my hair out. The golden days of the fighter pilot are coming to a close. It's the death of a noble breed, and a real loss to our military. And I think they just might live to regret it.

UAVs!!!! Arrgggghhhh . . . what are we coming to? Next it'll be the 'satellite pilots' . . . you know, those high risk career fields where you put your life on the line every day . . .

Quote:

The amount of hippie propoganda surrounding it is absurd

Agreed, it makes me want to throat punch every single hippie/liberal/socialist I run into. Funny, you put these same types of people in charge of something like a school district (which is typical place to find these types of idiots) and they'll go on a spending frenzy in the name of "education". If they have any say about defense acquisition and budgeting for the institution which guards our way of life, then all they can think about is cutting costs and axing programs.

Quote:

Think Ms Maddow would have the B@\\$ to step into the back-seat of a Raptor and pull 9G during an simulated A/A mission? (I highly doubt it)

That's why she hides behind a desk and a TV camera.

So the F-22 is so bad? Is that why both Russia and China are scrambling to copy it? Give me a break.

lamoey wrote:

So the F-22 is so bad? Is that why both Russia and China are scrambling to copy it? Give me a break.

Funny isn't it! At least it stops this idiotic "stealth is a fake and doesn't work" nonsense that many were spouting for years. I suspect jealousy was their main motivation considering thier favourite pet nations didn't possess such systems and now that they do its gone all quiet on that front.

Well I guess thats my comment for this weeks Rachel Madcow Maddow thread. See you all next week Wink

Well, there would be many comments which is based on politics or just "feeling". I am one them who don't like to see more UAVs and less and less conventional
nice looking better feeling fighters like Viper, Eagle and so on.

But I think what would be discussed here is if

- Raptor requires 34 hours of maintenance for every 2.1 hours of flight?
- large amount of corrosion
- around 40% mission readiness of the fleet
- 1 critical failure for 1.7 hours of flight

are true or not. Because they are the parameters which would effect their efficiency in a need to deploy them when needed.

What is to stop an ultra high performance UCAV from having the same issues? Who is to say the F-35 won’t have those issues? Apparently it has a far harder time meeting the requirements then the YF-22 or YF-23 did.
I doubt any of the issues are connected to the fighter pilot's life support systems. If the F-22A was a UHPUCAV it would still have these issues. That is if there really are that many issues…

Aren’t most of the issues related to stealth? Let’s see what problems Russia, China, and others operating the F-35 have in a few years...

mtrman wrote:

Well, there would be many comments which is based on politics or just "feeling". I am one them who don't like to see more UAVs and less and less conventional
nice looking better feeling fighters like Viper, Eagle and so on.

But I think what would be discussed here is if

- Raptor requires 34 hours of maintenance for every 2.1 hours of flight?
- large amount of corrosion
- around 40% mission readiness of the fleet
- 1 critical failure for 1.7 hours of flight

are true or not. Because they are the parameters which would effect their efficiency in a need to deploy them when needed.

The Raptor doesn't require anywhere near 34hrs of maintenance for 2.1hr of flight.(less than 10.5:1)
There have been corrosion issues, and they are being/have been addressed.
Mission readiness is well over 70 percent(with readiness rates of 85+ % in numerous exercises).
1 critical failure per 1.7hr sounds like BS. I'd need to see some pretty reputable sources for that.

mtrman wrote:

are true or not. Because they are the parameters which would effect their efficiency in a need to deploy them when needed.

This comes from statements and data taken out of context, with no public knowledge of the "norm" for these types of things. The Raptor hasn't yet reached operational "maturity", and suffers from growing pains just like ANY OTHER NEW FIGHTER EVER BUILT. The Eagle and Viper all had similar issues when they were new. They are, however, gettting better and better and are ON TRACK to meet normal operational capabilites at the desired time. As for maintentance time, this is a Ferrari not a Civic. Higher performance INHERENTLY requires more maintenance, especially with stealth. Also, people think fighters are like cars, and work best when they're brand new. In reality, fighters are disassembled and reassembled so much that a year or two "break-in" is really required before the quirks of each jet are worked out and reliability increases. This process is ongoing at Langley with the brand new jets and contributes to lower than optimal mission readiness. As already observed in the more mature jets at Holloman and Elmo, reliability improves significantly with time.

Here's some reality

Clearly, many of you aren't familiar with Rachel Maddow. Politically, she's somewhat to the left of Hugo Chavez, appearing on a left wing network. You've got to keep this in mind when watching the video. They're playing to their base. No, she doesn't know what she's talking about, but she has the highest ratings on her network; still miniscule, but the highest

Most of what she says is wrong or distorted. For example, her comment about trying to keep the F-22 in production for export. There were three countries willing initially to pay cash, two of them without any foreign aid from us, to buy the Raptor. However, Congress passed a law some time ago (Yes, an actual go-to-jail law) that forbids export of the F-22. She should know this, but probably didn't care to look.

Her distortions are legion, but she does accidentally stumble on two legitimate concerns. One is that the Raptor requires significantly more maintenance than promised. Its higher performance does not justify this. Once mature (and the F-22 is a mature system), the F-4's successors, for example, did not require as much maintenance as the "Beast", and the Raptor's stealth was not supposed to add a major maintenance burden. She also inaccurately claims the an F-22 can only communicate with another F-22. This is absolutely not true. What is true, though, is that an F-22 can only engage in two way secure communication with another F-22. For example, should an F-22 be needed to support troops on the ground, the technique will be to use regular in the clear voice. Work is underway to rectify the situation, but in the medium term this will only expand secure two-way to the B-2 and F-35.

The F-22 does have problems to be sure, many inevitable by what happened to its development in the '90s, but Maddow's report is bunk. Unfortunately, a number of people are going to be influenced by what she put out, and since the Official Position is that we don't need any more Raptors, there won't be enough people around to publicly show her up.

OR..... Could it be that the F-22 is actually as good as they say?! This being said, if you were the "Bad guys" would you not got after this program, claws out trying to discredit it??? Only those in power truly know, as well as those who work on them, and they ain't saying squat!! Me... I wouldn't want to be that enemy pilot flying against it thinking that the F-22 is a piece of crap only to find out I'm looking up at my parachute with no plane around me....

aaam wrote:

What is true, though, is that an F-22 can only engage in two way secure communication with another F-22. For example, should an F-22 be needed to support troops on the ground, the technique will be to use regular in the clear voice. Work is underway to rectify the situation, but in the medium term this will only expand secure two-way to the B-2 and F-35.

Actually this isn't true. The F-22 can talk securely with anyone. The only thing that is Raptor to Raptor only is IFDL, the data link.

flyboy22 wrote:

aaam wrote:

What is true, though, is that an F-22 can only engage in two way secure communication with another F-22. For example, should an F-22 be needed to support troops on the ground, the technique will be to use regular in the clear voice. Work is underway to rectify the situation, but in the medium term this will only expand secure two-way to the B-2 and F-35.

Actually this isn't true. The F-22 can talk securely with anyone. The only thing that is Raptor to Raptor only is IFDL, the data link.

My understanding is that secure comms with others at present is only one way. According to multiple reports I've seen, AF has acknowledged that the only way to to talk to tactical forces on the ground is through in the clear voice. I wouldn't mind being wrong, though.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

A total Failure?