www.ditl.org

According to my sources the only thing that can compete with an F-22 in a dogfight is the block 30 F-16, IIRC. The F-22 and F-35 are ground breaking in many things, so it will suffer from growing pains. But due to our economy, we will get to hear about it.

As for the F-4 it ended up being a good weapons platform after numerous updates and could do many things, air to air, air to mud, Reconnaissance, Wild Weasel, etc. But it was do to the caliber of pilots that flew it and the training they received. But as with many things it became outdated. Same thing with F-15 and F-14, ground breaking for its era, but was old technology and an updated aircraft was necessary.

I like the Eurofighter and especially the Rafael, sexy lines and good performance. But again an aircraft's success lies within the skill of its pilot. Remember Yeager in P-51 shot down a Me-262. It was on final approach, but he flew through flak to get to it!

I was under the impression that one of the big improvements with the F-22 was that it didn't need fragile expensive coatings over the skin like the 117 did... that it was the actually material of the skin itself which was stealthy. I'm shocked that the skin seems to have all the same problems that those coatings did.

1.7 hours of flight time on average before a critical failure? 30 hours maintenance for every flight hour? That's incredible. I don't understand how they can possibly keep a force of 180 or so planes viable.

I don't think they can. Not without expending such an insane amount of time and money that it would probably be more effective to not have the planes at all, at least. Honestly, this is pretty shocking.

Personaly I'd always thought the F-22 somewhat unnecessarily complex and over-powered when the US's only enemies for the forseeable future are third-world shitholes. But I'd at least thought it lived up to the hype around it.

Tsukiyumi wrote:The thing that you guys seem to be missing was mentioned in the article: The F-22 is designed to replace the F-15, not the F/A-18. Different roles.

And, the F-15 is assuredly out-of-date.

Then build a new plane, by all means. But build one that frickin' works without breaking down every hour or so.

Would it be possible ot re-work the F-22 and build a sort of knock-off version with all the highly expensive and maintanence-intensive stuff (stealth coating, etc) removed? It would still be more than enough to take on most other countries' aircraft, but would also be far cheaper and more reliable.

Tsukiyumi wrote: Says the European. Nice try, pal.

Curses! The Americans are on to us!
Very well then. You may have defeated the Red Menace, but even you shall fall before the unyielding weight of the Red Tape of the European Union!

Rochey wrote:Then build a new plane, by all means. But build one that frickin' works without breaking down every hour or so.

Would it be possible ot re-work the F-22 and build a sort of knock-off version with all the highly expensive and maintanence-intensive stuff (stealth coating, etc) removed? It would still be more than enough to take on most other countries' aircraft, but would also be far cheaper and more reliable.

I think we should try to solve the problem, honestly. I'm sure it would be cheaper than designing an entirely new plane.

Rochey wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote: Says the European. Nice try, pal.

Curses! The Americans are on to us!
Very well then. You may have defeated the Red Menace, but even you shall fall before the unyielding weight of the Red Tape of the European Union!

Tsukiyumi wrote: I think we should try to solve the problem, honestly. I'm sure it would be cheaper than designing an entirely new plane.

Cheaper to solve them, maintain them, increase production and eventualy replace the entire F-15 complement of the US with stealthy uber-fighters?

Now, I'll be the last to claim any great military knowledge on this board, but I daresay it'd be easier just to design and mass-produce a cheaper yet still good fighter than try and build hundreds of the F-22s. Didn't they originaly want a couple hundred F-22s, and you've still only got less than half that?

I think your best bet would be to just start building a knock-off of one of the modern European fighters.

You might laugh - you don't have to live under the bastards. I like bendy bananas.

They can take our lives, but they shall never take our imperfectly shaped fruit!

Wait - the EU is trying to cultivate straightened bananas?

Anyway, Rochey - I don't know if you realize, but you're more insidious than that - the US is in debt to Ireland to the tune of over $50 billion.

<em>Mikey</em> wrote:Wait - the EU is trying to cultivate straightened bananas?

I've no idea whether it's a true story or just something someone made up, but I do remember hearing about an EU proposal stating something alone the lines of making a regulation so that all bananas must have only a certain degree of curvature.

I think now you'll understand why most Europeans live in total fear of the EU gaining any real political power over their countries.

<em>Mikey</em> wrote:Anyway, Rochey - I don't know if you realize, but you're more insidious than that - the US is in debt to Ireland to the tune of over $50 billion.

Wait, you owe us money? Nice. I'd always figured it the other way around. Of course, economics was never my strong point.

Rochey wrote:Wait, you owe us money? Nice.

Probably due to the century and a half of unpaid taxes between them quitting and you quitting.

Yeah, I'd say the interest on that's mounted up a bit.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I was under the impression that one of the big improvements with the F-22 was that it didn't need fragile expensive coatings over the skin like the 117 did... that it was the actually material of the skin itself which was stealthy. I'm shocked that the skin seems to have all the same problems that those coatings did.

1.7 hours of flight time on average before a critical failure? 30 hours maintenance for every flight hour? That's incredible. I don't understand how they can possibly keep a force of 180 or so planes viable.

That's actually worse then for a helicopter! Hanger queen indeed.

If each plane averages 30 hours of maintenance per flight hour, then at any given moment there should be 30/31 planes down and 1/31 available.

With a total force of something like one hundred and eighty, that means at any given moment there are five or six aircraft which are actually able to take off.

Six. Really?

GrahamKennedy wrote:If each plane averages 30 hours of maintenance per flight hour, then at any given moment there should be 30/31 planes down and 1/31 available.

With a total force of something like one hundred and eighty, that means at any given moment there are five or six aircraft which are actually able to take off.

Six. Really?

Well I imagine that the hours will improve as they work out the kinks, still this is pretty pathetic.

I wonder, is this a ratio that is known for other planes? How much maintenance does an F-15 need per hour of flight, or an F-18, or a Typhoon?