aerospace

Please explain why F-22 is "crappy".
Or, more correctly, why in your largely uninformed opinion it's crappy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh just was reading the news here...when I saw your message...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/25/california.crash/index.html

so you were saying what? Oh I see asking my why I in my humble opinion think that F-22 is crappy.

Counterfeit parts:

Maneuverability that of a turtle:

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/winslow-t-wheeler/primer-on-f-35-performanc_b_562621.html>

cost, flying gold toilet at 137$ mil:

<http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/>

oh did I mention my thought of F-22 as crappy isn't just my own, but shares the same view as its own military birthouse leader Mr. Gates?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

After all he is the one who closed the F-22 project.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

T-50 PAK FA you ask?

at 100$ mil, with more maneuverability, stealth (very small signature), true 3-dimensional thrust vectoring, accommodates more fuel than F-22, R-37 missiles will outshoot F-22 or F-35, cooperation with India allows for evolution of plane unlike the halt of F-22 project.

This is not F-22'ski, this is a class of its own.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ALL aircraft types crash at some time or another.
Oh wait, if crash = crappy here's a list.
Tu-22: Tu-142: Su-27: MiG-29: MiG-15: MiG-19: MiG-21: MiG-23: MiG-25: Su-7: Su-22: Su-25: Su-24... Need I go on?

Link please.
And how does that make the F-22 crappy?

I see you manage to turn the phrase "not a world-beater" into "like a turtle".
You'll have to try harder than that.

And?
The newer the aircraft the more expensive it is.

Beside the point.
Was the programme shut down because Gates thought it was "crappy" or for other reasons?

Once more, as usual, you fail to support your personal opinion with any solid facts.

 

Source?

Source?

Source?

Source?

Source?

Source?
The T-50 is unarmed.

 

Yes all planes crash, new or old. However the shiny 135mil F-22 sits inside a hangar in US military bases, not tested by pilots. Meanwhile Russian planes are extensively being used on battlefields and improved every year as a result.

Thus: shiny new costly untested F-22 vs. war-tested Russian planes.

the link for the counterparts of F-22 titanium parts? here it is: http://defense.iwpnewsstand.com/aircraft/aircraft_sample.asp

Wow very "stealthy" F-22 with cracks in its titanium hull sure will improve and lessen its signature.

 

You do realize America is fighting a war?

 

Bullshit.
The F-22 is operational and has been flown many times in squadron service. In fact it's just completed a large multi-national exercise.

More inane stupidity.
The F-22 is newer than any of the Russian aircraft that have seen combat and isn't exported, THAT would be why it hasn't seen combat.

I see you don't bother to actually read, or fail to understand what you do read. That article states substandard titanium PARTS. Nothing about cracks "in the hull" (aircraft, by the way, don't have a "hull") and compromise of stealthiness.

 

and how many times has F-22 been used in this war?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If there is an achievment in military of US its Predator use to kill civilians with some terrorists in Pakistan and Iraq.

 

Yeah.
Maybe the US should go and level Grozny to establish military credibility...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

well military media is good at twisting words in English language. substandard can mean anything really.

 

Quite frequently.

 

And once more you use your own unsubstantiated take on things.
PARTS it said.
Substandard isn't in dispute. But PARTS does not at all imply cracks in the fuselage.
As usual your anti-US bigotry leads you into making stupid assumptions and false claims.