aerospace

Discussion in 'Architecture & Engineering' started by PieAreSquared, Feb 1, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,515
    Please explain why F-22 is "crappy".
    Or, more correctly, why in your largely uninformed opinion it's crappy.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    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!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,515
    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.
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,515
    Source?

    Source?

    Source?

    Source?

    Source?

    Source?
    The T-50 is unarmed.
     
  9. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    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.
     
  10. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    You do realize America is fighting a war?
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,515
    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.
     
  12. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    I meant no pilot in the cockpit. Thatway, it can take high G's. Besides intelligent hypersonic missiles are under development (Brahmos?) that can neutralize manned combat planes easily.
     
  13. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    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.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,515
    Yeah.
    Maybe the US should go and level Grozny to establish military credibility...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    well military media is good at twisting words in English language. substandard can mean anything really.
     
  16. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    Quite frequently.
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,515
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page