GGTharos Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 So it IS the weather. I see. ;) That's the real problem: the F-22's got fixed, but the Belgian wheather is still lousy ;-) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
topol-m Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 Too much anti-F-22 talk lately. I don`t know if it is some kind of global negative PR conspiracy campaign or there might be some truth in all that barking against that aircraft. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 When something is billed as 'the best', it always gets attacked. The things that are happening with the F-22 are pretty much typical maintenance hiccups/gotchas that all aircraft go through throughout their service lives. Even civillian ones, though you don't hear about -that- 'cause OMGWTFPANIC! Too much anti-F-22 talk lately. I don`t know if it is some kind of global negative PR conspiracy campaign or there might be some truth in all that barking against that aircraft. 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
topol-m Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) "OMGWTFPANIC" :laugh: what a nice word. But very true - exactly what will happen if such info is released in the press. Edit: Another thing - how come such info about defects, damage or flaws even reaches reporters? I thought such info about your most advanced technology be it an aircraft or a super-duper army frying pan should be kept secret. I mean that`s US army after all - these guys shoot down UFOs, kidnap cows from farms for some nasty experiments, one should expect higher level of secrecy from them. :huh: Edited November 18, 2009 by topol-m 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
tflash Posted November 18, 2009 Author Posted November 18, 2009 Yes, somehow the F-22 became the best documented aircraft ever, not bad for an aircraft whose designed ambition involves discretion ... anyway it is fully operational which is an incredible feat given the advanced design and performance. The contract for MADL integration, which will allow it to fully integrate in a networked environment with F-35 and legacy fighters has been awarded, so it keeps getting better while the competition is frankly nowhere. As GG said, the article I quoted (and which is echoed in AFM) is a balanced one that ends stating there is nothing to worry. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 It is 'famous' because opponents who know things are talking about it. They did get their way, and F-22 production is shut down. It wasn't a bad decision in this case, the F-22 has no opposition and the economy is shoddy, the money needs to be used elsewhere. But the F-22 production can be re-activated if desired, and they are getting upgrades as mentioned above - the F-22 isn't a one-off curiosity that's just standing still. A lot of people wish it to fail due to allegiances, lack of understanding, or other things - but it hasn't failed, so far it seems to be quite the star, if what I hear is right. Sure, it has its problems - what fighter doesn't? :D But it's also an opposing fighter's worst enemy ... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Pilotasso Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) Actualy GG when they shutdown the porduction line (wich will still run afor at least a year) the tooling will also be destroyed. It will be hard and expensive to bring the production back online. It is very likely that some redesign would have to be donne accordingly to the new tools. I doubt we will ever see Any more F-22's past 183. However I do believe somewhere down the road there could be an uprated AA dedicated version of F-35 capable of supercruising and enhanced stealth (yes it still wont be no raptor) thanks to the fact its production line will continue open for decades to come. Edited November 19, 2009 by Pilotasso .
Wilde Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I doubt we will ever see Any more F-22's past 283. Typo?!
Lucas_From_Hell Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 No, I guess he meant number of units (thought of year too, but then read it again and got it).
Wilde Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Was already wondering if you maybe meant something like the boardnumber of the last one. :P 1
Lucas_From_Hell Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Ah, got it... Damn, how the hell did I thought of year :doh::doh::doh:?! I guess SAM impact near the cockpit isn't doing much good... About the F-22, I don't like or dislike it. I just think it's... too much, you know? In other words: unneccessary. And f***** expensive, in both building and mantaining. If you guys want stealth, supercruise, good price (for what it offers) and a nice look (for morale boosting, of course :D)? Go Rafale then :music_whistling:. Edited November 19, 2009 by Lucas_From_Hell
GGTharos Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Don't need an aircraft designed to fly backwards ;) If you guys want stealth, supercruise, good price (for what it offers) and a nice look (for morale boosting, of course :D)? Go Rafale then :music_whistling:. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Wilde Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Dare I say? This sounds familiar somehow. :lol: ;) Don't need an aircraft designed to fly backwards ;)
topol-m Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 If you guys want stealth, supercruise, good price (for what it offers) and a nice look (for morale boosting, of course :D)? Go Rafale then :music_whistling:. The rafale is nowhere near to the stealth technology F-22 uses. It may have reduced RCS but it`s not by any means a stealth fighter. Don't need an aircraft designed to fly backwards ;) :huh: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Pilotasso Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) LOL :D You often play at the neverending guessing thread, it doesnt take much to figure this one out. Edited November 19, 2009 by Pilotasso .
Lucas_From_Hell Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 The rafale is nowhere near to the stealth technology F-22 uses. It may have reduced RCS but it`s not by any means a stealth fighter. Yes, I know (actually, I just added that part regarding to the F-22 to confirm my theory: Americans will defend to death their aircraft :D). And then you have the cost x benefit rate. Is the F-22 worth all the money it requires (in both buying and mantaining)? GG, couldn't get the backwards part... Or do you actually think that edgy and square thing beats Dassault's élégant design :music_whistling:? (OK, I'll probably stop here. You guys get pissed off too fast because of the Raptor, so the best I can do is to shut up and watch you discuss as you've been doing since a while... Honestly, I don't think our posts will reactivate the project, so it's rather useless... It's dead, anyway :D) 1
Pilotasso Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 It means basicaly Europeans designed their planes with the horizontal stabilizers at the front. There. Mistery solved. :D .
Lucas_From_Hell Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I feel like Homer Simpson right now... Doh :doh:! Now back to the thread, just a question: how many units are currently equipped with the F-22?
topol-m Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 It means basicaly Europeans designed their planes with the horizontal stabilizers at the front. There. Mistery solved. :D Oh, the stabilizers :doh: I was just going to google it, after all we shall keep the prestige of the never ending contest... ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Yes, I know (actually, I just added that part regarding to the F-22 to confirm my theory: Americans will defend to death their aircraft :D). ... others don't? Looks either in the mirror, or around you. ;) And then you have the cost x benefit rate. Is the F-22 worth all the money it requires (in both buying and mantaining)?Right now, shutting down the production was the right thing to do. While Pilotasso is correct that restarting production might require a lot of money, I have it a fairly good authority that this option remains open ;) GG, couldn't get the backwards part... Or do you actually think that edgy and square thing beats Dassault's élégant design :music_whistling:?It has to do something with a habit of retrograding ... :D (OK, I'll probably stop here. You guys get pissed off too fast because of the Raptor, so the best I can do is to shut up and watch you discuss as you've been doing since a while... Honestly, I don't think our posts will reactivate the project, so it's rather useless... It's dead, anyway :D)You have a pretty big imagination ... but at least no one is calling you retarded ;) (No, the project isn't dead. I know you didn't know nor notice that raptors are constantly receiving upgrades ;) ) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Wilde Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I believe GG was making fun of a guy on another bulletin board. In an argument over how awesome the Rafale is that person explained how the Rafale can fly at such low TAS that if the wind is strong enough it would actually fly backwards. Quite funny to watch, beating any reality show I could think off.
Lucas_From_Hell Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 GG, just let it go. I'm sarcastic all the way, and once in a while I try to trigger some reactions. Yes, I would defend the A-29 (EMB-314) on it's field, for example. Calling it "dead" was just a way to trigger irritated reactions. It's just for fun - doesn't hurt anyone, and you get aware of the limits. Hope I didn't caused any problems. And Wilde, I think this guy mistook Rafale with Fiesler Storch :D
Recommended Posts