Originally posted by beyondSciFi
The government officially said that the f-22 can only go mach 1.4 without afterburner and mach 1.8 with them. We all knew the government was lying,
now we have proof.
I know I'm nitpicking here, but to say the gov't is lying because the initial performance figures were under-rated is a little bit of a stretch.
The DoD almost always under-rates the performance figures of it's aircraft, especially the non-export versions.
I also do not recall any "official" statement from the USAF saying that the F-22 could "only" supercruise at 1.4M and no more.
I am quite sure any offical statement would have had the typical vagueness we have come to know from "official" DoD types.
On a side note....
ATS can at times provide an entertaining study into people and personality types... I find it interesting that when a statement comes out about
performance saying that the F-22 can supercruise at or around 1.4 Mach - you invariably end up with 3 kinds of ATS'ers:
1.
The Naysayer - the "anything the US does is outclassed by whatever ________ can do!" (
Fill in the blank with your country of
choice)
This type of ATS'er will say that any published US performance figure must be the absolute maximum under the best circumstances and even that is
probably a lie just to try to intimidate any potential opposition or sell more product.
2.
The Realist - this individual realizes that it is standard DoD operating procedure to only estimate performance figures (especially on new
systems) and that the DoD generally keeps these estimates around 5 to 15% below the actual performance potential of the system in question.
3.
The Conspiracist and
The Red, White & Blue Patriot - these two character types will take published performance figures and double or
triple them or make even more outlandish claims. (
for differing reasons, however)
Case in point; a claim that the SR-71 can do Mach 7 or that the B-2 can fly to the moon and back on it's electrogravitic drives.
I guess I tended to rant a little bit here but getting back to the original point, I really don't think anyone actually "lied" concerning the
performance figures of the Raptor, they only gave the typical vague "low-ball" estimate.
[edit on 28-2-2005 by intelgurl]