Originally posted by Zaphod58
This is going to be my last post on this.
The F-117 and B-2 RAM were designed for a different type of mission than the F-22. I said that in another post. The F-22 RAM had to be hardier than
the B-2/F-117 because of thermal envelope differences. Supercruising at the speed the F-222 does gets it a bit hotter than subsonic speeds at high
altitudes.
Right, 'your' 'excuse' for the massive cost overruns have been noted.
The GAO can but draw from the information the air force generates for itself so if your argument is that the USAF have many different standards
that can be applied to determine operational capabilities who is kidding who? Is the USAF deliberately destroying the reputation with it's
submissions of reports to the GAO while claiming that it's a great aircraft in the press?
Well in fact the GAO can be draw from what is submitted to it ( it's manpower has been consistently reduced so it can verify ever less) which may or
may not reflect what the USAF knows or believes about it's aircraft and personal. As to your question that is basically my question; why talk a great
game in the press but admit so much more of the truth when it submits data to the GAO? Isn't it obvious that they expect that they can fool the
public far more often than the GAO?
Why deceive the GAO with lower readiness numbers while trying to paint a great picture to the popular media? You will have to explain to me
why the USAF would behave in that way.
Well since the GAO stafff are presumably trained to spot deception is it far fetched to believe that the USAF paints a more accurate picture of itself
to the GAO than to the American public?
They're NOT different standards to determine operational capabilities. They're codes used to show what work needs to be done on them or if
they're waiting for parts.
I didn't say anything because frankly i just don't know that much about it. Unless you can explain to me why the the USAF will give the US public
'the truth' while lying to the GAO your just avoiding the point i am trying to make.
As for "deceiving" anyone, Wing Commanders are humans. In the past a Wing Commander that rated his wing a "2" saying they're not ready
for combat has been fired. They don't want to lose their jobs/careers, so they rate them a "1" that they are ready.
Should i take this as a admission that , as i earlier suggested, the data submitted to the GAO still paints a rosier picture of readiness levels than
is known to be the case? Isn't that what i have been suggesting all along?
ALL USAF fall under the same standards. I've had B-52s come through that were officially PMCS waiting for some part or another to
come in. That part didn't affect the mission they were flying, so they flew it. Officially, the aircraft wasn't available.
Right and are you suggesting that the data submitted to the GAO or higher up's won't somehow include the positive fact that the plane while not
always mentioning the fact that there were long term problems with it? Why can you say that the USAF paints a rosier picture to the GAO , and
certainly the US public, but when others try to do the same they are not to be believed?
The B-1 is kind of a unique case. After they cancelled it the first time, they changed the design specs for the mission.
I know they changed the specs and frankly that isn't such a unique case either.
When it came back they had to make big changes to it that hurt the program. The crew chiefs did wonders with the planes but when you make
such radical changes to it like they did with the B-1, you have to work three times harder to get it operational and mature.
And i don't often suggest that the low readiness and general operational problems are to do with ground crew who are not up to the task. I am sure
that they did a good job but as we could all see that didn't mean that even the significant issues have now been resolved.
Stellar
