It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How is that twisting what you said or how is that not something you said? Now please, explain how they're going to take stealth from a B-1 that uses very little ram, and uses primarily SHAPE and transfer that to an F-22?
And while you're at it, explain how you didn't say it? Here just to make sure, I'll go quote where you said it.
Originally posted by StellarX
But you're right. My reply about the B-1 stealth had nothing to do with what you said.
As for private conversations and T.O. sources the people that maintain the equipment know a little bit more than the GAO does sometimes.
The GAO is looking at every aircraft that falls under every maintenance code, whether it's PMC, NMC, or FMC.
Then they take those aircraft and they show the availability rate. A B-1 that is PMCM for a radio antenna doesn't make it non-available, but since it's under the PMC code ON PAPER it isn't available. So the paper sources aren't the be all, end all.
They're going by the rule book, and marking an aircraft that's PMCM not available when in reality it might very well be. At one point almost every B-1 was PMCM, but yet they were still flying missions and doing TDYs.
As for the F-22, it's going to get a little better every year. As they learn new tricks it will go up.
The B-2 had a horrid MA rate for awhile, but as the crew chiefs learned short cuts, it climbed a little every year. And as they flew aircraft that were PMCM for minor issues, it climbed.
Originally posted by StellarX
Exactly; why does the planform not translate well enough to make the F-22 stealthier in more aspects? Why doesn't the F-117 and B-2 RAM not lead to a far better and more easily maintained lowered RCS on the F-22?
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? 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.
Fine. Any specific reason the B-52's, F-117's , and B-2's are not subjected to the same 'high standards' then?
I hope it gets 'better' at a faster rate than the B-1 otherwise it's going to be clogging up hanger space for at least a decade to come.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The B-1 is kind of a unique case. After they cancelled it the first time, they changed the design specs for the mission.
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.