Is it true that the F-22 raptor is not that good?

I don't watch YouTube to get my information, but I can tell you from battlefield experience, the F-22 has not seen service in the last 10 years in either Iraq, Afghanistan or even Libya. It's so expensive and so specialized, they don't dare let it out of the country and certainly not to a place where it could be damaged. It doesn't even have regular aviation band radios to speak with aircraft from allied countries. It can only communicate with special US Air Force only radios on US Air Force aircraft. They are flown only by very senior officers and then only to get the minimum amount of flight time to stay current. The maintenance to flight hour ratio is very high and any work done must be performed by very expensive and specialized contractors, not your average Air Force wrench-turner. It may have some cool features, but it will never see combat and will be obsolete before before it needs air in it's tires.

I watched a video on YouTube and it said that it was possible to make wall hangings out of knitting fog.

Sorry, not trying to make fun of you, but for the last and final time...and I do hope you spread the message...YouTube is a repository of opinion. You can never be sure of what is or isn't true. It's not only the mistakes the videos teach to viewers, it's the mistakes viewers also bring to the videos.

The F-22 is not vulnerable to rain. Why would it be? It's an all-weather fighter, and we've had all-weather fighters for decades. Critical failure every 1.7 hours? That's what I would call super-reliable failure calculation, if you could predict a failure down to every 6 minutes. And it's crap. If it had a critical failure that often, it would never have been certified. It very well might, however, require that much maintenance....30 hours seems excessive to me, that's more what I would expect from a helicopter.

The F-22s biggest problems right now are that it is so expensive and so advanced that they don't quite yet know how to implement it in a battlefield scenario with JTAC and unified forces. It doesn't yet have a combat record on which to base statistics or recommendations for improvements, but be assured, it will.

Nope. The J-20 has in basic terms flown some circumstances in prototype variety, and little is favourite approximately its actual overall performance. Concluding that it extremely is extra advantageous to the F-22 or the F-35 is untimely, and probably unsuitable, diagnosis of its share point out that it extremely is probably to be much less agile in dogfight than the F-22. Likewise, the Sukhoi T-50, at present in basic terms 3 prototypes exist, has been flying for variety of two years, and concluding that it extremely is extra acceptable is at suited speculative, on account that maximum each thing approximately it extremely is categorised.

The F22, as with most military contract devices, will never fully live up to the claims put forth by it's manufacturers. On top of that it is a very complex piece of machinery and, therefore, has more systems that can fail and require more maintenance.

Personally, from previous knowledge of military suppliers, I am quite surprised this aircraft only requires 30 hours of service for every hour flown. I would have thought it would be more.

They were canceled because they were $150M per plane, and because the F-22 program was well over 90% complete anyway. Most stealth aircraft are vulnerable to rain as far at their stealth capabilities go. I've seen them fly in person and they are extremely maneuverable. I'm not sure about their reliability but if its anything like any other fighter jet in the history of mankind, it's gonna be a ***** to maintain.

first of all why would you ask that second of all the f-22 is the 2nd greatest plane in the united states air force inventory, right next to the JSF-35 Lightning 2

yawn...

our Gripens when introduced, they were throwing an incident report after every malfunction, even such as burnt lightbulb- just because the manufacturer's liability.

youtube is NOT a source you should trust on such issues, as youtube is nothing but a propaganda channel. you will find zero evidence of russian conscripts being fed dog chow there, while it's full of "powerfull russian war machine" with background ruskie hard & heavy music.

in other words.. youtube shows the world as its contributors WANT it to be, not as it actually is.

Did the You-tube video quote sources, or was it just some highly opinionated propaganda from someone who has an axe to grind against our military?

I suggest you do your own research, because you don't want to hear other people's opinions.

I didn't bother watching a pointless video. But all I can think is seeing as how it has yet to fight anything, I'm guessing the video is all over-opinionated speculation

You're using that idiot Rachel Maddow as a source? No wonder you're confused!