“One would get another story from the guys that do, and the guys that have gone against it in initial trial combat operations.
What is sad is that the MSM and the left wing politicians actually pay attention to these agenda driven fools.”
Which part of the story? the maintenance hour per flying hour part? The cost part?
These guys didn’t say the F22 wasn’t a fine aircraft, they basically argued it costs too much, is not presently deployable, and is not capable of missions beyond air superiority that are necessary in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why must they have cockpit time in an F22 to make these points, which are quite relevant?
Because every one of yours and their points are wrong. They (and you) don't have a clue as to the F-22's full suite of capabilities, and they are addressing it as if it were going to fight the wars of the 1970s, the last time Spey was current with anything.
Cost in war is always too much, unless it's your butt on the line. Where did you and the Spey clowns ever get the idea that it's not deployable? It is capable of all missions beyond air superiority, including some of which you can not imagine a fighter doing, and it is not designed for Iraq and Afghanistan, which it can do, but for the wars awaiting us from China and once again, Russia, and their clients.
Your logic (and Spey's) is not new - we heard it in the late 30's when we tried to fight Zeros and Messerschmidts with obsolete P40s, and in the early 50's when our new F86s faced a Mig that could outclimb and outturn it.