[brooklin]

It’s the paint and taping the gaps on the flight surfaces. It is a truely great plane when it is flying though. No slurs are intended for the ground crews. They do a great job. It just takes a lot of work to make it really the great plane that it is.

[DoughtyOne]

I was just reading the readiness factor compared to one other craft, the F-15.  Here's what was presented in this article.  [Here]

The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22's predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.

The F-15 has been in service for decades.  It would seem the fleet average would drop over time.  I saw it mentioned in the article that costs for the F-22, had actually gone up, but I'm not sure that's an apples for apples comparison.  The F-22's problems are still being ironed out.  In ten years, the upgrades will have been implemented and the cost of flying each unit should drop.  The F-15 has had all it's problems ironed out for some time.  Isn't it likely the F-22 will have it's ironed out in time?

The F-22 is an aircraft that is considerably better than the F-15 all around.  Isn't it somewhat reasoned to think it would have a higher factor of cost per readiness?  It's a more sophisticated aircraft.

I do see problems.  It sure seems strange that this aircraft would have been kept on the production line, if it's as bad as the WP is trying to make it look like.

It's also intresting to see the WP get a dig in, based on it being drawn up back in the Cold War days.  What doesn't seem to dawn on the WP, is when this level of vehicle would return to flight, if this one is shelved?  Never?  That's about it.  That's the not just small print, but the missing print.