[NYYS]

the f-22 has been being worked on in various iterations since the mid-late 80s, right? of course it's mostly nothing new, 20 years have passed. We didn't even have the internet when the thing was first rolled out.

[Piano Red]

Typhoon

The US is free to waste money however it likes and since it costs me nothing, the US fighter saga has been fun to watch.

Its ok, I know the F-22 scares you.

Likewise, its been equally fun watching all of the US' competitors try to keep up.

Igor Antunov

Overall. The bulava is handled by just one of many Russian development firms. And I'm about as anti-American as piano red.

Its actually closer to 650.

Typhoon

Personally I would'nt consider the airforces F-22 new, some components of the system are worthy of attention but in general the F-22 is sitting on the black line, the navy's UCAS is new.

Whether its new or not is beside the point. The point is that an aircraft of the F-22's caliber has been developed and fielded by the USAF faster than anyone else. Thus demonstrating the significant lead that the US aerospace & technological research industries have when compared to those of other nations.

I have virtually no doubts that the US will also be the first power to field directed energy weapons in an air-to-air combat role before Russia, China, or the Europeans. Likewise with unmanned combat aircraft too.

The US has enjoyed this edge for decades. One only needs to look at the maiden flights and IOCs of many other US aircraft when compared to the nearest counterparts in foreign air forces.

Russia is still trying to catch up to the US with its PAK-FA platform for instance, while who knows what DARPA and Lockheed's Skunkworks Advanced Development Program could be working on.

NY Yankees suck.

the f-22 has been being worked on in various iterations since the mid-late 80s, right? of course it's mostly nothing new, 20 years have passed. We didn't even have the internet when the thing was first rolled out.

The YF-22 design flown in the 80s under the ATF program is not the same as the F-22A design in service today. The former was the concept testbed, the latter is the technological evolution of that testbed.

By no means does it make the technology in the F-22 "old", especially when no one else in the world really has it. You guys don't actually think that the first F-22A that rolled off the assembly line in 1997 is equal to one that was finished in 2008 do you?

[Piano Red]

Thought i'd post this here to debunk that Washington Post article Typhoon posted, from the looks of it the USAF and its backers are firing back hard at all the bureaucratic spin and hit pieces that have been thrown at the program as of late.

Source

F-22 Raptor News
Air Force Association Responds to WP F-22 Article
July 14, 2009 (by Eric L. Palmer) - Below is the Air Force Association response to a recent Washington Post article that was highly critical of the F-22 program.

Two F-22As from the 90th FS fly high above Andersen AFB, Guam on July 20th, 2008. The aircraft are deployed with the 90th EFS to participate in the Jungle Shield exercise and conduct Cope Thaw training.
Just as important; if a supposedly renown paper like the Washington Post gets so much wrong on this topic, what else are they misreporting?

Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It’s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.


Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.

Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.


Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.

Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22’s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system.


Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.


Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years.

Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.


Assertion: The F-22 can only fly an average of 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission.

Facts: Reliability is measured by Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM). One of the F-22 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) is to have an MTBM of 3.0 hours at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. Through 2008, F-22s averaged 2.0 hours MTBM while the fleet has accumulated 50,000 flight hours. The F-22 is on-track to meet or exceed 3.0 hours of MTBM at system maturity, projected to occur in late 2010, and the latest delivered F-22s, known as Lot 6 jets, are exhibiting an MTBM of 3.2 hours.


Assertion: The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy delaminates and loses its strength and finish.

Facts: The F-22 canopy balances multiple requirements: mechanical strength, environmental resistance, optical clarity and other requirements. Initial designs for the canopy did not achieve the full life expectancy of 800 hours. The canopy has been redesigned and currently two companies are producing qualified canopy transparencies that meet full service life durability of 800 hours.


Assertion: The F-22 has significant structural design problems that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 had a series of structural models that were tested throughout its development in a building block manner. Lockheed Martin completed static and fatigue testing in 2005 on two early production representative airframes. The results of those tests required upgrades to the airframe in a few highly stressed locations. Follow up component level testing was completed and structural redesigns were verified and implemented into the production line. For aircraft that were delivered prior to design change implementation, structural retrofit repairs are being implemented by a funded program called the F-22 Structural Retrofit Program. Structural reinforcements are common during the life of all fighters and have occurred, or are occurring, on the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.


Assertion: The F-22 has a significant design flaw in the fuel flow system that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 fuel system has not required redesign. Similar to other aircraft, the systems on the F-22 are continually being enhanced by a reliability and maintainability improvement program. For example, early fuel pumps turned out to not be as reliable as desired and have subsequently been replaced by more reliable pumps.


Assertion: Follow-on operational tests in 2007 raised operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs.

Facts: The F-22 has 11 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The F-22 exceeds 5 KPPs (Radar Cross Section, Supercruise, Acceleration, Flight Radius, and Radar Detection Range). The F-22 meets 4 KPPs (Maneuverability, Payload, Sortie Generation and Interoperability). The remaining 2 KPPs are sustainment metrics (MTBM and C-17 Loads) that are to be evaluated at weapon system maturity -- which is defined as 100,000 total flight hours and is projected to occur in late 2010. These two sustainment metrics are on-track to be met at 100,000 flight hours.


Assertion: The F-22 costs $350M per aircraft.

Facts: The F-22s currently being delivered have a flyaway cost of $142.6M each, which is the cost to build and deliver each aircraft. This number does not include the costs for research and development (that were incurred since 1991), military construction to house the aircraft, or operations and maintenance costs.


Assertion: The F-22 needs $8 billion of improvements in order to operate properly.

Facts: Similar to every other fighter in the U.S. inventory, there is a plan to regularly incorporate upgrades into the F-22. F-22s in their current configuration are able to dominate today’s battlefield and future upgrades are planned to ensure the F-22 remains the world's most dominant fighter. F-22 Increment 3.1, which will begin entering the field in late 2010, adds synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode in the APG-77 radar, and a capability to employ small diameter bomb (SDB). Increment 3.1 is in flight test today at Edwards AFB, CA. Increment 3.2 is being planned and will add AIM-120D and AIM-9X weapons along with additional capabilities.


Assertion: F-22 production uses a shim line and national spreading of suppliers has cut quality, thus the F-22 lacks interchangeable parts.

Fact: The F-22 does not have a shim line. During the earliest stages of production while tooling was undergoing development, there were a few aircraft with slight differences which were subsequently modified. The F-22 supplier base is the best in the industry, as demonstrated by the aircraft’s high quality and operational performance. All operational F-22s today have interchangeable parts.


Assertion: The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Facts: The F-22 was declared operational in 2005, after air dominance was achieved in South West Asian Theater of conflict. Due to the absence of air-to-air or surface-to-air threats in these two theaters, stealthy air dominance assets were not an imperative. 4th generation fighters operate safely and effectively supporting the ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best weapon may be the one that isn’t used but instead deters a conflict before it begins. Just as we have Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that were not used in the current conflicts, we need air superiority capabilities that provide deterrence. The F-22 provides those capabilities for today’s contingencies as well as for future conflict. It is important to remember that the F-15 was operational for 15 years before it was first used in combat by the USAF.

[Typhoon]

Whether its new or not is beside the point.

It is in term of Thunderhawks point that some in the US are being critised for investing in somthing new.

The independant AFA article makes an interesting reply, though many of the counter points rasied fail to challenge the points made in the WP article but rather offer supplimentary information. While the WP article is never directly quoted the AFA article is not a comprehensive rebuttal of the WP article with some big issues like canopy maintainance remaining...so basically:

*The time span for maintainance statistics is different, though maintainance performance has improved between 2008-2009 (an on-going year)
*The aircraft is more expensive to operate than the F-15
*The skin is a problem for maintainance.
*That the skin is vulnerable to rain is unchallenged (that the F-22 is all weather is irrelevant).
*Older F-22 were not meeting MTBF goals and MTBF is essentially 2 hours.
*The F-22 did suffer structural problems (early on) which had to be corrected.
*An element of the fuel system did require replacement at cost.
*The KPP are stated (as in the WP).
*$350 cost is not challenged.
*The $8Billion costs the aircraft will require to keep current is not challenged.
*The allergation of a shim line is challenged (as in the WP).
*The F-22 has never flown in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[NYYS]

The YF-22 design flown in the 80s under the ATF program is not the same as the F-22A design in service today. The former was the concept testbed, the latter is the technological evolution of that testbed.

By no means does it make the technology in the F-22 "old", especially when no one else in the world really has it. You guys don't actually think that the first F-22A that rolled off the assembly line in 1997 is equal to one that was finished in 2008 do you?

No, but my point was that we're not talking about all brand-new technology. Certainly upgraded and worked on over the years, but the basic concept and technology has existed for a long time. My understanding is there are many, many nations that could field a single jet just as advanced as the Raptor today, since none of the technology is unheard of or beyond top-secret or whatever - it's just that no nation could reasonably consider it an affordable project to field a fleet of 5th generation fighters at this point in time, only the United States can employ something this advanced with this kind of technology for a while.


Anyway, on an unrelated note I am looking forward to the first time this thing sees combat. That first story where one or two of these things bags a handful of enemy aircraft from way BVR is going to be sweet.

[Piano Red]

Typhoon

The independant AFA article makes an interesting reply, though many of the counter points rasied fail to challenge the points made in the WP article but rather offer supplimentary information.

Uh...no they don't.

*The time span for maintainance statistics is different, though maintainance performance has improved between 2008-2009 (an on-going year)

-... Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It’s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity....

*The aircraft is more expensive to operate than the F-15

-...Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K....

*The skin is a problem for maintainance.

Read above. The aircraft isn't a fully mature system yet.

RAM coating difficulties have been a problem with all stealth aircraft.

*That the skin is vulnerable to rain is unchallenged (that the F-22 is all weather is irrelevant).

The RAM isn't vulnerable to rain. The WP hit piece just didn't understand what it was talking about.

Rain simply makes the LO features of the composite RAM outer coating perform at less than ideal conditions. The reduced RCS wouldn't even be affected.

*Older F-22 were not meeting MTBF goals and MTBF is essentially 2 hours.

As should be expected with the first types of any mass-produced aircraft.

It takes a good 30-50 airframes or so for the assembly lines to settle into the right rhythm and operational method.

Its exactly why all the first generation F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s aren't used by Air Combat Command. They're flown for training and air show displays, and virtually all of them are hangar queens that require far above normal rates of maintenance time. The same is true for the B-2, which because it never entered mass production, left a fleet of over 20 that are all gigantic hangar queens.

The SR-71? It was even worse. Each one was practically hand built, meaning there were a total of 32 different versions of it by the time it was retired.

The F-22 is no different. You can be certain that those versions referred to in the WP will all be found in the 325th Fighter Wing (Trainers), and the 412th Test Wing.

*The F-22 did suffer structural problems (early on) which had to be corrected.

Perhaps the only bad thing that can be said about the F-22 that I won't dispute as factually untrue or out of context.

It stems primarily because a lot of the Raptor's design is pretty groundbreaking in its use of composite alloys on such a scale for a frontline fighter. Structural characteristics in the F-22 airframe that USAF maintenance crews weren't trained to identify and operate with.

Example:
One of the first YF-22 prototypes was lost after an engine fire because nobody on the ground crew knew how to fight an engine fire in an aircraft made of composites -- drills that worked fine with metallic alloys in the F-15 were defeated by hands on experience learned from working with the Raptor.

As a result the Raptor crews had to literally re-write the operations manual for how to conduct maintenance on the airframe. Leading to a number of other safety precautions that had to be put into place.

*An element of the fuel system did require replacement at cost.

Ties directly into the structural thing.

*$350 cost is not challenged.

Doesn't need to be.

If the original order of F-22s had been made then the cost would be drastically reduced today.

Its simple arithmetic. If someone orders 100 bottles for 1 dollar, and the vendor then makes them. The vendor must inevitably raise the individual price to ten dollars per bottle if the customer decides they only want 10 out of that original order.

Again, just look at the debacle with the B-2 when its original unit order was slashed.

*The $8Billion costs the aircraft will require to keep current is not challenged.

Doesn't need to be.

*The F-22 has never flown in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Ugh.....this bullshit line just needs to stop.

There are better arguments using actual logic (right or wrong) to stop F-22 production, such as questioning America's need for such an overpowered military, and economics.

But the whole "the F-22 has never fired a shot in Iraq or Afghanistan" and variations of that is nothing but a retarded catchphrase being parroted throughout the media. Never mind that the plane first achieved its IOC in December 2005, years after the Taliban and Saddam were overthrown. At least it makes sense for F-22 opponents to say it, because catchphrases sound convincing to people and are thus good for getting your way. But for journalists to repeat it is just stupid and sloppy research.

The F-22 isn't needed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Period.

Until fleets of Su-37s (Ha!) show up over both countries and challenge American air supremacy in those theaters, there never will be a need to have the F-22 there.

NY Yankees suck.

No, but my point was that we're not talking about all brand-new technology. Certainly upgraded and worked on over the years, but the basic concept and technology has existed for a long time. My understanding is there are many, many nations that could field a single jet just as advanced as the Raptor today, since none of the technology is unheard of or beyond top-secret or whatever - it's just that no nation could reasonably consider it an affordable project to field a fleet of 5th generation fighters at this point in time, only the United States can employ something this advanced with this kind of technology for a while.

Oh...ok.

Agreed.

[Typhoon]

I dont know why your taking issue over these points PR since they are factual and the list produced is a summary of major points that can gained from both articles.

Rain simply makes the LO features of the composite RAM outer coating perform at less than ideal conditions. The reduced RCS wouldn't even be affected.

Eh...this does not make sense? The WP article only touches on the issue, the vulnerability is related to how the RAM degrades over time, with precipitation appearing to exacerbate maintainance issues, which considering absorbed moisture, abrasion and potentially causing debonding is entirely understandable. Untreated this may cause serious damage to the aircraft and will certainly effect RCS which is why the skin of the F-22 must be kept in good condition, though precipitation will naturally effect the RCS of the aircraft as it forms a reflective film accoss the aircrafts surface.

The F-22 isn't needed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Period.

Then why a need to build the F-22 in quantity, that the F-22 is unsuitable for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is exactly the reason of why money should be redirected from the Raptor production line into ISR assets and combat support.