John Young DWG transcript: EPX, CSAR-X, F-22" maintenance trends, failure on m

[Guest VolkVoland]

John Young is the undersecretary for acquisition technology and logistics, reporting to Secretary of Defense Bob Gates.

 

Last week, Young appeared at the Defense Writer's Group, a kind of Breakfast Club for journalists that periodically meets with key defense officials. The reporters ask questions between bites on ridiculously over-priced eggs and bacon, while the poor guest tries to get through the event without getting fired (not always successfully).

 

The DWG has posted the transcript for Young's appearance ( read it here), and I've excerpted the most relevant questions and answers for this blog.

 

1 On making the army and navy share a common aircraft fleet for electronic spying

 

2 Why does the US Air Force need a dedicated combat search and rescue fleet?

 

3 On F-22: concerns about "troubling" maintenance trends, failure on most KPPs, billion and billions for new upgrades

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/john-young-dwg-transcript-epx.html

Edited February 17, 2009 by VolkVoland
quotes

[Guest VolkVoland]

A good read, it really lays it all out, not the hype but the inner workings of the programs.

[tflash]

I agree that it is a good read. On the F-22, wow, that's heavy. Quite a different perspective than the peptalk we tend to hear.

[tflash]

And for another viewpoint: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F22s021709.xml

[Guest VolkVoland]

It’s a tough situation. I’ll be straight forward, as much as I admire high-tech incorporated into F-22, I have no love for the plane. To me it’s not a weapon of war, but a very expensive achievement benchmark.

 

Its systems are based and designed on a closed architecture, its price is astronomical and numbers are low.

 

It is a stunning achievement, but IMHO it’s simply not practical as a weapon. It’s like a beautifully forged, detailed and engraved sword.

 

Samurai swords are rated by the number of bodies they can cut through, and the best ones said to cut through five bodies, but they require special care and are so rare that they’re spoken of as legends, all while wars were won by pikes, arrows, muskets, etc.

 

When it comes to Air Power I admire the Navy, not USAF.

 

Tomcats and Hornets for me, not Eagles and Falcons.

 

IMHO if a plane is not strong enough to land on a deck it’s not battle worthy.

 

True, Tomcat was a hangar queen, but it also delivered and then some.

 

I don’t know, on one side astronomical sums of taxpayers money were already spent, but on the other the ever increasing operation/maintenance cost is like a open wound that’s bleeding the budget dry.

 

It sure is a pickle.

[Guest VolkVoland]

Well, here's the answer, just as i thought.

 

"Air Force Says Fewer F-22s Needed"

 

The U.S. Air Force is scaling back its request for its most advanced and costly fighter jets, as the service seeks to shift its emphasis from waging large-scale wars to combating insurgencies in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

The move reflects Defense Secretary Robert Gates's efforts to reorient the military toward the smaller, drawn-out conflicts that the armed forces expect to be fighting in the future.

 

Congress has mandated that the Obama administration decide by March 1 whether to increase its order of F-22 Raptors beyond the planned purchase of 183 planes. Lockheed Martin Corp. and its supporters say tens of thousands of jobs will be lost if the government doesn't order more copies of the $143 million fighter. Boeing Co. is a major subcontractor on the program.

 

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters Tuesday that the target will be "less than 381" jets, which Air Force officials stubbornly clung to in recent years despite opposition from Mr. Gates. Air Force officials recently told lawmakers that they would like an additional 60 or so F-22s, for a total of between 240 and 250 new airplanes.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123490303268502611.html?mod=rss_US_News

[topol-m]

Pretty nice. It was about time to see its too expensive for the performance and capabilities that it has. Like B-2 its production plans are going to be veeery different than initially planed numbers. :thumbup:

[nscode]

Slight OT:

There was a good article in IEEE Spectrum about a research on why so many US DOD financed projects fall behind schedule and go overbudget, and also gave a good anatomy of a military project.

To my knowledge the article is not public domain, but those who have access to IEEE archives should look it up. I'll try and find if some of their sources are public.

[CE_Mikemonster]

I don't know the correct financial terminology for it, but is the overall Armed Forces budget in the US decided BEFORE allocation of funds, or is it adaptable to the various projects?

 

For instance, was the Defence Budget expanded prior to the F-22 project, or did the F-22 project 'eat up' funds that otherwise would have been available to other things?

[RedTiger]

 

IMHO if a plane is not strong enough to land on a deck it’s not battle worthy.

 

I hope you're serious about this one. You could make an Eagle, Falcon, or any fighter carrier-ready and that doesn't necessarily mean jack about its ability to achieve air superiority or drop bombs. Care to explain what exactly makes a USN Hornet kill bandits and blow up stuff better than the non-carrier export versions? What about the A-10 and Su-25? So those aren't battle worthy? How about if we develop the F-22N, carrier-ready and all...will it all of sudden be an implement of war in your eyes?

 

Su-27S = POS

Su-27K = THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!!!!!

 

amirite? :P

 

EDIT: Interesting article, BTW. ;)

Edited February 19, 2009 by RedTiger

[RedTiger]

And this is why I find it interesting:

 

I agree that it is a good read. On the F-22, wow, that's heavy. Quite a different perspective than the peptalk we tend to hear.

 

The "peptalk" you hear, to my recollection, never talks about mission readiness or cost. Cost, for one thing, everyone admits is very high. Ask someone who has nothing but nice things to say about the Raptor, like maybe....hmm...GGTharos? :D Ask him if he thinks Raptors are cheap. Its obvious that they are not.

 

Mission readiness is another thing. If someone wants to step up to the plate here and defend that, I'd like to hear it.

 

 

This is from tflash's "other perspective":

 

Schwartz defended the F-22’s mission capability (MC) rates. Pentagon acquisition chief John Young criticized the low MC rates last fall, noting that Raptors are ready for a mission around 62 percent of the time, if its low-observable requirements are met (DAILY, Nov. 20). Reliability goes up above 70 percent for missions with lower stealth demands.

 

This is interesting because this was along the lines of my first thoughts. Not exactly, but similar. My thought was that lower mission readiness would probably be expected. It is a very sophisticated piece of hardware that isn't even close to being considered the "backbone" of the USAF fighter force. It might be employed very selectively.

 

I also considered the fact that NOTHING, no weapon system is perfect in all areas. Weaponry often sacrifices something that the developer considers a secondary or tertiary concern for benefits elsewhere. The Abrams tank's turbine engine is a gas guzzler, but you don't see anyone mention that. The performance comes at a cost. If you consider the country that uses it and its originally defensive role in Europe, it becomes more clear why that decision might have been made. Another one off the top of my head is the RD-33 engine sacrificing engine life for power in full-on "war mode". Perhaps the F-22 sacrifices mission readiness for its capability as a force multiplier and vanguard for the legacy fighters? Once the door is kicked in and stealth isn't as necessary (you can fly around with tanks and external weapons), it is interesting to consider what the mission readiness would be.

Edited February 20, 2009 by RedTiger

[Guest VolkVoland]

I hope you're serious about this one. You could make an Eagle, Falcon, or any fighter carrier-ready and that doesn't necessarily mean jack about its ability to achieve air superiority or drop bombs.

 

Neither the Eagle nor the Falcon can take the punishment of a carrier landing, their landing gear are weak. Beefing them up is not an option because the mounts can’t take it, and beffing up the mounts is already a structural issue.

 

 

Care to explain what exactly makes a USN Hornet kill bandits and blow up stuff better than the non-carrier export versions?

 

Well usually export models are not as capable, but I don’t really understand the question in the first place. Does F-18 HAS to operate from a deck in order to be an F-18? Or does it become something else if it rolls on a runway?

 

What about the A-10 and Su-25? So those aren't battle worthy?

 

We're talking fighter here.

 

How about if we develop the F-22N, carrier-ready and all...will it all of sudden be an implement of war in your eyes?

 

F-22 was not designed to operate form a carrier, therefore it can't do so by simply slapping a hook and a N to its designation.

 

Cheers!

[nscode]

I hope you're serious about this one. You could make an Eagle, Falcon, or any fighter carrier-ready and that doesn't necessarily mean jack about its ability to achieve air superiority or drop bombs. Care to explain what exactly makes a USN Hornet kill bandits and blow up stuff better than the non-carrier export versions? What about the A-10 and Su-25? So those aren't battle worthy? How about if we develop the F-22N, carrier-ready and all...will it all of sudden be an implement of war in your eyes?

 

 

Yup. Carrier ready aircraft actually have structure reinforcements that help landing and takeoff. While their not landing or taking of, that is pure dead weight.

[GGTharos]

Neither of them need to have dead weight onboard that reduces their TWR without reason.

 

You could land either of them on a carrier, you just couldn't do it multiple times without inducing maintenance issues.

 

Neither the Eagle nor the Falcon can take the punishment of a carrier landing, their landing gear are weak. Beefing them up is not an option because the mounts can’t take it, and beffing up the mounts is already a structural issue.

[Guest VolkVoland]

Neither of them need to have dead weight onboard that reduces their TWR without reason.

 

You could land either of them on a carrier, you just couldn't do it multiple times without inducing maintenance issues.

 

I have no idea how that’s possible. There was a proposal to navalize F-16 but it never materialized do to a requirement for a complete airframe re-design, and the fact that a single engine is simply not an option for naval use. Same with F-15 minus the engines, which would also have to be redesigned.

 

I wonder how extensively MiG-29/SU-27 had to be re-designed to navalize them.

[GGTharos]

You don't need to wonder. ;) Say hello to the Su-33 + 2 useless metric tonnes of crap required to make it carrier capable.

 

And yes, it's possible - the airframe will simply not last for a whole lot of landings. Any carrier landing will effectively be a 'hard landing' for a non-navalized aircraft and you don't get to do those a whole lot. Launching after you land ... uhh ... prolly not ;)

[Vekkinho]

I have no idea how that’s possible. There was a proposal to navalize F-16 but it never materialized do to a requirement for a complete airframe re-design, and the fact that a single engine is simply not an option for naval use. Same with F-15 minus the engines, which would also have to be redesigned.

 

I wonder how extensively MiG-29/SU-27 had to be re-designed to navalize them.

 

 

Main goal of such "Naval redesign" is probably foldable wings not gear!

 

"Parking area is more of a problem than a Dead weight"!

 

AFAIK, most of the newer F-16 blocks already have structural enforcements that can be seen on dorsal spine (near IFR duct)!

[lomcevac]

Every new weapons system goes through growing pains. The F-22 has only been operational for a short period of time, while the F-16 has been around for decades.

 

Furthermore, when the F-16 became operational, the Class A mishap rate (loss of aircraft, damage of $1million or greater, loss of life) is MUCH greater than that of the F-22. The F-22, I believe has only suffered ONE class A mishap since initial operational capability, and the aircraft recovered back to base and no one lost their life. The F-16 nor the F-15 can claim that.

 

The F-16 airframe has been constantly produced for operational use. The F-15 airframe, on the other hand, is usually older than the 23 year-old pilot that flys the thing (excluding mudhens).

 

I don't know why it's surprising that when the aircraft requires a stealthy profile, the aircraft must be gone over with a fine-tooth comb to find all the dings in the paint or the partially popped panels or Zeus fasteners that may come loose during the flight, to prevent compromise of it's stealth capability. This probably accounts for it's low sortie generation rates, as opposed to problems with subsystems. Although I'm aware of heating concerns with it's AESA radar and the operational cycles it's producing as the number of missions it's been tasked to undertake increase (mini-AWACS, Electronic Attack, Ground targeting, etc.).

 

There's one thing that the F-22 ensures - in appropriate numbers - and that is air superiority. USAF air superiority is responsible for the following statistic:

 

NO single US asset (infantry, wheeled & tracked vehicles, buildings/C3, High value airborne assets) have ever been lost to enemy aircraft since the Korean War.

 

With the production of fewer F-22s and the reliance on legacy aircraft that are losing their edge against better adversary equipment, the ability to provide air superiority, without great losses in pilots and airframes, is being jeopardized.

Edited February 20, 2009 by lomcevac

[lomcevac]

Navalising aircraft does nothing to increase it's ability to fly and fight. Folding wings usually G-limit the aircraft to less than 9 G. Beefing up the empennage, landing gear, etc. add a weight penalty as has been previously mentioned, which adversely affect the thrust to weight ratio. This combines limit the airframe in air-to-air combat. Air to mud is another matter.

 

Most US aircraft losses are due to SAMS not other aircraft in air-to-air battles. Beefing up airframes, having folding wings, or its ability to land on a carrier makes little difference in aircraft or aircrew survivability against SAMs, when compared to USAF aircraft not meant to make multiple crashlandings on a ship to recover.

[topol-m]

Considering the long testing periods and transition from prototype to fully operational delivered to the army aircrafts, it might take a 10+ years for Lockheed and Boeing to make a non swimming :music_whistling: F-22 for the Navy. With the small amount of weaponry that this aircraft can carry (in order to use its famous "invisibility" asset) it might not be much of a replacement of the working horse F-18, no matter how high tech it is. And when we compare the cost of both aircrafts, well :doh:

Man this "jewel" of modern technology should be used just for experiments stand, and future projects like X-44 Manta.

[tflash]

With the production of fewer F-22s and the reliance on legacy aircraft that are losing their edge against better adversary equipment, the ability to provide air superiority, without great losses in pilots and airframes, is being jeopardized.

 

Naaah, they buy F-22 in sufficient numbers, not the 381 originally planned, but about 240+, which isn't bad at all. We'll even see more of them in European airshows, I bet.

[lomcevac]

Naaah, they buy F-22 in sufficient numbers, not the 381 originally planned, but about 240+, which isn't bad at all. We'll even see more of them in European airshows, I bet.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1719852220090217

 

No, 243 isn't bad... moderate risk isn't bad at all, right?

 

Platoon Leader: "Ok, tflash, we're sending you out with a handgun and a flak vest to go fight those 3 guys with a knife"

 

tflash: "But, you were going to give me a machine gun and body armour!"

 

Platoon Leader: "Nevermind that, we can't afford a machine gun paired with body armor. You've got to make do with that."

 

tflash: "But there's more of a chance I could die!"

 

Platoon Leader: "We've assessed the risk as moderate, so that's acceptable to us. Now go out there soldier, and do your best."

 

I wouldn't want the Office of Management and Budget to run the war. We'd end up with more casualties, less equipment, and more grief from the press and public for each engagement. Let the families of the pilots deal with the risk going from low to moderate, right?

[Groove]

This thread is not about which missile is better. Stay on topic or it will be closed.

[CE_Mikemonster]

How many F-22's will stay in the USA for home-defense, and how many will be stationed abroad?

 

For instance.. If you need to apply pressure to Iran, what would the reaction be to 100 F-22's available to launch 24/7 CAP's?

 

The F-22 is undoubtedly the most advanced fighter in the world, with the greatest air-supremacy performance ever.

 

A weapon such as that is an even greater political tool. That's what you can base the budget on I suppose. Political pressure.

[Guest VolkVoland]

Navalising aircraft does nothing to increase it's ability to fly and fight. Folding wings usually G-limit the aircraft to less than 9 G. Beefing up the empennage, landing gear, etc. add a weight penalty as has been previously mentioned, which adversely affect the thrust to weight ratio. This combines limit the airframe in air-to-air combat. Air to mud is another matter.

 

There is a simple reason – ruggedness. Su-27 and especially MiG-29 were designed with operation from unprepared strips and in horrid conditions with out dedicated support.

 

It’s well known that Fulcrum has top gills and air intake shutters which together with incredibly tough gear allow it to operate from mud, dust and country roads, not to mention 12+G airframe tolerance all of which are BUILT IN by design, therefore navalizing the Fulcrum not a big deal, because gills/shutters were removed which helped to offset the weight added by wing folding mechanism.

 

F-16s deployed in cold European climates have to sit in heated hangars and roll on mirror smooth runways which effectively limit their actual deployment and make them vulnerable to preemptive strikes. Same with F-15s, but their range allows them to operate from somewhat same distances (against tac strikes).