For f22 Lovers

[RvEFuSiOn]

Here is something interesting you guys should read

For all the people that thought the f22 was invincible, think again.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html

 

 

all i gotta say is lol what a waste of money:music_whistling:

[-fox-]

Gotta love this: "vulnerability to rain"...

[DarkWanderer]

For the sake of objectivity, USAF disclaimer:

The F-22, Bagel and a Smear: The Washington Post’s putative exposé of the F-22 and all its shortcomings, printed on its front page Friday (and picked up as gospel by various wires and blogs over the weekend), was riddled with inaccuracies, according to the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, and our own investigation. The Post said only 55 percent of the F-22 fleet is available for missions ”guarding US airspace,” but as we reported recently, the F-22’s combat air forces mission capable rates have been climbing slowly but steadily, and in late June stood at 62.9 percent, according to Air Combat Command. On Friday, Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-22, said in a statement that the MC rate ”has improved from 62 percent to 68 percent from 2004-2009 and we are on track to achieve an 85 percent MCR by the time the fleet reaches maturity,” or 100,000 hours, which should take place next year. The company also said that the mean time between maintenance—the number of hours an F-22 flies before it needs service—rose from 0.97 hours in 2004 to 3.22 hours in Lot 6 aircraft (Note these benefited from the Raptor Reach and RAMMP programs). The Post claimed a figure of 1.7 hours. Direct maintenance man-hours per flying hour have dropped from 18.1 in 2008 to 10.46 in 2009, ”which exceeds the requirement of 12,” the company added. The Post used out of date figures from 2004-2008 when the rates were higher because the F-22 was a new system. The Post also trotted out the old school criticism of stealth that it is somehow ”vulnerable to rain,” but the company noted that the F-22 is ”an all-weather fighter and has been exposed to the harshest climates in the world—ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida and Guam—and performed magnificently.” The information quoted by the Post ”is incorrect,” the company said flatly. While the Post led its piece saying that the F-22 costs more to fly per hour than the F-15 it replaces, it didn’t say whether it had factored inflation or fuel prices into that cost and neglected to point out that the F-15 has no stealth coatings to maintain. An Air Force public affairs spokeswoman said the Post did not contact the service for comment on the story before publication. The F-22 passed Follow-On Test and Evaluation Testing in 2005, and in FOT&E II, in 2007, USAF’s test and evaluation outfit rated the F-22 ”effective, suitable, and mission capable,” despite the Post’s claims that it ”flunked” those evaluations. The Post attributed most of its information to unnamed Defense Department sources.

—John A. Tirpak

 

 

And the Air Force’s Take: The Air Force also objected to the Washington Post’s loose interpretation of F-22 statistics, and the paper’s portrait of the fighter as overly expensive, unreliable, and ineffective (see above). Generally, according to USAF’s analysis of the article, the Post either used outdated data or exaggerated problems that have long since been corrected. The Post quoted a variety of F-22 glitches from Government Accountability Office reports issued seven years ago, when the F-22 was still in development. In a four-page rebuttal provided to the Daily Report of 23 claims the Post made in its hatchet job on the F-22, the Air Force dismissed the Post’s claim that the F-22’s stealthy skin maintenance issues are somehow due to rain, and the service said that the Post was wrong in saying the trend is that F-22 has gotten harder and more costly to maintain. ”Not true,” the service said. The rates ”have been improving.” The Air Force said the Raptor’s cost per flying hour is not much greater than that of the F-15—$19,750 vs. $17,465 — and the F-22 is a far more powerful and capable machine. The Post had claimed a cost of more than $40,000 per flying hour. Likewise, whereas the Post claimed the fleet had to be retrofitted due to ”structural problems,” this claim is ”misleading,” USAF said. Lessons learned from a static test model were applied to production of new aircraft and retrofitted to earlier aircraft; a normal part of the testing and development process. One problem the Air Force owned up to: The F-22 canopy’s stealth coatings last only about half as long as they’re supposed to. The service said the program has put some fixes into play and ”coating life continues to improve.” The Air Force also confirmed Lockheed's contention that the mission capable rate had risen over the years to 68 percent fleetwide today.

Airforce Magazine, Monday July 13, 2009

Chizh's post

Edited July 17, 2009 by DarkWanderer

[tflash]

There is a lot of debate going on. here the Air Force association's answer to the WP article:

 

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html

[RvEFuSiOn]

Obviously they are going to say its good... lol...

they want congress to support the aircraft program, and once congress realise how much is being spent on this and what the flaws are of the program, they will most likely make serious cut backs on it or cancel it all together.

Ever heard of the navy saying one of its planes sucks? (When in all fact the superhornet is known as the Lemon of the navy) doesnt happen that way....

Washington post hit on alot of points that troubles the USAF and this in turn will piss off congress.

 

Lets watch the show and see how it turns out.

My bet is they probably will scrap the f22 program for something more cost effective. I guess thats where the JSF comes in to play.

Edited July 17, 2009 by =RvE=FuSiOn

[Pilotasso]

Watch the lobies battle. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. I find all this very strage.

[GGTharos]

Ever tried reading and checking GAO reports year after year? Even the unclassified ones?

 

The F-22 is doing better and better, and it's actually going through its introduction phase more or less as expected. You're gonna base your entire argument on a single WP article? Seriously? ;)

 

Obviously they are going to say its good... lol...

they want congress to support the aircraft program, and once congress realise how much is being spent on this and what the flaws are of the program, they will most likely make serious cut backs on it or cancel it all together.

Ever heard of the navy saying one of its planes sucks? (When in all fact the superhornet is known as the Lemon of the navy) doesnt happen that way....

Washington post hit on alot of points that troubles the USAF and this in turn will piss off congress.

 

Lets watch the show and see how it turns out.

My bet is they probably will scrap the f22 program for something more cost effective. I guess thats where the JSF comes in to play.

[Groove]

We have a F-22 already, please continue your discussion there:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=37582