• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

F-22 Infighting

I have no idea but I can't help wondering if numbers are getting bandied about by the PTB that are deliberately misleading. For example....above the figures were quoted of 30 maintenance hours per flight hour but are they talking straight hours or 'man hours'? If it takes a maintenance crew of say 10 fitters (for arguments sake) to work on the aircraft and they work for a total of 3 hours are some of the bean counters counting that as 30 hours of maintenance? If they are then that is a very easy way of 'massaging' the numbers to make a case!
 
Allen said:
If not, they out number ready combat F-22's. 20 Migs and Sukhois to every 1 F-22. F-22 lose every time.
Click to expand...


PRB said:
Not necessarily. History teaches us differently. Many "factors" go into the "who wins and who looses" equation...
Click to expand...

The conventional trained Russian/Chinase or any other that are that are trained like them. The numbers of Migs and Sukhois the F-22 would face I would say the F-22 lose every time but at heavy lost to Russian/Chinase ext..

Even mix in with other, F-16 or F-18 all one would have to do is get the USAF to mix in F-22 for the first week or so than Maintenance would ground the F-22 giving Russian/Chinase ext. the uper hand in air to air combat just by number again.

WWII tank combat Equation.
U.S and German tank training=Same.
U.S and German tanks=German better.
U.S and German tank numbers=U.S. More
Winner=US. tanks by same training and larger numbers but heavy lost to U.S.

F-86 vs Russian piloted Mig 15 combat Equation.
F-86 and Russian piloted Mig 15 aircrat training=F-86 by a bit.
F-86 and Russian piloted Mig 15 aircraft=Same.
F-86/ and Russian piloted Mig 15 aircraft numbers=Same.
Winner=Unknown. There is no way to tell what Russian piloted Mig 15 were shot town by F-86's. Both claim win.
U.S by number of ALL Mig 15's shot down. Russian by number of F-86's shot down by Russian piloted Mig 15's.

F-22 combat Equation.
Russian/Chinase and U.S aircrat training=Same.
Russian/Chinase and U.S aircraft=U.S better.
Russian/Chinase and U.S aircraft numbers=Russian/Chinase More
Winner=Russian/Chinase air by same training and larger numbers but heavy lost to Russian/Chinase.

There history for ya. An applyed to today. F-22 lose.
 
That general may end up on the golf course after his comments, but what the heck, he's already a four-star. :d Nice to see we still have some flag-rank officers with the cojones to call 'em like they see 'em.
 
TARPSBird said:
That general may end up on the golf course after his comments, but what the heck, he's already a four-star. :d Nice to see we still have some flag-rank officers with the cojones to call 'em like they see 'em.
Click to expand...
It is nice, but make no mistake that things are much different from the days in which good old Curtis Lemay walked the halls of headquarters buildings speaking his mind.
 
TARPSBird,
In my current position, I've been fortunate enough to see general officer interaction with each other at various star levels. & like you, I think it's beneficial when they speak their mind - regardless whether you agree with them or not...
 
Yes, as of this morning (7-21), Congress voted to cancel all production of the F-22. The President hailed it as a "good decision". My question is why it now takes many many years for a military aircraft to enter production. Its amazing that in the last century (the 1900s) many aircraft went from the design stage to full production in just a few months (or weeks in some cases)--The awesome P-51 Mustang went from idea to first flight in just 120 days--the F-80/P-80/T-33 in just 144 days. Yes, they had their teething pains, but both spent many years in service. Most all of today's aviation/aerospace technology is old science--other than avionics and powerplant improvements, there have been very few breakthroughs in aviation in decades. Even our "stealthy" aircraft are simply improvements on old designs (the B-2 uses many technologies based on the late Jack Northrup's flying wing designs--even the dimensions are the same.) It took newer fly by wire technologies from the 1970's to make the designs viable, and newer radar absorbing materials (also from the 70's). It is a CRYING shame that over 70% of the military aircraft in service are older than the pilots that fly them--some are even older than those pilot's PARENTS, the C-130 and B-52 just to name a couple. Now, ALL of the military aircraft in the US inventory are based on designs 40-50 years old.
 
airfighterjohn said:
My question is why it now takes many many years for a military aircraft to enter production.
Click to expand...
For the same reason that brand new extremely high detail MSFS addons now take years. The level of complexity in a modern combat aircraft is obscene. Most combat aircraft built in the last 30 years have almost 100% original engineering as well. Virtually everything on the B-1 was designed for the B-1.

You must also take politics into account. Money and politics delayed the F-22, compounding costs much more than you would think. Also, then came times (because it was under development and test for so long) when it was imperative that the F-22 be updated, which compounded costs and time yetfurther. These days, it takes hundreds of thousands of people to produce a combat aircraft, but the best aircraft we've ever had were the result of small groups of people led by one genius, like the skunk works.






airfighterjohn said:
It is a CRYING shame that over 70% of the military aircraft in service are older than the pilots that fly them--some are even older than those pilot's PARENTS, the C-130 and B-52 just to name a couple. Now, ALL of the military aircraft in the US inventory are based on designs 40-50 years old.
Click to expand...
Sure it is, but are they (speaking generally while ignoring a few exceptions) still effective? Most are. Here's an example: the current Block E/SB-13 LCTP modified B-1B is DRASTICALLY different than the first B-1Bs delivered. You are right, we do need new aircraft, but not in the way most think. A lot of people compare utilizing in an aircraft like the KC-135 to conducting business out of a '57 chevy. What everyone ignores is the fact that this 57 chevy may look like the same car on the outside, but it's now sporting a new fuel injected motor with modern drivetrain components to boot, has modern gauges and a navigation system and has new paint and interior colors. Our aircraft are not the same as they were. Management of the fleet has long been crucial for the USAF, and they've done a great job.


Most of our current problems have been inherited from previous generations that squandered our aerospace industrial complex and relied too heavily on overencumbered acquisitions programs. All of these are being fixed; not just for the US, but for the world.

If I may, I'd like to use the bird of prey as an example of modern aerospace gone right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_bird_of_prey
It was a successful technology demonstrator that also proved our ability to reduce development and manufacturing costs. The bleeding edge of technology CAN include off the shelf parts.
 
[If I may, I'd like to use the bird of prey as an example of modern aerospace gone right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_bird_of_prey
It was a successful technology demonstrator that also proved our ability to reduce development and manufacturing costs. The bleeding edge of technology CAN include off the shelf parts./QUOTE]

You are absolutely correct about the bird of prey...but not quite about the B1B. The B-1B's parent technology actually came from a civilian project--Rockwell's design for a Supersonic transport way back in the early sixties. The avionics systems and weapons systems are state of the art, but the main airframe for the Bone actually took flight in the Carter Administration, and early development actually took place during the Vietnam War. The B-1B is actually less of an airplane performance wise over the B-1A and flight dynamics are only slightly improved over the earlier model. The B model has LESS powerful engines than the A model and has a lower max speed by over 400 kts. Not very good odds if you need to outrun interceptors on a penetration mission---The original Bone was designed to be a Mach 2.5 penetration bomber--this airframe, BECAUSE OF POLITICS ONLY has been derated . There have been numerous flight demonstrations that PROVE the Eurofighter Typhoon can outperform most everything in the US inventory, INCLUDING, but not limited to the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and F-35, at a fraction of the cost of some of those airframes...

As far as the avionics and weapons suites go, our aircraft are topnotch. But, remember this--computer technology becomes obsolete approximately every 18 months...

When the F-15 was first developed, it was unquestionably the most advanced airframe in the world. Total development time from the AF entering requirements to entering full service was less than 4 years. When first developed those aircraft were capable of SUSTAINED PERFORMANCE in the 6G range. Now they are RESTRICTED to no more than 4.5G manuevering. You can upgrade all you want, but airframes wear out. Hence the reason for the rash of F-15 and F-16 accidents over the last few years.

During WWII, once an airframe saw 1000-1500 hours of service the plane was taken out of service as "war weary". Incidentally, many of those war weary birds are still flying as restorations today. Many of our current airframes have 30-40 THOUSAND hours on them. Even if we do not develop new designs, we should replace the older planes. OKay, replace an old F-15 with a NEW F-15. Don't wait till the wings fall off, as they are doing on quite a few of them.

My middle daughter is a maintenance officer on the F-15s. She tells me that most pilots are getting VERY leery of that aircraft...:icon29:
Click to expand...
 
airfighterjohn said:
You are absolutely correct about the bird of prey...but not quite about the B1B.
Click to expand...
hmmm...

airfighterjohn said:
but the main airframe for the Bone actually took flight in the Carter Administration, and early development actually took place during the Vietnam War.
Click to expand...
The age of the engineering behind the B-1 is somewhat irrelevant. It's a fairly standard fuselage but with some fighter-like strengths. It gets the job done, and noone is left wishing for more.



airfighterjohn said:
The B-1B is actually less of an airplane performance wise over the B-1A and flight dynamics are only slightly improved over the earlier model. The B model has LESS powerful engines than the A model and has a lower max speed by over 400 kts. Not very good odds if you need to outrun interceptors on a penetration mission---The original Bone was designed to be a Mach 2.5 penetration bomber--this airframe, BECAUSE OF POLITICS ONLY has been derated .
Click to expand...
This is veyr hard to explain to the naysayer: The B-1B is a better aircraft in every way when compared to the B-1A. It did not recieve downgraded engines, it recieved UPGRADED inlets which lowered the aircraft's RCS. Speed or not, the B-1B is much more survivable in the combat arena than the B-1A. The B-1B actually performs the low-level role better than the B-1A anyway, which is where most o a B-1B's survivability is found. Low-level penetration was the hallmark of both B-1 designs after it was discovered in the B-52 world. Top speed is moot: neither aircraft could've hit mach 2.5 at 200AGL anyway. In fact, I don't know any that can.

Politics was not the reason the B-1 was slowed down. It was slowed down as a result of upgrades. Believe me, the B-1B is a completely different beast now. It used to be a purely strategic aircraft, now it can still perform that role if needed but is succeeding as the ultimate CAS platform with seemingly infinite loiter times.
 
For those of you who remember Ken Stallings, I received this from him the other day:

"

<TT>Chicago Rules: Have you noticed the strangely heavy outbreak of bad F-22news recently? The timing is convenient for F-22 foes; they face a do-or-dieSenate vote this week, so any negativity is welcome. The bad news startedThursday, when USMC Gen. James Cartwright, JCS vice chairman, told a Senatepanel about a new Joint Staff-led study—heretofore unknown—validating DOD'splan for 187 F-22s (not 243, USAF's requirement). Next came a punch from UStheater commanders; as General Cartwright told it, they didn't want moreF-22s as much as they wanted more EW versions of the Navy F/A-18. On Fridaycame a tiresome Washington Post gut job, titled, "Premier US Fighter Jet HasMajor Shortcomings" (more on which below.) Among the story's sources:"confidential Pentagon test results," "Pentagon officials," "internal[Pentagon] documents," "The Defense Department," "a Defense Departmentcritic of the plane," "other skeptics inside the Pentagon," "Pentagonaudits," "two Defense officials with access to internal reports." Hmmm. Doyou think DOD might have planted this story? Others have watched thisspectacle and drawn their own conclusions. Weekly Standard blogger MichaelGoldfarb on Friday posted a story noting how Pentagon leaders have beenspanked by Congress on the F-22 recently. "So what does the White House do?"asked Goldfarb. "It goes on offense." It's what happens when you are notwinning the argument on the merits. The F-22, Bagel and a Smear: The Washington Post's putative exposé of theF-22 and all its shortcomings, printed on its front page Friday (and pickedup as gospel by various wires and blogs over the weekend), was riddled withinaccuracies, according to the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, and our owninvestigation. The Post said only 55 percent of the F-22 fleet is availablefor missions "guarding US airspace," but as we reported recently, the F-22'scombat air forces mission capable rates have been climbing slowly butsteadily, and inlate June stood at 62.9 percent, according to Air CombatCommand. On Friday, Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-22, said in a statementthat the MC rate "has improved from 62 percent to 68 percent from 2004-2009and we are on track to achieve an 85 percent MCR by the time the fleetreaches maturity," or 100,000 hours, which should take place next year. Thecompany also said that the mean time between maintenance—the number of hoursan F-22 flies before it needs service—rose from 0.97 hours in 2004 to 3.22hours in Lot 6 aircraft. The Post claimed a figure of 1.7 hours. Directmaintenance man-hours per flying hour have dropped from 18.1 in 2008 to10.46 in 2009, "which exceeds the requirement of 12," the company added. ThePost used out of date figures from 2004-2008 when the rates were higherbecause the F-22 was a new system. The Post also trotted out the old schoolcriticism of stealth that it is somehow "vulnerable to rain," but thecompany noted that the F-22 is "an all-weather fighter and has been exposedto the harshest climates in the world—ranging from the desert in Nevada andCalifornia, extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida andGuam—and performed magnificently." The information quoted by the Post "isincorrect," the company said flatly. While the Post led its piece sayingthat the F-22 costs more to fly per hour than the F-15 it replaces, itdidn't say whether it had factored inflation or fuel prices into that costand neglected to point out that the F-15 has no stealth coatings tomaintain. An Air Force public affairs spokeswoman said the Post did notcontact the service for comment on the story before publication. The F-22passed Follow-On Test and Evaluation Testing in 2005, and in FOT&E II, in2007, 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 unnamedDefense Department sources. And the Air Force's Take: The Air Force also objected to the WashingtonPost's loose interpretation of F-22 statistics, and the paper's portrait ofthe fighter as overly expensive, unreliable, and ineffective (see above).Generally, according to USAF's analysis of the article, the Post either usedoutdated data or exaggerated problems that have long since been corrected.The Post quoted a variety of F-22 glitches from Government AccountabilityOffice reports issued seven years ago, when the F-22 was still indevelopment. In a four-page rebuttal provided to the Daily Report of 23claims the Post made in its hatchet job on the F-22, the Air Force dismissedthe Post's claim that the F-22's stealthy skin maintenance issues aresomehow due to rain, and the service said that the Post was wrong in sayingthe trend is that F-22 has gotten harder and more costly to maintain. "Nottrue," the service said. The rates "have been improving." The Air Forcesaid the Raptor's cost per flying hour is not much greater than that of theF-15—$19,750 vs. $17,465—and the F-22 is a far more powerful and capablemachine. 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. Lessonslearned from a static test model were applied to production of new aircraftand retrofitted to earlier aircraft; a normal part of the testing anddevelopment process. One problem the Air Force owned up to: The F-22canopy's stealth coatings last only about half as long as they're supposedto. The service said the program has put some fixes into play and "coatinglife continues to improve." The Air Force also confirmed Lockheed'scontention that the mission capable rate had risen over the years to 68percent fleetwide today.Source -- AFA Newsletter, 13 July 2009."</TT></PRE>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_59b0d5b1-c42f-4da6-a561-eb5dd7938741 --><STYLE>.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}</STYLE><LINK rel=stylesheet type=text/css href="http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/43734/css/microformat.css">
 
In reference to Ken's email to Panther, I am afraid that truth is now relative. Einstein's law of energy conversion can be rewritten to read: T=cm2

Where T = truth, C = communication, and m = media
 
jmig said:
In reference to Ken's email to Panther, I am afraid that truth is now relative. Einstein's law of energy conversion can be rewritten to read: T=cm2

Where T = truth, C = communication, and m = media
Click to expand...

You'll get no debate from me jmig - general rule of thumb with the media is that if they get even a whiff of something negative, it'll be sensationalized & in bold print on the front page. - If it's something positive, the subject matter might get lucky enough to have a paragraph on the back page....
 
Now that I'm back, and no longer on active duty in the USAF, I'm going to chime in late to this issue.

The F-22 is one hell of a fighter jet!

For those focused on costs, compare the per unit cost of the F-22 to the Boeing 777. You might be very surprised to note that the F-22 isn't that expensive. Nations someone have the economic means to have purchased hundreds of 777's without so much as wimper of argument.

But to purchase 242 F-22's to ensure the air superiority for the next 50 years the critics purported we stole candy from a baby, lanced a harp seal pup, and single-handedly bankrupted the United States!

As my article Panther posted months ago indicated, the Washington Post deliberately used year's old data. No surprise the data was negative. Please show me any aircraft in the operational test and evaluation period that doesn't require a lot of maintenance. That's the whole point of OT&E. You fly it and work out the kinks and perfect the maintenance. The fact that the readiness rates jumped from 52% to 83% in only a year and a half of OT&E apparently didn't mean a tinker's damn to the Washington Post. It should mean a hell of a lot to the American tax payer's who's money we used to purchase their defense in the future! That the Post again deliberately avoided reporting this information, which the USAF did supply to them, again points to their bias.

What bothers me the most is the politics of this situation. Gates would have stood on firm ground in my view if he simply made an economic decision and said the F-22 was a grand aircraft but we don't have the money for any more. Fine, got it. But to deliberately fabricate and distort data to frame a false argument caused me to lose a lot of respect for the man. If the day comes in a future battle where we lose lives from enemy air attack because we didn't have enough F-22's on hand to ensure air superiority, then he'll have a lot of answering to do assuming he's still alive when those young people die on the battlefield!

His current round of body twisting relative the Christmas airline bomber smells of more politics. These people are first and foremost politicians. In terms of who can make the more honest and factual argument, I'll put my money on the generals ahead of the politicians.

Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top