This no reason to by over 100 aircraft for operational test and evaluation.
Say you.
And this perspective is based upon your vast experience in OT&E of aircraft systems, right?
To help illlustrate my challenge of your understanding, allow me to work a few facts into this exchange.
First, we didn't purchase 100 aircraft to perform the OT&E. You obviously missed a vital point. The Washington Post article quoted reliability rates during the OT&E period. At that point we had precisely one small squadron of aircraft at Nellis AFB -- vastly fewer than 100 or even the final orders that brought the numbers up to 182.
Second, it wasn't until we established the reliability rates upward toward the 83% figure that the follow-on orders were funded, then built, then received.
Third, the mission available rate at 83% compares most favorably to the ongoing rates for the F-16 and F-15C's. Much of the technology of the F-22 promises availability rates better than those the F-15 achieved during its operational lifetime.
Fourth, when you claimed the F-22 should have stayed test until OT&E was complete reveals you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you theorize on how surgeons should operate on the table? OT&E is primarily intended to allow USAF maintenance troops to work with the contractor (Lockheed Martin in this case) to study the aircraft and create the initial cadre of active duty maintenance and operations experience. These people are then sent to the initial operational squadrons to be the instructors who teach the rest of the AF maintainers and operators to maintain and fly the jets! Do you really not understand it is impossible to do this with only two or three test bed aircraft? Again, we had one squadron at Nellis for the entire OT&E phase. Then, when complete, we ordered enough jets for squadrons at Langley AFB and Tyndall AFB. Eglin AFB got some to conduct weapons tests and evaluations. I hope you don't think we should not allocate jets to test weapons!
Final fact, and it takes operational experience to appreciate this point. Mission available rates includes programmed maintenance time. Take my Skyhawk for example. Right now it's sitting in its hangar available. But, in a week my A&P-IA will have to carry out the annual inspection. It will take about two to three days to complete it. During that time it is not available. Does that mean my Skyhawk is a lemon?
Hardly!
Logically, you program recurrent normal maintenance, such as engine inspections, 100 hour inspections, at a rate where the fleet experiences only a small amount of downtime by total percentage of airframes. When you start to achieve 83% availability, then you are at the maximum sustainable level.
Yes, you can increase that available rate over the short-term by forgoing those required inspections, but eventually you pay for that later. I certainly hope people here can appreciate that an 83% available rate is really excellent reliability.
The problem again, is that the Post quoted old data experienced during the OT&E phase. It was dishonest because by the point the article was published the USAF had achieved the 83% level!
Now that I've written this again, do I need to explain the point again?
We who are paid to do this stuff aren't idiots! We are able to apply lessons learned from the past and figure out strategies to field new aircraft in a manner orderly and effective. When I hear someone of your experience level saying we should have kept it as a 10-12 aircraft fleet in order to do all the OT&E, I have to sit amazed that you didn't do your homework before posting, sir! In fact, that was the approximate size of the Nellis OT&E squadron! I believe it had about 15 aircraft to be precise. Nellis also worked out the operational tactics while those aircraft at Eglin worked out how to drop all the myriad of ordinance it would carry.
That took about 20 aircraft total. You then fix the remaining issues that only a vigorous operational test phase can determine, train the initial cadre of maintainers and operators, and then order enough jets to equip operational squadrons at Tyndall and Langley. Problem is, 182 isn't enough to fulfill the duties of the present F-15 fleet. It takes 20 years to field a fighter jet today. What do we now do in the year 2030 when the F-15 is really obsolete and we don't have enough F-22's to perform the job in a future war? I'll give you a partial answer. Gates believes the F-35 will be the ticket. However, the F-35 is now being attacked for not meeting pie-in-the-sky objectives in its OT&E phase. These are the same tired arguments thrown out for every aircraft the USAF has developed, including the F-15 and F-16 whom some now believe should remain our aerial sheld through the year 2030! If we had listened to the neighsayers in 1973 and 1977, we'd be facing 2030 with F-4E's to defend America's skies!
Ken
.
) (steps off his own soapbox...)
