Raptor in dogfight for its future

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

Oh, but it's not unfair. The F-22 has proven many things. Among them is the fact that the fleet has been grounded for MAJOR structural problems three times under a veil of secrecy. Thes brand new half billion dollar fighter jets were TRUCKED to Hill AFB. It's also proven that it doesn't bring much to the table-Right now it ONLY brings air to air capability (that is widely contested). We are not the only civilized nation that trains great pilots anymore, and there are several fighters with avionics that exceed the raptor's capabilities. The raptor is more than 20 years old; it's competitors are not. Did anyone forget that? It can do many incredible maneuvers at airshows, but hovering has never won a dogfight. In the real world, it stands on a level playing field with such aircraft as the Typhoon and SU-30MKI. Some might argue that SU-30MKIs are superior, given that you can buy a squadron with all-encompassing capabilities for the same price as ONE F-22 without A/G or engines. Not only that, the SU-30MKIs are proven competitors and reliable as a Honda civic.

That seems like it's more an avionics issue than an airframe issue, especially since as I recall the F-22 was intended to be able to recieve upgrades fairly easily with computing power to spare. And if the F-22 is so incapable, where do these reports in prestigious sources like Aviation Wekk and Air & Space come from about a a flight of Raptors taking on squadrons of F-16s and F-15s at Red Flag or Elmendorf, firing on the red team guys with near invincibility and being able to stay on the other guy's tail in a dogfight with relative ease? True, it's not real combat, but that sort of exercise is how the rest of those best-in-the-world pilots we have are trained, so whether the pilot does it in an F-15 or an F-22 should still validate some things. Besides, when our F-15s were playing with India's Su-30s, they played with a handicap, and even then we don't know how good the F-22 ould be against the Sukhi, except by comparing how they do in simulated combat against F-15s. In any event I can see the Air Force not wanting to give Russia or China a full accounting of the F-22's strengths and weaknesses, which is why they're so coy on it, but short of some bigtime government coverup, for it to be that much of a failure would have generated more official comments by the brass, Congress, and the UCAV crowd by now, I would think, even if it meant losing face.

It's been done, and it's a failure. In addition to all the failures I listed above, I must add that F-22s failed their initial operation test and evaluation (whence the first operational unit must prove that the weapon can be used and deployed) SIX times. Several times, the aircraft couldn't even make it to the exercise location. On their way to Japan for the first time, 2 made it, and the rest either landed code three all over the pacific at divert fields or turned back.

And within 48 hours the IDL glitch was fixed and the rest of the F-22s did get to Kadena. Things happen, even with complex, expensive aircraft. That's why they're tested, to work out the bugs, and even hen it's not always perfect. Just look at the B-2 crash on Guam a while back, some otherwise relatively mundane thing like moisture from rain cost us a $2 billion bomber. Yet the Spirit has done a fine job in its career so far.

 

[Allen]

Things happen, even with complex, expensive aircraft. That's why they're tested, to work out the bugs, and even hen it's not always perfect. Just look at the B-2 crash on Guam a while back, some otherwise relatively mundane thing like moisture from rain cost us a $2 billion bomber. Yet the Spirit has done a fine job in its career so far.

Yeah it took 10 years+ for the B-2 crash since it's Introduction into Active Service in the USAF (1997), It's first flight was in 1989. Some how I don't think the F-22 will make it that long before it's first crash...

 

[Blackbird686]

Hmmm... maybe we should scrap the F-22 and go with the Russian Su-27/33, (Supposedly a very good overall performer) since we seem to not be able to build a dependable, cost effective and efficient fighter aircraft, since the F-15 and the F-16. (Two of the best ever built, along with the F-4 Phantom).

I have talked with folks who were on the F-22 design team specifically and most had nothing but praise for the jet, yes... even Lockheed produces a "lemon" every once in a while. As it seems here, there is more disconcert for the plane's ability and flyaway costs than I was initially aware of. So I stand corrected.

BB686:USA-flag:

 

[tigisfat]

That seems like it's more an avionics issue than an airframe issue.....

(paraphrased)

I just said that the structures were so dangerous on the production F-22s that they were declared unsafe to fly. They were trucked under a veil of secrecy to Hill AFB in Utah where MAJOR airframe modifications were performed. You quoted me.

I have talked with folks who were on the F-22 design team specifically and most had nothing but praise for the jet,

Yes, and ACES also refuses to admit how bad FSX was released in relation to bugs, glitches, performance and compatibility. I love FSX, but it's true. (I don't want to start an FSX war, I'm just trying to put things in perspective.)

And within 48 hours the IDL glitch was fixed and the rest of the F-22s did get to Kadena. Things happen, even with complex, expensive aircraft. That's why they're tested, to work out the bugs, and even hen it's not always perfect.

There's no 'things happen' with this situation. The situation in quesiton proves conclusively that we cannot rely on F-22s because they failed to perform. What more time do they need? The airframe has been around for TWENTY YEARS. If it's not right now, it won't be right ever. Should they be afforded another 20?

Yeah it took 10 years+ for the B-2 crash since it's Introduction into Active Service in the USAF (1997), It's first flight was in 1989. Some how I don't think the F-22 will make it that long before it's first crash...

There have already been F-22 crashes. Please follow my link...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8

 

[Underdog]

I see it this way, the F-22 looked good on paper. Look at the service record of proven aircraft in the inventory. How many years has the F-16, the F-15 been around ? The F-5 and the Mig 21. A fighter in the right hands of a well trained pilot knowing the strenght and weakness of the aircraft is a potential winner in every dogfight. How many pilots can be trained, aircraft updated, for the price of one F-22 ?

 

[Panther_99FS]

How many pilots can be trained, aircraft updated, for the price of one F-22 ?

Not as many as one would think. A fighter pilot's training is in excess of $1 million per pilot...

 

[AckAck]

Yeah it took 10 years+ for the B-2 crash since it's Introduction into Active Service in the USAF (1997), It's first flight was in 1989. Some how I don't think the F-22 will make it that long before it's first crash...

There have already been F-22 crashes. Please follow my link...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8

The video is a prototype crash with a computer malfunction and pilot error...

Using that criteria, the US should never have developed the F-14. Sweden should have abandoned the Gripen. France et al. should have abandoned the Airbus. The Typhoon should be pulled from service. The F-117 should never have been developed. The English Electric Lighting. The F-89, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-111, F-20... The much commented on Su-30MK1

Probably don't want to talk about vertical takeoff equipment - don't think anything would be flying.

Guess the Cessna Skycatcher should be stopped too.

My apologies for the incomplete list - if your favorite military aircarft prototype crashed and I didn't mention it here, it is my fault.

Brian

 

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

Exactly, AckAck.

Heck, just look at the V-22 Osprey which I may be working on in a few weeks. That one had a couple highly publicized crashes, and a number of people were killed in them, but the military stuck with the program and now look where we are. In the last year the V-22 has enjoyed very successful deployments in the War on Terror and a large training exercise in Africa without losses of airframes or crews, going a long way towards proving the naysayers wrong.

The B-2 also had a prolonged development program, albeit not as long as that of the F-22 I'll grant you; the first operational B-2 aircraft was delivered in 1993 and its initial operational capability only came in 1997. If we're going to count non-operational aircraft as being part of the B-2's flying history, then by that measure the F-22's first flight came only a little over a year after that of the B-2, in September 1990. So in fact both designs are about 20 years old.

tigisfat, what you say would be easier to accept if we knew when all these big problems happened. The IDL incident was in 2007, the prototype crash was 17 years ago. There was even that heat treatment issue three years ago, but that only shortened the expected service lives of some F-22s (which are being fixed anyway), but there's no mention of the type being grounded or being declared "unsafe to fly." Without a complete, verifiable timeline of major problems and crashes (if there really were more crashes other than the 1992 YF-22 crash) and so forth - including information on the success of fixes like the very fast turnaround on that IDL software glitch, I can't accept that the aircraft is anywhere near that bad. Frankly, I can't find references on my own to any major problems aside from those I mentioned - none of which were especially severe.

 

[Panther_99FS]

 

[tigisfat]

Heck, just look at the V-22 Osprey which I may be working on in a few weeks. That one had a couple highly publicized crashes, and a number of people were killed in them, but the military stuck with the program and now look where we are. .....

The V-22's crashes were almost all attributed to human error in interaction with th weapons systems. I am a HUGE V-22 fan, even though it's been around forever too.

The B-2 also had a prolonged development program, albeit not as long as that of the F-22 I'll grant you; the first operational B-2 aircraft was delivered in 1993 and its initial operational capability only came in 1997. If we're going to count non-operational aircraft as being part of the B-2's flying history, then by that measure the F-22's first flight came only a little over a year after that of the B-2, in September 1990. So in fact both designs are about 20 years old.

The B-2 has been around for much longer. This is a side point, but I couldn't resist. Look up the tail numbers.

tigisfat, what you say would be easier to accept if we knew when all these big problems happened. The IDL incident was in 2007, the prototype crash was 17 years ago.

Exactly my point.

- none of which were especially severe.

You can't be serious. Look, when a debate comes down to this level, it's a matter of opinion. I think these are all MAJOR and serious problems, you don't. My opinion is: If an aircraft in development for almost 25 years is STILL unable to deploy because of constant problems, no matter how serious, it's not worth it. We can debate how serious the problems are, but we can't debate the fact that the CSAF was called upon to answer repeatedly why F-22s weren't allowed to go to war.

Couple this with an unjustifiable cost, and maybe you can see why I don't like it. I'm all for defense spending, and I'm a proud right wing maniac, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

Yet it looks to me like there has been essentially ONE major problem keeping the F-22 from deployment - at least in an air-to-air capacity - recently, which was the International Dateline problem. My point is, unlike other problems which might keep aircraft out of service such as fatigue, this was a relatively simple software fix which Lockheed caught onto very quickly and it seems that there have not been repeats as far as anyone seems to know.

If your point centered on just two incidents, the IDL bug and the prototype crash, that's hardly grounds for declaring a whole type to be unsafe. Whether the price is worth it is another issue; I'm arguing that as far as hardware and software are concerned, the thing works well enough to deploy.

The standard of excellence you've set for the F-22 defies all precedent. The XP-38 was flying for a couple weeks before it was wrecked in an accident, later other models in service were lost before dive flaps were installed; yet by the policy you're setting the Lightning should have been cancelled on the spot. For its day the P-38 was an exotic and advanced aircraft, somewhat like the F-22 is now, but just because fighters are uch more expensive now doesn't mean the risks of testing complex, exotic, advanced aircraft is eliminated. And in fact compared to what flight testing was like in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, that the F-22 can be brought to service with as little as a controlled crash the pilot could walk away from (without even bailing out) and an avionics error whose damage was limited to the career of some programmer in Burbank, is darned near miraculous.

All I'm asking is whatever concerns you have about cost and performance against competent operators of Russian radar stations, you keep in mind that absolute perfection and cutting-edge engineering are as compatible as a European electric plug in an American socket, while still giving the guys at Lockheed with the pocket protectors and slide rules and thick glasses their due for not delivering a lemon.



By the way Panther that's the first picture I've seen of the F-22 with anything on its wing hardpoints. Very nice shot.

 

[djscoo]

Hey Panther, do you have a larger version of this picture? I can barely see it.

 

[tigisfat]

Yet it looks to me like there has been essentially ONE major problem keeping the F-22 from deployment - at least in an air-to-air capacity - recently, which was the International Dateline problem.

If I'm wrong and you're right, then why hasn't it deployed? The truth is, the aircraft is beleagured with problems: structural, battlefield compatibility, performance, and avionics.

If your point centered on just two incidents, the IDL bug and the prototype crash, that's hardly grounds for declaring a whole type to be unsafe.

Oh; but it's not. I've gone into detail in ous posts and listed even more directly above.

Whether the price is worth it is another issue;.....

I'm saying it's not worth it because of it's problems. The issue is one and the same when asking: "does the F-22 suck?"

I'm arguing that as far as hardware and software are concerned, the thing works well enough to deploy.

It hasn't and....well....it hasn't. I think the proof lies on my sid eof the debate. To this date, F-22s have not been allowed to attend the war.

The standard of excellence you've set for the F-22 defies all precedent. The XP-38 was flying for a couple weeks before it was wrecked in an accident, later other models in service were lost before dive flaps were installed; yet by the policy you're setting the Lightning should have been cancelled on the spot.

I'm not sure you're reading my posts. How many reasons have I given that the F-22 sucks? Was the P-38 unuseable after being around for 20 years? No. Name one other aircraft. I challenge you.

....... an avionics error whose damage was limited to the career of some programmer in Burbank, is darned near miraculous.

Really? Just one guy and one error? What about the faulty wing structural components that made it onto production aircraft? The ones that made the aircraft unable to safely perform a trip around the pattern?

All I'm asking is whatever concerns you have about cost and performance against competent operators of Russian radar stations, you keep in mind that absolute perfection and cutting-edge engineering are as compatible as a European electric plug in an American socket, while still giving the guys at Lockheed with the pocket protectors and slide rules and thick glasses their due for not delivering a lemon.

1. The last time I went to Europe, there were a few items I could plug in. Aside from that, who asked for perfection?

Here's me: it can't do anything right, costs a fortune and won't deploy.

here's you: why are you asking for perfection? c'mon, it's high technology!


2. I don't know if I'd directly blame the engineering teams. I'd like to, and probably have, but I shouldn't. There are likely many people to blame.


Try this on for size though: A LOCKHEED EMPLOYEE COULD HAVE STARTED ON THE BRAND-NEW F-22 PROJECT RIGHT OUT OF SCHOOL AND RETIRED BEFORE IT ENTERED ACTIVE DUTY.

 

[tigisfat]

let me add to my list of supporting evidence for my argument:


--The F-22 is incapable of datasharing via sattellite uplink to netcentric warfare centers such as the CAOC or JSTARS. This means that the "world's most advanced fighter" operates in it's own low-tech 'lights-out' world. In today's joint battlespace, netcentric warfare is crucial to planning and executing operations.

--Most frontline fighters in the USAF today are being equipped with JHMCS. The F-22 is not JHMCS capable.

:friday::karate:

 

[Panther_99FS]

Good read here:
http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2008/May/05152008/05152008-01.htm

 

[Allen]

Idea!

Thanks tigisfat for making my point. Now lest's pull the plug and stop making new F-22's.

Since eveyone is pooping them self saying are F-15, F-16 and F-18 are crap V.S new Russian and Chinese fighters.

We aways could do what we did to get a MiG-15 in The Korean War, offered a reward and political asylum to any pilot flying a Gen 4.5 or Gen 5 Russian or Chinese fighter who would defect with his airplane.

The reward shoud start at $191 million, The cost of ONE F-22.:ernae:

Love the LOCKHEED employee could have Started and Retied before the F-22 enterd Active duty. tigisfat

 

[Panther_99FS]

Now lest's pull the plug and stop making new F-22's.

Currently, the JSF/F-35 costs approximately $60 million more per unit than the F-22

Hmmm......

 

[Allen]

Currently, the JSF/F-35 costs approximately $60 million more per unit than the F-22

Hmmm......

Well it wasn't in 2003. I'll quote myself here....

Let's play with some cost numbers. All thought some are old there not to far off. Since the cost would have gone up now.
F-16C/D: US$18.8 million (1998)
F-15C/D: US$29.9 million (1998)
F/A-18: US$29-57 million (2006)
F-35: US$83 million (flyaway cost in Then-Year dollars 2003)
F-22: US$137.5 million (2008 flyaway cost)

For one F-22 we could get 7 to 6 F-16's. 4 to 3 F-15 C/D's. 4 to 3 Base F-18's or 2 top of the line F-18's. Little over 1 and 1/2 of a new F-35.

 

[Panther_99FS]

In 2007,
Costs were raised 8.5% (an extra 23.5 billion for the total quantity of aircraft)

 

[Panther_99FS]

One trillion in total costs for the JSF mentioned here:
http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/2008/03/13/f35jsf-aircraft-cost-approaching-1-trillion-mark.asp