Fixing the Fighter Gap

[krieghund]

I HAVE TO CHUCKLE AT THE COMMENTS THAT OUR ADVANCED FIGHTERS ARE NOT NEEDED NOW.....EVER CHECK OUT THE PRC THREAT......ITS MID-TECH EQUIPMENT BUT WEIGHT IN NUMBERS WE CAN NOT DEFEND TAIWAN WITH OUR CURRENT ASSETS

OF COURSE THIS IS ALL OBE (OVERCOME BY EVENTS) AS PRC OWNS ALL OUR DEBT!!!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So what do you think can happen in 25 years from now that most people think won't ?

Who are the "most people" you speak of? "Most people" didn't think the Berlin Wall would fall. Most people didn't think the US would be attacked on 9-11.

And the F-35 seems a better option even though the price tag seems to have risen substantially too.

I actually agree, but right now any argument for the F-22 is void. The line stops at 147 aircraft

So do you consider the ANG really necessary ? Or at least in its present size ?
Kris

Yes and yes - I don't think you realize that guard units not only operate fighters, a large part of the ANG is airborne Mobility with missions to support the US Army. Be rest assured that if hostilities were to end in Afghanistan, you'll see cuts in active duty units as well as the ANG.

I HAVE TO CHUCKLE AT THE COMMENTS THAT OUR ADVANCED FIGHTERS ARE NOT NEEDED NOW.....EVER CHECK OUT THE PRC THREAT......ITS MID-TECH EQUIPMENT BUT WEIGHT IN NUMBERS WE CAN NOT DEFEND TAIWAN WITH OUR CURRENT ASSETS

OF COURSE THIS IS ALL OBE (OVERCOME BY EVENTS) AS PRC OWNS ALL OUR DEBT!!!!

ever call "cash" and we default, who's going to buy their cheap crap?

Very true, although I think the PRC needs us as much as we need them. If they

 

[The Basket]

How many Northrop F-5s could you buy for the price of a Raptor? Just thinking out loud.

If you look at all possible threats today, Cuba NK Iran then an updated F-15 would have no bother.

I would like to know which threat needs the F-22? China or Russia? To say the very future of the USA is dependent on a single weapon system is misleading.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How many Northrop F-5s could you buy for the price of a Raptor? Just thinking out loud.

And that's an excellent point as a small, simple and nimble aircraft like an F-5 in great numbers could present a threat.

If you look at all possible threats today, Cuba NK Iran then an updated F-15 would have no bother.

Point taken, read below...

I would like to know which threat needs the F-22? China or Russia? To say the very future of the USA is dependent on a single weapon system is misleading.

Agree as well but personally I look at it this way - we have at our disposal a weapons system that is probably light years ahead of any competition, perceived or planned threat. To me why settle for mediocrity? Suppose in 1939 the RAF had Mk XXI Spitfires against Bf 109Es for example?

Cost is a consideration, however as long as the GNP of the US stays on the plus side (and even during this world wide economic downturn, it has) the DoD will be able to procure these aircraft over a given period depending on need.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

From the AFA this Summer...

F-22 Assertions and Facts
July 2009
Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It's important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.

Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.

Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.

Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.

Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22's current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system.

Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.

Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years.

Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.

Assertion: The F-22 can only fly an average of 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission.

Facts: Reliability is measured by Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM). One of the F-22 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) is to have an MTBM of 3.0 hours at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. Through 2008, F-22s averaged 2.0 hours MTBM while the fleet has accumulated 50,000 flight hours. The F-22 is on-track to meet or exceed 3.0 hours of MTBM at system maturity, projected to occur in late 2010, and the latest delivered F-22s, known as Lot 6 jets, are exhibiting an MTBM of 3.2 hours.

Assertion: The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy delaminates and loses its strength and finish.

Facts: The F-22 canopy balances multiple requirements: mechanical strength, environmental resistance, optical clarity and other requirements. Initial designs for the canopy did not achieve the full life expectancy of 800 hours. The canopy has been redesigned and currently two companies are producing qualified canopy transparencies that meet full service life durability of 800 hours.

Assertion: The F-22 has significant structural design problems that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 had a series of structural models that were tested throughout its development in a building block manner. Lockheed Martin completed static and fatigue testing in 2005 on two early production representative airframes. The results of those tests required upgrades to the airframe in a few highly stressed locations. Follow up component level testing was completed and structural redesigns were verified and implemented into the production line. For aircraft that were delivered prior to design change implementation, structural retrofit repairs are being implemented by a funded program called the F-22 Structural Retrofit Program. Structural reinforcements are common during the life of all fighters and have occurred, or are occurring, on the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

Assertion: The F-22 has a significant design flaw in the fuel flow system that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 fuel system has not required redesign. Similar to other aircraft, the systems on the F-22 are continually being enhanced by a reliability and maintainability improvement program. For example, early fuel pumps turned out to not be as reliable as desired and have subsequently been replaced by more reliable pumps.

Assertion: Follow-on operational tests in 2007 raised operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs.

Facts: The F-22 has 11 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The F-22 exceeds 5 KPPs (Radar Cross Section, Supercruise, Acceleration, Flight Radius, and Radar Detection Range). The F-22 meets 4 KPPs (Maneuverability, Payload, Sortie Generation and Interoperability). The remaining 2 KPPs are sustainment metrics (MTBM and C-17 Loads) that are to be evaluated at weapon system maturity -- which is defined as 100,000 total flight hours and is projected to occur in late 2010. These two sustainment metrics are on-track to be met at 100,000 flight hours.

Assertion: The F-22 costs $350M per aircraft.

Facts: The F-22s currently being delivered have a flyaway cost of $142.6M each, which is the cost to build and deliver each aircraft. This number does not include the costs for research and development (that were incurred since 1991), military construction to house the aircraft, or operations and maintenance costs.

Assertion: The F-22 needs $8 billion of improvements in order to operate properly.

Facts: Similar to every other fighter in the U.S. inventory, there is a plan to regularly incorporate upgrades into the F-22. F-22s in their current configuration are able to dominate today's battlefield and future upgrades are planned to ensure the F-22 remains the world's most dominant fighter. F-22 Increment 3.1, which will begin entering the field in late 2010, adds synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode in the APG-77 radar, and a capability to employ small diameter bomb (SDB). Increment 3.1 is in flight test today at Edwards AFB, CA. Increment 3.2 is being planned and will add AIM-120D and AIM-9X weapons along with additional capabilities.

Assertion: F-22 production uses a shim line and national spreading of suppliers has cut quality, thus the F-22 lacks interchangeable parts.

Fact: The F-22 does not have a shim line. During the earliest stages of production while tooling was undergoing development, there were a few aircraft with slight differences which were subsequently modified. The F-22 supplier base is the best in the industry, as demonstrated by the aircraft's high quality and operational performance. All operational F-22s today have interchangeable parts.

Assertion: The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Facts: The F-22 was declared operational in 2005, after air dominance was achieved in South West Asian Theater of conflict. Due to the absence of air-to-air or surface-to-air threats in these two theaters, stealthy air dominance assets were not an imperative. 4th generation fighters operate safely and effectively supporting the ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best weapon may be the one that isn't used but instead deters a conflict before it begins. Just as we have Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that were not used in the current conflicts, we need air superiority capabilities that provide deterrence. The F-22 provides those capabilities for today's contingencies as well as for future conflict. It is important to remember that the F-15 was operational for 15 years before it was first used in combat by the USAF.

 

[The Basket]

I agree.

An F-22 will better than an F-5 but look at history.

The F-86 was not superior to the MiG-15...a Wildcat was not superior to a Zero...but the USA won anyway...man not machine. Even in a F-22, you need all the manpower and backup and without the professionalism of a well trained air force then any fighter is just a lump of metal.

A later mark of Spitfire would have been nice in 1940 but how many would we have had? Each loss would be a significant depletion of fighters and that is not including losses in training and mechanical failure.

The A-10 is a good example of less is more. You don't need the final 50 cents of technology if all your facing are warmed up MiG-21s.

The less F-22s you have the less likely you will use them in combat...you will end up using them as Mini-awacs as the Iranians used thier F-14s.

To me, the continuation of production of the Raptor has to do with jobs and Lockheed's future more than defence.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I agree.

An F-22 will better than an F-5 but look at history.

The F-86 was not superior to the MiG-15...a Wildcat was not superior to a Zero...but the USA won anyway...man not machine. Even in a F-22, you need all the manpower and backup and without the professionalism of a well trained air force then any fighter is just a lump of metal.

I hear what you're saying but one correction - the F-86 WAS better than the MiG-15 in most performance aspects, but that's another discussion.

A later mark of Spitfire would have been nice in 1940 but how many would we have had? Each loss would be a significant depletion of fighters and that is not including losses in training and mechanical failure.

Supposed you had thousands of them????

The A-10 is a good example of less is more. You don't need the final 50 cents of technology if all your facing are warmed up MiG-21s.

You don't but that many not always be the case. The whole idea here is prepare for the worse possible scenario.

The less F-22s you have the less likely you will use them in combat...you will end up using them as Mini-awacs as the Iranians used thier F-14s.

There's 147 of them - what do you base that on? Do you have any written or proposed document by anyone in the USAF that will happen? If anything I'd bet the first chance the USAF has to confront any air-to-air foe, the F-22 will be there front center.

BTW - 23 B-2s have been built - did those numbers prevent them from being used in combat?

To me, the continuation of production of the Raptor has to do with jobs and Lockheed's future more than defence.

Again wrong. The F-22 is already gone and soon most of those jobs will be as well HOWEVER Lockheed Martin has a lot more going on than the F-22 and F-35.

 

[The Basket]

If you say we need F-22s because of future airwar against a very formidable enemy...then that same enemy will be able to strike at the forward bases where the F-22s will be.

A war with Chaina will not be won with 147 Raptors.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you say we need F-22s because of future airwar against a very formidable enemy...then that same enemy will be able to strike at the forward bases where the F-22s will be.

Perhaps....

A war with Chaina will not be won with 147 Raptors.

No it won't - that's why you have F-35 and other resources depending on the combat scenario.

 

[parsifal]

I dont know a tenth of what you guys do when it comes to modern technology, but my two cents worth just the same. If you look at the technological capability of the new generation Russian and Chinese hardware, there is still a gap, but I think accepting second best is dangerous. In my own region, the "opposition" (who are actually our friends at the moment....but this like all things can change...thirty years agao we were shooting at them)...now fly Mig-29s and Su-35s, and for the first time in a long time the RAAF is now sayiung that technologically our F-18s are outclassed. I happen to think thats a bit alarmist, but our "friends" would just love to have that technological advantage that we enjoy.

So my opinion is that we cant afford to be lax regarding our pursuit of technology. Australia is not involved with the F-22 program, but we are investing heavily in the F-35. I just hope the aircraft is ready soon, and can do the job we want it to do.....

The price for complaceny could be our liberty, our prosperity, and our lives

 

[Civettone]

The F-35 is a poor poor substitute for the F-111...

And again, does anyone see China producing hundreds of 5th generation fighters? Russia ??

Kris

 

[Clay_Allison]

We are swiftly going from an air power that dominates the world to one that dominates only our own back yards as we start to lack the ability to project force into the back yards of rival super powers. I doubt we can take on Russia, China, or India in their air space.

A friend of mine in the DIA told me the people who run these simulations say we could be kicked out of the Indian Ocean by India any time they wanted to remove us.

I don't know if there is a solution unless the government reworks their incredibly expensive and Byzantine procurement system and starts getting weapons for reasonable prices.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F-35 is a poor poor substitute for the F-111...

And why do you say that?

 

[The Basket]

Your friends simulations should tell him India is an ally.

When does the USA plan to invade India?

Or is India planning a pre-emptive strike?

 

[Civettone]

And why do you say that?

The range which is so essential in that area (SE Asia).
To a lesser extent the payload.

This is a rather big issue with Australian defence specialists and aviation fans.

RAAF vs F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter
Kris

 

[Glider]

There seems to be a lot of knocking going on but no real thought about an alternative to the F35. The USA are not going to sell the F22 to anyone and I doubt if Australia could afford many anyway. So the obvious choice would be the Typhoon an excellent aircraft but no doubt one which would receive similar negative comments and not affordable with the money already spent on the F35.

It might be worth thinking about what is possible and not what isn't possible

The F111 was seen as the all dancing solution but it would have been in trouble in a dedicated air to air scenario. When the F111 was chosen there was a good case for spending the same money on twice as many F4's.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The range which is so essential in that area (SE Asia).
To a lesser extent the payload.

This is a rather big issue with Australian defence specialists and aviation fans.

RAAF vs F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter
Kris

And when you're carrying bombs that weigh less and do more? I'll let you think about that one....

As far as the range issue? Yes, the -111 has it there and with payload, but that's one reason why you have tankers.

The -111 is not a very good fighter when placed in that scenario. my father in law flew them. he said the plane was fast as hell but did not accelerate quickly and was not maneuverable. Also sitting side-by-side didn't help if you were placed in a visual engagement.

As far as the RAAF - they'll have the final word but at the same time i see no other modern multi-role fighter that offers better performance and versatility. As far as aviation fans? Just chatter boxes on the sidelines.

 

[Amsel]

Your friends simulations should tell him India is an ally.

When does the USA plan to invade India?

Or is India planning a pre-emptive strike?

You haven't heard?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You haven't heard?

 

[Civettone]

As far as the range issue? Yes, the -111 has it there and with payload, but that's one reason why you have tankers.

But then the F-111 can still fly further with more payload as it too can be refueled.

The -111 is not a very good fighter when placed in that scenario. my father in law flew them. he said the plane was fast as hell but did not accelerate quickly and was not maneuverable. Also sitting side-by-side didn't help if you were placed in a visual engagement.

It is not a fighter, it is a low-level high-speed strike aircraft.
It is for that why the Australians bought them. That is what they need, not a fighter for local air superiority 1000 miles from home.

As far as the RAAF - they'll have the final word but at the same time i see no other modern multi-role fighter that offers better performance and versatility.

I agree.
Though the Su-34 would be nice although politically impossible.

As far as aviation fans? Just chatter boxes on the sidelines.

I consider myself to be just that. So thanks for the insult

Kris