You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
WaPo Fixes Sights on F-22
2009-07-11
The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show.
THAT's not a very good ratio!
It's an air superiority fighter with a lot of new technology. They're fragile beasts when they're not in the air.
The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings - such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion - challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.

While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress over whether the program should be halted next year at 187 planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's contractors around the country had anticipated.

"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats.

But other defense officials - reflecting sharp divisions inside the Pentagon about the wisdom of ending one of the largest arms programs in U.S. history - emphasize the plane's unsurpassed flying abilities, express renewed optimism that the troubles will abate and say the plane is worth the unexpected costs.
Posted by:Bobby

#13  More background:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/pentagon-stealth-fighter-is-a-lame-jammer-end-it-already/#more-14624

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/whistleblower-alleges-major-shortcomings-in-stealth-jet/#more-14636

Add'l stories after the mains under "ALSO:"



Posted by: Uncle Phester   2009-07-11 20:11  

#12  Wonder if this is just the WaPo following the talking points from the White House. Obama and Gates want to reduce the number of F-22s to be procured and Congress is fighting every step of the way.
Posted by: rwv   2009-07-11 18:57  

#11  If the 30 hrs/ flight hr is correct then the F-22 is only slightly more fragile than the F-15.

Considering it is a brand new airplane, this makes it an amazingly reliable craft!

IIRC the stealthy coat of the B-2 was a major cause of its high maintenance hours. The AF actually bought a bunch of robots to crawl over the skin and repair small tears, bubbles etc.
Posted by: Fozen Al   2009-07-11 17:33  

#10  I guess we all know one company that gave a hearty "hell no" to the WaPo salon solicitation....
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-07-11 17:02  

#9  I don't think this is good news, and I don't think they're likely to sort it out, as Mike suggested.

These problems are inherent to the aircraft. It has to do with the radar and infrared coatings on the skin of the aircraft. The materials are really finicky. I think the maintenance figures for the F-117 and B-2 that Ed put up are likely to hold true with the F-22. As Ed points out, they're stealth aircraft.

I don't agree with Ed's assessment that it's "reasonable." The F-117s, for example, were designed for a very specific purpose: take out vital nodes in a high-threat environment at night. It was understood that they wouldn't generate high sortie rates, even with the Soviets rolling towards the Rhine. They just had to get to East Germany and Poland and drop bridge spans or whatever. There were never that many F117s put in service.

The F22 is our new front-line air superiority fighter. It's also supposed to do some strike missions, like the F117. They've got to be in the air constantly. I don't think they'll be able to do the mission.

The US Air Force has risked everything on stealth. Now, stealth is quite useful. But it should be just a part of the toolkit. The Air Force made a conscious decision to abandon electronic warfare and wild weasel platforms. The brass bureaucracy made sure the F-22 is the only game in town, and now we're going to pay for it.
Posted by: Plastic Snoopy   2009-07-11 16:15  

#8  Two things here that need to be dealt with separately. First, the plane is fantastic and completely dominates the air. These maintenance issues are within reasonable start up levels and the contractors and airmen are sorting it out.

The other issue is that the US doesn't need the plane even if it were perfect. The current aircraft are fine. Also, Navy air is more likely to meet and defeat any enemy, who dares take to the skies than Air Force platforms. Every penny spent on additional F-22's is money wasted, when we really do need to spend more C-17's and small diameter bombs.
Posted by: rammer   2009-07-11 15:30  

#7  Good points, Mike (and I did say "salt to taste" since it was the WaPo). Brings back some memories of my own service in the peanut farmer's Navy...and the "less costly" local-oscillator tubes that had an average life span measured in minutes and made it damn near impossible to keep my fire-control radar operational.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)   2009-07-11 13:23  

#6  I remember the media runup to Desert Storm. The Abrams weren't gonna work, the Apaches weren't gonna work...
Posted by: tu3031   2009-07-11 11:55  

#5  I recall the B-2 had the same vulnerability to rain and also a very high maintenance/flight ratio too; did it ever improve?
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-07-11 11:41  

#4  ...The WaPo is using a perfectly normal statistic and relying on the public's ignorance as a weapon. ANY new weapons system has a learning/break-in curve that is going to last for a few years. (The F-22 only officially entered active service in December 2005 and didn't start flying regular sorties until late 06). That's point number one.
Number two is that the F-15 is a thoroughly mature weapons system that has been in service since 1976 - every cost and expense has long since been amortized. The -15, in fact, was a notorious hangar queen for the first three or four years of its service, though it should be pointed out that the Carter Administration was pretty bad about funding parts and maintenance funds. (One legendary exercise in 1979 badly embarassed the entire F-15 community and cost the wing commander at Langley his job when they couldn't get 8 F-15s flying in 4 days.)
Whenever a new aircraft enters service, parts and maintenance funds - the very definition of 'unsexy' - tend to take a back seat to getting the bird on the ramp, and when you can't get parts or they're delayed, maintenance hours tend to get stretched out...which costs more money. The bottom line is that so far the -22 has done remarkably well for a new aircraft, but you're not going to hear about that.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2009-07-11 09:20  

#3  F-117: Over 100
B-2: Over 100
F-15: 22
F-18E: 15

F-22 maintenance hours don't seem so out of whack when considering the stealth coating work.
Posted by: ed   2009-07-11 01:27  

#2  Some former generals need to lose their pensions.
Posted by: gorb   2009-07-11 00:42  

#1  "Vulnerability to rain and other abrasion"?!?!? Assuming that's true (and this IS the WaPo, so salt to taste), that means forget about using it anywhere there's a desert. Or anywhere there's NOT a desert. Sounds like this plane might be an example of the old saying "the perfect is the enemy of the good".
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)   2009-07-11 00:40  

00:00