Article

2009-07-11 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2009-07-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 00:40|| Front Page Top

#2 Some former generals need to lose their pensions.

Posted by gorb 2009-07-11 00:42|| 2009-07-11 00:42|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 01:27|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 09:20|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 11:41|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 11:55|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 13:23|| Front Page Top

#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">rammer 2009-07-11 15:30|| 2009-07-11 15:30|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 16:15|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 17:02|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 17:33|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 18:57|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-07-11 20:11|| Front Page Top

23:57 Alaska Paul
23:49 Cornsilk Blondie
23:47 Alaska Paul
23:43 Alaska Paul
23:41 mojo
22:46 Pappy
22:35 Pappy
22:30 trailing wife
22:19 badanov
22:14 trailing wife
22:09 trailing wife
22:06 49 Pan
22:03 Anonymoose
21:56 Anonymoose
21:45 crosspatch
21:17 Barbara Skolaut
21:16 Mullah Richard
21:05 Spike Gramp9390
21:01 Spike Gramp9390
20:59 Spike Gramp9390
20:59 Sgt. Mom
20:48 Sgt. Mom
20:42 Angie Schultz
20:11 Uncle Phester