F-22 or F-35? you decide!!

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OuAc4AISWw&NR=1]YouTube - F-22 Canceled or Dead Japan start the Mitsubishi ATD X ShinShin 2009[/ame]

I thought this rather interesting , Japan has expressed an interest in purchasing the F-22 which would have led to keeping that line open for some time to come. Further it would have avoided a 167 Million doallr per unit shut down cost that the DoD has agreed to in order to close the line which makes no sense at all. If you take a close look at this aircraft it looks almost exactly like the F-22 right down to the thrust vectoring nozzles.

 

[publicprotector]

Well for a start thank Odin I'm not American, but America was doing very well before it was stired from being insular to its current foreign policy. And whilst many Americans work very hard many do not but that has nothing to do with the fact that the country and its people have been highjacked by the TPTB to achieve a certain goal.

The US right now exhibits all the signs of the cold war Soviet Union, masses spent on the military while the infastructure of the country stands still. There is a very large void indeed in the aspirations of the people and what the perps have planned. No amount of hard work or even laziness is goingh to change the destination that the US is now on.

To all intents and purposes the life of the average American has no value other than dying for the perps or working for them. It is a process that has happened many times before and if its anyones fault its the people who are to blame but Americans are not unique in this process. While the waters are muddied to such an extent no one can see who is really to blame for the mess that the US is now in but it is those who have done this many times before.

But events will take their course as they always do and when the US has been thrown on the scrap heap the peprs will move on to aniother nation to start the process all over again.

 

[Harry Dresden]

How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.

yea will keep that in mind....

 

[geauxtohell]

The emergence of nuclear weaponry makes conventional war between nations a zero sum game. Thus, the emergence of the asymmetric battlefield.

In that context, it makes little sense to dump money into an interdiction fighter or the newest and greatest artillery piece that will have little utility in an insurgency fight.

The money would be better utilized going to current platforms that can provide CAS.

The Air Force and Navy aviation are having a hard time accepting that their roles have changed, but it's it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

 

[Navy1960]

Well for a start thank Odin I'm not American, but America was doing very well before it was stired from being insular to its current foreign policy. And whilst many Americans work very hard many do not but that has nothing to do with the fact that the country and its people have been highjacked by the TPTB to achieve a certain goal.

The US right now exhibits all the signs of the cold war Soviet Union, masses spent on the military while the infastructure of the country stands still. There is a very large void indeed in the aspirations of the people and what the perps have planned. No amount of hard work or even laziness is goingh to change the destination that the US is now on.

To all intents and purposes the life of the average American has no value other than dying for the perps or working for them. It is a process that has happened many times before and if its anyones fault its the people who are to blame but Americans are not unique in this process. While the waters are muddied to such an extent no one can see who is really to blame for the mess that the US is now in but it is those who have done this many times before.

But events will take their course as they always do and when the US has been thrown on the scrap heap the peprs will move on to aniother nation to start the process all over again.

interesting observation but not a correct one, while the United States is many things our path and that of the Soviet Unions are no where close. What you have proposed this nation do is is more akin to that style of Govt. where the the central Govt. provide the things in life that the people are better able to provide for themselves. That basic premise of thought in Govt. has been rejected by the United States for over 200 years and up until recently it always has been. While all of the worlds powers daily wish for our demise in one way or another, what I find interesting most of all they are never short of opnions in pointing out our problems when their own are always significantly worse than our's. I would call that deflection and good way to make one feel better about one's own nations ill's. However, I can see why someone in another nation might see the United States especially lately as a nation that has little to be admired, especially when most of the world beats it's doors down to emultate the U.S. culture in one form or another. As for the US Military, I would suggest you take the time to read the constitution of this nation and get a basic understanding of the role our form of Govt. has and what they are empowered to do under it before you suggest a form of Govt. that has demonstrated with the fall of the Berlin Wall what providing all those things results in.

 

[Navy1960]

The emergence of nuclear weaponry makes conventional war between nations a zero sum game. Thus, the emergence of the asymmetric battlefield.

In that context, it makes little sense to dump money into an interdiction fighter or the newest and greatest artillery piece that will have little utility in an insurgency fight.

The money would be better utilized going to current platforms that can provide CAS.

The Air Force and Navy aviation are having a hard time accepting that their roles have changed, but it's it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

Do you know geau that same thing was said over and over again during the development of the F-4 Phantom and that resulted in an aircraft that was brought into service with no capability at all for ACM-Air Combat Maneuvering and no Cannon. With the advent of the Vietnam conflict many lives were lost as a result of that sort of thinking as several F-4 Phantoms had to cut and run because they had no cabability to defend themselves against an enemy that was more maneuverable and often times outgunned the F-4. In fact that thinking led the military at one time to abandon the practice of ACM and a whole generation of pilots went to war without knowing how to engage in air-to-air combat. Many lives were lost, and during that War once this thinking was found to be flawed because, the US was more likely to find itself engaged in all types of combat schools like Top Gun were formed to teach just that. So while CAS, is a vital mission for air power it is only one aspect of air power.

 

[publicprotector]

The Constitution or that goddam bit of paper is just that a bit of paper. The founding fathers wishing to be free of the mother country never achieved same, it was a trick an illusion by the power brokers who led the simple folk to believe that they had won and were therefore free of the controls of the Uk.

But in reality that never happened, the US was up for sale and the Uk bought it lock stock and barrel. Like a play that was written it has been acted out with the cast and the audience believeing that they are free of any interuptions or influence. but that is not the case.

The Constitution was pure theatre, an illusionists set of props to beguile the people and this has been so since it was written. And where is the Constitution now? its called the Patriot Act but the one and the other are the same, rules set down in which to control the people, nothing changes, the perps control all and have done so for so long.

Its all nonsense, politics this party that party, its all irrelevant as these things are merely the stage sets that the perps use to hoodwink us all. So while you slaver over some new jet fighter and believe your country needs it people are starving for want of the basic things in life. But you don't care because it dose not affect you at this moment in time. Its an American sickness, better to have guns and bullets rather than food, better to die defending the indefensible than to live.

You would think with all the American failures in war that the truth would start to hit home but it has not, you must ask yourself why. Why is it that a nation that claims to be the strongest on the planet keeps losing, can you understand that concept? I have heard all the excuses under the sun from Americans yet it still does not provide the answer as to why you fail.

The simple answer is that you are not designed to win just as the perps who set up ww1 and ww2 knew who would be the winners and who would be the losers well before the first shot was fired. Its not rocket science and all the clues and answers are there you just have to look. Nothing is random and all things are connected.

 

[geauxtohell]

The emergence of nuclear weaponry makes conventional war between nations a zero sum game. Thus, the emergence of the asymmetric battlefield.

In that context, it makes little sense to dump money into an interdiction fighter or the newest and greatest artillery piece that will have little utility in an insurgency fight.

The money would be better utilized going to current platforms that can provide CAS.

The Air Force and Navy aviation are having a hard time accepting that their roles have changed, but it's it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

Do you know geau that same thing was said over and over again during the development of the F-4 Phantom and that resulted in an aircraft that was brought into service with no capability at all for ACM-Air Combat Maneuvering and no Cannon. With the advent of the Vietnam conflict many lives were lost as a result of that sort of thinking as several F-4 Phantoms had to cut and run because they had no cabability to defend themselves against an enemy that was more maneuverable and often times outgunned the F-4. In fact that thinking led the military at one time to abandon the practice of ACM and a whole generation of pilots went to war without knowing how to engage in air-to-air combat. Many lives were lost, and during that War once this thinking was found to be flawed because, the US was more likely to find itself engaged in all types of combat schools like Top Gun were formed to teach just that. So while CAS, is a vital mission for air power it is only one aspect of air power.

It still boils down to CAS. If you are in uniform, you are ultimately some form of infantry support whether you like it or not.

And our platforms are still a couple of decades ahead of our closest rivals.

 

[publicprotector]

No they are not, ahead of what, Iraq, Iran? When are Americans going to realise that their military is not as good or advanced as they think it is. And that aside such technology does not help you win wars does it. For all your alleged technology your failure rate in open conflict is quite astounding. I cannot think of any other nation that has lost as many times as the US has. You talk the talk but you cannot walk the walk to use one of your lines.

The belief in ones superiority compared to reality are miles apart proof of which is in the aforementioned. The constant failure of your forces in the field must come as a shock compared to the drooling over weapons systems that you cannot even afford.

Time to bring what you call those troops home and live on the farm, you have neither the will or capacity to win so quit while your ahead.

 

[Navy1960]

The Constitution or that goddam bit of paper is just that a bit of paper. The founding fathers wishing to be free of the mother country never achieved same, it was a trick an illusion by the power brokers who led the simple folk to believe that they had won and were therefore free of the controls of the Uk.

But in reality that never happened, the US was up for sale and the Uk bought it lock stock and barrel. Like a play that was written it has been acted out with the cast and the audience believeing that they are free of any interuptions or influence. but that is not the case.

The Constitution was pure theatre, an illusionists set of props to beguile the people and this has been so since it was written. And where is the Constitution now? its called the Patriot Act but the one and the other are the same, rules set down in which to control the people, nothing changes, the perps control all and have done so for so long.

Its all nonsense, politics this party that party, its all irrelevant as these things are merely the stage sets that the perps use to hoodwink us all. So while you slaver over some new jet fighter and believe your country needs it people are starving for want of the basic things in life. But you don't care because it dose not affect you at this moment in time. Its an American sickness, better to have guns and bullets rather than food, better to die defending the indefensible than to live.

You would think with all the American failures in war that the truth would start to hit home but it has not, you must ask yourself why. Why is it that a nation that claims to be the strongest on the planet keeps losing, can you understand that concept? I have heard all the excuses under the sun from Americans yet it still does not provide the answer as to why you fail.

The simple answer is that you are not designed to win just as the perps who set up ww1 and ww2 knew who would be the winners and who would be the losers well before the first shot was fired. Its not rocket science and all the clues and answers are there you just have to look. Nothing is random and all things are connected.

I take it from your comments that your from the UK? That would be just a guess on my part based on your incorrect assumptions as to what this nation was founded upon. I take much solice in having served with a number of your countrymen that I call friends to this day that do not share your sense of hatred for this nation. I do however find it interesting that for someone so terribly disappointed in America and would blame the worlds ill's upon it would use an american invention to express thoughs views. Tell me, when you start that computer up does it say Microsoft or perhaps Apple or some sort of copy? I suppose though one can pick and choose what they hate or don't hate about the United States. I will attempt one last time to give you a clue about this nation. This nation is not founded on the principles that a central Govt. is responsible for the basic needs of it's people i.e. housing, healthcare, etc. However it was founded on the principles that one is Free to worship, work, and choose their own destiny here. You see public , those two things are very different, the latter assumes that a person is better able to decide for themselves what is best for them and their family and the former assumes the people know no better, thus the reasons why most of Europe constantly suffer though chronic economic problems and have since the end of WW2. Think I'm wrong then take a little visit to Spain or Perhaps even closer to you France and ask the young men and women there about 30% of them that cannot find jobs what they think of the socialistic nirvana you love so much. While it's noble for a society to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves, the elderly, and disabled. Those that can and are able to are not served when a Govt. does not allow them seek their own destiny. That is where you and I differ, I believe that a person who has a desire in life should be able to seek their own destiny and enjoy the fruits of their labor whereas you believe that those fruits should be shared with those that were to lazy to go out and do for themselves. As for your other assertions, that's been debated many times and you will find in me someone who recognizes the contributions of EVERY nation to mankinds progress not just someone who would sit here and tell you America is responsible for all the worlds good. It's too bad you cannot do the same. In fact, we learned a great deal from our mother country some good and some not so good, but in the end, both our nations were the better for it. I also recognize that winning as you say invloves the desires of many nations with a single goal and not just one. In fact the contributions of every nation for example WW2 is what won that war not just a single nations contributions. I find it rather disappointing I suppose when I see someone on here that is part of the blame America first crowd it sort of saddens me a little because those same people enjoy the Freedoms that many Americans and many of your countryman paid for with their lives but yet don't have the honor to actually recognize that. I may suggest if you have time to take a ride over the Channel to Normandy and see the American cemetary there it might help add some perspective and hopefully give you an appreciation that the United States has given much for your openions. As for the the military issues I will point you to this,,,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America..

Notice it does not say provide for the General Welfare but rather promote!! and well while the constitution to you may be just an old paper to our nation it is the law we live by. So sadly when you look into the Air in the UK and you see an RAF-35 flyover try not to think to badly of us as we simply are providing for your common defense as well.

 

[Darkwind]

i've always felt that they made too many compromises on the F-35 to make it fit so many mission roles
while the F-22 fully does the role it was designed for

The f-22 has significant operational problems in that it takes (and this is a quote from memory and not an actual number) 35 hours of maintainance for every 10 hours of operations.

I've not looked into the F-35 program...so I can't comment.

But from some of the(admittedly limited) research I've done on the raptor, it isn't worth the cost.

 

[DiveCon]

No they are not, ahead of what, Iraq, Iran? When are Americans going to realise that their military is not as good or advanced as they think it is. And that aside such technology does not help you win wars does it. For all your alleged technology your failure rate in open conflict is quite astounding. I cannot think of any other nation that has lost as many times as the US has. You talk the talk but you cannot walk the walk to use one of your lines.

The belief in ones superiority compared to reality are miles apart proof of which is in the aforementioned. The constant failure of your forces in the field must come as a shock compared to the drooling over weapons systems that you cannot even afford.

Time to bring what you call those troops home and live on the farm, you have neither the will or capacity to win so quit while your ahead.

care to actually point out all those "loses" you are claiming?

 

[Navy1960]

The emergence of nuclear weaponry makes conventional war between nations a zero sum game. Thus, the emergence of the asymmetric battlefield.

In that context, it makes little sense to dump money into an interdiction fighter or the newest and greatest artillery piece that will have little utility in an insurgency fight.

The money would be better utilized going to current platforms that can provide CAS.

The Air Force and Navy aviation are having a hard time accepting that their roles have changed, but it's it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

Do you know geau that same thing was said over and over again during the development of the F-4 Phantom and that resulted in an aircraft that was brought into service with no capability at all for ACM-Air Combat Maneuvering and no Cannon. With the advent of the Vietnam conflict many lives were lost as a result of that sort of thinking as several F-4 Phantoms had to cut and run because they had no cabability to defend themselves against an enemy that was more maneuverable and often times outgunned the F-4. In fact that thinking led the military at one time to abandon the practice of ACM and a whole generation of pilots went to war without knowing how to engage in air-to-air combat. Many lives were lost, and during that War once this thinking was found to be flawed because, the US was more likely to find itself engaged in all types of combat schools like Top Gun were formed to teach just that. So while CAS, is a vital mission for air power it is only one aspect of air power.

It still boils down to CAS. If you are in uniform, you are ultimately some form of infantry support whether you like it or not.

And our platforms are still a couple of decades ahead of our closest rivals.

If I left you with the impression that geau that I as simply advocating for the F-22 at the expense of the F-35 that would be the wrong impression. As a former A-6 Driver I know full well what CAS is. I was simply trying to point out that it's not a wise thing to do to eliminate an air to air fighter for many reasons. The biggest of which would be Air superiority to dominate the other sides air power to the point where it becomes useless in a battle scenerio. While we have many great airframe currently and when matched against their current rivals they stack up well. The F-15 in fact has never been lost in air combat against any russian made aircraft from SU-27's to Mig-29's. However when matched against newer offerings such as the SU-35/37 or the Euro-Fighter they tend to show their age a little, especially the F-16 which is outmatched by both of those fighters. However, none of those comes close in performance to the F-22 and in CAS none matches the F-35's ability. While some will point to a recent mock combat sim. by the USAF as an example of the F-35's weakness against the SU-35/37 this has been disputed but will post it here for all to see anyway..

Recent war games conducted for Australia resulted in JSF aircraft being “clubbed like baby seals,” according to a news report. As you reported, experts have found that the JSF “can’t turn, can’t climb and can’t run” even versus existing fighters. Russian and Chinese jets are trouncing JSF in simulated war games.

TheHill.com - Joint Strike Fighter program is trillion-dollar boondoggle

Concerns about the F-35's performance have resulted partially from reports of RAND simulations where numerous Russian Sukhoi fighters defeat a handful of F-35s by denying tanker refueling.[47] As a result of these issues the then-Australian defence minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, requested a formal briefing from the Department of Defence (Australia) on the computer simulation. This briefing stated that the reports of the simulation were inaccurate, and that it did not compare the F-35's performance against that of other aircraft.[48]

The criticism of the F-35 has been dismissed by the Pentagon and manufacturer.[47][49] The USAF has conducted an analysis of the F-35's air-to-air performance against all 4th generation fighter aircraft currently available, and has found the F-35 to be at least four times more effective. Maj Gen Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the "F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois".[49] The Russian, Indian, Chinese, and other air forces operate Sukhoi Su-27/30 fighters.

The F-35 will have a helmet mounted cueing system similar to the system already in service with the F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s,[50] the AN/AAQ-37 Electro Optical Distributed Aperture System that "renders maneuverability irrelevant",[51] and improved data processors.[52] Lockheed Martin claims the F-35 will have turning agility/ability of up to 9 g's and provide close-in or long-range air-to-air combat capability second only to the F-22 Raptor, and superior to all other fighters.[53]
F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Navy1960]

Just as important; if a supposedly renown paper like the Washington Post gets so much wrong on this topic, what else are they misreporting?

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.

Theres a lot more but will leave it to your reading ..
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html

 

[Xenophon]

Something else to mention in passing, the performance of Russian equipment has been oversated since 1950, when used in actual war it never comes close to the 'projections.'

You mentioned the F 4 earlier Navy, when a gun pod was added (F-4D) the Migs began to lose their edge, and when the fighter schools were opened and turning out pilots, the F-4 was winning by 10-1.

I also remmeber that the F-18 was considered a failure and would always lose to the Russians in the early 80s, and it has been a huge sucess story.

 

[Navy1960]

Something else to mention in passing, the performance of Russian equipment has been oversated since 1950, when used in actual war it never comes close to the 'projections.'

You mentioned the F 4 earlier Navy, when a gun pod was added (F-4D) the Migs began to lose their edge, and when the fighter schools were opened and turning out pilots, the F-4 was winning by 10-1.

I also remmeber that the F-18 was considered a failure and would always lose to the Russians in the early 80s, and it has been a huge sucess story.

Good Point Xeno, I recall all the hype surrounding the Mig-25 and how our nation was way behind which eventually led to the development of the F-15. However after the defection as I recall by a Soviet pilot in the mid 70's and as it turned out the performace was not all it was cracked up to be. This tactic of over stating Russian aircraft abilities in order to use that as an excuse to make the US aircraft look obsolete or not needed is not a new tactic and has been used for years. As I recall the F-18 was thought of as inferior to the Mig-29 and the SU-27 which as we have seen in the last several years is not the case. Interesting story about the F-4 ..

The first "Linebacker" aerial bombardment campaign had just started. On 8 May, Navy A-6 Intruders mined Haiphong Harbor. Duke Cunningham and Willie Driscoll were flying escort, when a MiG-17 leapt out of the clouds, firing at Lt. Brian Grant, Cunningham's wingman. Grant broke away, and the MiG fired a heat seeking ATOL missile. As Cunningham and Grant twisted and banked and shook the missile, two more MiGs zoomed past, briefly out of the action. Cunningham turned on the first MiG and took a long-range shot at him with a Sidewinder. It turned hard to elude the missile, but put himself in front of Duke's Phantom. As the other two MiGs returned and began firing, Cunningham stayed focused on his target. He fired a Sidewinder, which locked in and destroyed the MiG. Cunningham and Driscoll didn't have much time to enjoy this victory, since the other two MiG's were right on them. Cunningham sharply turned to escape, damaging his aircraft in the process, only to look up and see the MiG-17 just above. There was no out-turning a MiG-17, but he could out-run it. He ducked into a cloud and fired up his afterburner to give the MiG the slip.
Randy 'Duke' Cunningham: Navy Phantom Pilot, Vietnam Ace, Congressman, Prison Inmate


However my point with the F-4 was to show that not using all oyur resources can lead to thinking that will result in poor initial design and loss of life. That should be a lesson we should keep in mind when it comes to aircraft like the F-22 and the F-35

 

[EriktheRed]

Just as important; if a supposedly renown paper like the Washington Post gets so much wrong on this topic, what else are they misreporting?

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.

Theres a lot more but will leave it to your reading ..
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html

Crap, I was going with the F-22 'til I read this.


Edit: I admit myself to be a dumbass. I didn't read this post properly....shit.

 

[Navy1960]

Just as important; if a supposedly renown paper like the Washington Post gets so much wrong on this topic, what else are they misreporting?

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.

Theres a lot more but will leave it to your reading ..
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html

Crap, I was going with the F-22 'til I read this.

Erik overall it's a very positive review of the F-22 and a sound rebuke of the critics including the Washington Post article. I would encourage you to read it once more. The main thrust of the article was to present the assertions made against the F-22 and dispute them which in my opinion was done well. What seems to get lost sometimes about the F-22 is that it is a new aircraft and all new aircraft go through some sort of operational adjustment period. It was not different for the F-15, F-16, F-14, ,, on down in fact the reviews for the Tomcat were so bad when it was first introduced there were howls to have it cancelled and it turned into a a solid performing aircraft for over 25 years. I would though read the article again as it's a very positive review of the F-22

 

[EriktheRed]

Erik overall it's a very positive review of the F-22 and a sound rebuke of the critics including the Washington Post article. I would encourage you to read it once more. The main thrust of the article was to present the assertions made against the F-22 and dispute them which in my opinion was done well. What seems to get lost sometimes about the F-22 is that it is a new aircraft and all new aircraft go through some sort of operational adjustment period. It was not different for the F-15, F-16, F-14, ,, on down in fact the reviews for the Tomcat were so bad when it was first introduced there were howls to have it cancelled and it turned into a a solid performing aircraft for over 25 years. I would though read the article again as it's a very positive review of the F-22

Nevermind, I didn't read this properly anyway.


(this place oughtta have a redface smiley)

 

[DiveCon]

Erik overall it's a very positive review of the F-22 and a sound rebuke of the critics including the Washington Post article. I would encourage you to read it once more. The main thrust of the article was to present the assertions made against the F-22 and dispute them which in my opinion was done well. What seems to get lost sometimes about the F-22 is that it is a new aircraft and all new aircraft go through some sort of operational adjustment period. It was not different for the F-15, F-16, F-14, ,, on down in fact the reviews for the Tomcat were so bad when it was first introduced there were howls to have it cancelled and it turned into a a solid performing aircraft for over 25 years. I would though read the article again as it's a very positive review of the F-22

Nevermind, I didn't read this properly anyway.


(this place oughtta have a redface smiley)

it does