F-22 - a plane you won't go to war with?

Skybird · 07-21-09, 04:50 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070903020.html

Financing a greater fighter fleet of Raptors currently is a big battle in congress. Congress wants to finance more fighters despite the desastrous financial situation of the US, while both the president and the Pentagon do not want them. Having to do 30 hours of maintenance for one flight hour for a brandnew state-of-the-art supertoy is indeed a bit rich and raises giant questions marks whether or not such a plane really is worth 150 million dollars per piece - which is the most optimistic price tag. Critics calculate the price per plane to be as high as 350 million dollars.

That congress wants that plane nevertheless, maybe has to do with the fact the the production of the F-22, in typical American defense industry manner, is scattered over 40 federal states. This industry design works great to make sure that congress is very hesitent to cut defense spendings, because limiting defense projects, even if the military does not want them or does not need them, would cut job, which translates into: cutting voters for congressmen in the affected states. So that congress wants the Raptor no matter the desperate fiancial condition and the unimaginable debts already accumulated, is not so much military reason, but simply reflects the fact that 80% of Congressmen fear to lose voters in their home states.

The scenarios the F-22 originally has been designed for, currently are to be considered as being very unlikely, and for the more realistic military scenarios of the present and forseeable future, the F-22 has no value, especially no value that justifies it's ridiculous costs. You do not put such a costly item at risk, if it does not give you something in return, and in the ongoing wars of the present, the F-22 has seen no action - against whom anyway? But what made me abandoning the idea of the F-22 now in total is the absolutely undiscussable relation between maintenance and flight hours. A relation of 30:1 you expect to have with planes from the 70s or 80s after they have seen 20 or 30 years of service. For a brandnew plane, such a ratio of 30:1 is simply: crappy. even our very old Transall transporters, Tornados and CH-53 helicopters in germany do not reach such desastrous ratios, I have been told by a pro - after decades of service and being worn out pretty badly.

goldorak · 07-21-09, 06:09 AM

The F-14 had something like 50 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight. Way way more than even the F-22. You could argue that during the cold war money was no problem, and to a certain extent it was true.
But right now, having an aircarft that requires 30 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight is just absurd. The moreso considering how few of them are operational.

Quote:

The decision to incorporate the Super Hornet and decommission the F-14 is mainly due to high amount of maintenance required to keep the Tomcats operational. On average, an F-14 requires nearly 50 maintenance hours for every flight hour, while the Super Hornet requires five to 10 maintenance hours for every flight hour.

Source : http://www.military.com/features/0,1...l?ESRC=navy.nl

Kazuaki Shimazaki II · 07-21-09, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

The F-14 had something like 50 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight. Way way more than even the F-22. You could argue that during the cold war money was no problem, and to a certain extent it was true.
But right now, having an aircarft that requires 30 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight is just absurd. The moreso considering how few of them are operational.

To be fair, the Super Hornet is in comparison something of an economy plane built on well-grounded tech, while both the F-14 and -22 were more at the limits of technology.

For the record, is it 30 man-hours, 30 hours using the standard sized US maintenance groundcrew or 30 hours if you throw a hundred guys at it?

Quote:

The scenarios the F-22 originally has been designed for, currently are to be considered as being very unlikely, and for the more realistic military scenarios of the present and forseeable future, the F-22 has no value, especially no value that justifies it's ridiculous costs

The problem here, which is ignored by critics in the US and instituniks in Russia, is that militaries aren't designed to face so called "realistic scenarios", by which those critics generally mean "low-intensity conflicts" that aren't vital to the national interest. The military must retain the best possible ability against the worst-case scenario, which is the "high-intensity, high-tech conflicts" that most of those critics dismiss.

However unlikely they are, should the military follow the instituniks and reorient for LIC, and they suffer badly in the next HIC leading to the loss of vital interests or even sovereignty itself, you can bet that those instituniks will completely forget their role in all this and blame the generals.

Max2147 · 07-21-09, 09:48 AM

I think we should have more F-22s, but the impetus for that should come from The Pentagon, not Congress. I don't like the idea of Congress buying more F-22s, since it's just pork barrel spending for them.

My biggest problem with ending the F-22 production run is that the F-35 is not adequate in the air superiority role. It can't carry enough missiles, its stealth isn't good enough, and its performance isn't up to par. It's supposed to do air to air and air to ground work, but as a result its design is too compromised in both.

The F-22's biggest flaw isn't its maintenance and such, it's the price tag. Not only does that make it tough to buy more, but it also brings up the possibility of the plane being too expensive to use in combat. If you have less than 200 of them, and each one of them is astronomically expensive, commanders might balk at putting them in situations where they could be lost.

Hitman · 07-21-09, 12:18 PM

Quote:

So that congress wants the Raptor no matter the desperate fiancial condition and the unimaginable debts already accumulated, is not so much military reason, but simply reflects the fact that 80% of Congressmen fear to lose voters in their home states.

Don't you simply love democracy?

Zachstar · 07-21-09, 01:18 PM

Congress has voted to stop production of the F-22.

Now is the time for the military to get even more serious about drones. A flock of drones is better than any F-22.

07-21-09, 04:50 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,604 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	F-22 - a plane you won't go to war with? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070903020.html Financing a greater fighter fleet of Raptors currently is a big battle in congress. Congress wants to finance more fighters despite the desastrous financial situation of the US, while both the president and the Pentagon do not want them. Having to do 30 hours of maintenance for one flight hour for a brandnew state-of-the-art supertoy is indeed a bit rich and raises giant questions marks whether or not such a plane really is worth 150 million dollars per piece - which is the most optimistic price tag. Critics calculate the price per plane to be as high as 350 million dollars. That congress wants that plane nevertheless, maybe has to do with the fact the the production of the F-22, in typical American defense industry manner, is scattered over 40 federal states. This industry design works great to make sure that congress is very hesitent to cut defense spendings, because limiting defense projects, even if the military does not want them or does not need them, would cut job, which translates into: cutting voters for congressmen in the affected states. So that congress wants the Raptor no matter the desperate fiancial condition and the unimaginable debts already accumulated, is not so much military reason, but simply reflects the fact that 80% of Congressmen fear to lose voters in their home states. The scenarios the F-22 originally has been designed for, currently are to be considered as being very unlikely, and for the more realistic military scenarios of the present and forseeable future, the F-22 has no value, especially no value that justifies it's ridiculous costs. You do not put such a costly item at risk, if it does not give you something in return, and in the ongoing wars of the present, the F-22 has seen no action - against whom anyway? But what made me abandoning the idea of the F-22 now in total is the absolutely undiscussable relation between maintenance and flight hours. A relation of 30:1 you expect to have with planes from the 70s or 80s after they have seen 20 or 30 years of service. For a brandnew plane, such a ratio of 30:1 is simply: crappy. even our very old Transall transporters, Tornados and CH-53 helicopters in germany do not reach such desastrous ratios, I have been told by a pro - after decades of service and being worn out pretty badly. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 07-21-09 at 05:01 AM.

07-21-09, 01:18 PM	#6
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	Congress has voted to stop production of the F-22. Now is the time for the military to get even more serious about drones. A flock of drones is better than any F-22. __________________

07-21-09, 09:48 AM	#4
Max2147 Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 714 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I think we should have more F-22s, but the impetus for that should come from The Pentagon, not Congress. I don't like the idea of Congress buying more F-22s, since it's just pork barrel spending for them. My biggest problem with ending the F-22 production run is that the F-35 is not adequate in the air superiority role. It can't carry enough missiles, its stealth isn't good enough, and its performance isn't up to par. It's supposed to do air to air and air to ground work, but as a result its design is too compromised in both. The F-22's biggest flaw isn't its maintenance and such, it's the price tag. Not only does that make it tough to buy more, but it also brings up the possibility of the plane being too expensive to use in combat. If you have less than 200 of them, and each one of them is astronomically expensive, commanders might balk at putting them in situations where they could be lost.