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.

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.