Premier US Jet has major shortcomings

[Double Trouble]

I'm reposting this for an actual discussion as this is an interesting article. The previous version got locked because someone couldn't stop acting like a 12 year old jerk for a few minutes.

Major problems with F-22

I've seen the F-22 up close and personal a few times, and I have to say it's nothing short of breathtaking. Awesome doesn't even begin to describe it. It's unbelievable how much money is invested in these things, building them and maintaining them.... and it's a shame that the manufacturer appears to have fleeced the government (and in turn, us all).

I've wondered for years if mega billion dollar planes and military equipment is a the best investment in the current environment. The cold war is done, there is no more massive empire to fight head-on on the battlefield. IMO the future will more likely require fast, precision strikes, superior intel, drones etc, not bazillion dollar planes that can destroy half an air force in a few minutes.

 

[0marTheZealot]

I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

 

[her209]

John Hamre, the Pentagon's comptroller from 1993 to 1997, says the department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low because projecting the real costs would have been politically unpalatable on Capitol Hill.

This seems to happen a lot.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: her209

John Hamre, the Pentagon's comptroller from 1993 to 1997, says the department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low because projecting the real costs would have been politically unpalatable on Capitol Hill.

This seems to happen a lot.

... and not just in government either. This happens in the budgeting process of every large company as well.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22.

This being the whole point of the F-22... to make some shithead military contractor a lot of money.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

Pilots dont grow on tree's. In the battle of britain, the British aircraft factories were spitting out planes at a rate the Germans couldnt keep up. The problem was the British were running out of pilots. And the price imo is silly. The predecessor to the F-15 and F-16 was cheaper as well on down the line. I can field 1000 P-51 mustangs for the price of a single F-16. What does that get us? 1000 dead or captured pilots.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Its amazing that this is the ONE thing Obama can cut from the budget. There isn't a SINGLE PENNY of waste anywhere else in government. THIS is the only thing that he is against. I wonder if the plane was built by UAW if that would change his mind?

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

Pilots dont grow on tree's. In the battle of britain, the British aircraft factories were spitting out planes at a rate the Germans couldnt keep up. The problem was the British were running out of pilots. And the price imo is silly. The predecessor to the F-15 and F-16 was cheaper as well on down the line. I can field 1000 P-51 mustangs for the price of a single F-16. What does that get us? 1000 dead or captured pilots.

I don't know, Omar's point seems pretty valid. Sure, you could build 1000 P-51's etc, but I don't know if the difference in performance between an F-16 or F-15 and an F-22 in combat is worth the difference in resource cost. If an enemy could field 20 F-16's, and have a ton of money left to train qualified pilots, that would be a formidable problem for an F-22.

Is this going to be a pirate v ninja thread? 20 F-16's versus 2 F-22. Who wins?

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Its amazing that this is the ONE thing Obama can cut from the budget. There isn't a SINGLE PENNY of waste anywhere else in government. THIS is the only thing that he is against. I wonder if the plane was built by UAW if that would change his mind?

"John Hamre, the Pentagon's comptroller from 1993 to 1997, says the department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low because projecting the real costs would have been politically unpalatable on Capitol Hill."

 

[EagleKeeper]

Having seen it work close up and also fail (close up) it is a sweet fighter when working with an AWACS.

However, because it is not aerodynamically sound, it requires constant computer control to stay in the air.

Therefore any shrapnel or computer glitchs can crash the plane.
The USAF can blame a pilot, yet a pilot is unable to respond in the speed/time frame required to correct a computer mis-adjustment.

With the weather issue it is very similar to the B2 but not the the same extent.
If it is not able to be an all weather fighter; it leaves a serious gap if the existing Eagles & Falcons are not kept up to strength.

Even though it may be assembled in Marrietta, many parts come in from all over the country; creating a politcal landmine to cancel the project.

w/ respect to the stealth capabilites, I have no experience or comments about some of the allegations of the degraded capabilites.

The F35 is intended to be a catch all aircraft, similar to the F4 Phantom in the 60/70s.
However, a swiss army knife usually requires the camper to keep a dedicated tool set for when the knife can not do the job.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Its amazing that this is the ONE thing Obama can cut from the budget. There isn't a SINGLE PENNY of waste anywhere else in government. THIS is the only thing that he is against. I wonder if the plane was built by UAW if that would change his mind?

"John Hamre, the Pentagon's comptroller from 1993 to 1997, says the department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low because projecting the real costs would have been politically unpalatable on Capitol Hill."

Right. And there isn't ONE SINGLE other program that has had similar cost overruns that Obama is against. NOT A SINGLE ONE.. If the F22 program had it, want to guess what % of other governement programs have these inflated costs as well? Government run healthcare anyone?

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Its amazing that this is the ONE thing Obama can cut from the budget. There isn't a SINGLE PENNY of waste anywhere else in government. THIS is the only thing that he is against. I wonder if the plane was built by UAW if that would change his mind?

No - he cut 2 billion form missile defense as well (like was sent to Hawaii because of North Korea). It was a tough call for the chairman "humm missile defense or ACORN....missile defense or ACORN - I know I'll cut missile defense!"

 

[GeezerMan]

"Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more than 40 states, and Sprey -- now a prominent critic of the plane -- said that by the time skeptics "could point out the failed tests, the combat flaws, and the exploding costs, most congressmen were already defending their subcontractors' " revenues. "

Very smart of Lockheed and also is the problem with Congress, and not only with military spending. Their district comes first, before what is good for the country. Like that 320 million dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

 

[senseamp]

These are dodo birds. Drones are the future of military aviation. Every penny we spend on the F-22 just keeps us stuck in the past. That's money we should be spending on developing new drones. F-22 is a giant welfare program, just like Space Shuttle, ( and just like our healthcare system.) Basically designed to funnel maximum amount of money out of Americans' pockets.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

How does someone get 20 F-16 for the price of one F-22? The incremental cost of a F-22 is 138 Million. The incremental cost for the latest F-16E is 26.9 million. 138 divided by 26.9 is 5.13. If we round up we get 6 F-16's per 1 F-22.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

Skill helps, but if I can shoot missiles and kill you before I'm even visible to your plane, skill isn't going to save you. The key to air superiority is preeminence in research, according to the USAF official coin (paraphrased, since I don't have mine in front of me). That saying was from a USAF general at the end of WWII and is just as true today.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

Skill helps, but if I can shoot missiles and kill you before I'm even visible to your plane, skill isn't going to save you. The key to air superiority is preeminence in research, according to the USAF official coin (paraphrased, since I don't have mine in front of me). That saying was from a USAF general at the end of WWII and is just as true today.

Germans were the preeminent weapons researchers in WW2, didn't work out that well for them.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: senseamp
These are dodo birds. Drones are the future of military aviation. Every penny we spend on the F-22 just keeps us stuck in the past. That's money we should be spending on developing new drones. F-22 is a giant welfare program, just like Space Shuttle, ( and just like our healthcare system.) Basically designed to funnel maximum amount of money out of Americans' pockets.

I see you know as much about military performance as you do on all the other topics you reply to on this forum.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

Pilots dont grow on tree's. In the battle of britain, the British aircraft factories were spitting out planes at a rate the Germans couldnt keep up. The problem was the British were running out of pilots. And the price imo is silly. The predecessor to the F-15 and F-16 was cheaper as well on down the line. I can field 1000 P-51 mustangs for the price of a single F-16. What does that get us? 1000 dead or captured pilots.

I don't know, Omar's point seems pretty valid. Sure, you could build 1000 P-51's etc, but I don't know if the difference in performance between an F-16 or F-15 and an F-22 in combat is worth the difference in resource cost. If an enemy could field 20 F-16's, and have a ton of money left to train qualified pilots, that would be a formidable problem for an F-22.

Is this going to be a pirate v ninja thread? 20 F-16's versus 2 F-22. Who wins?

Well F-22s wont fly solo. In the trials a pair of F-22s took out 8 F-15s before the F-15s even knew they were in the area. A flight of 4 could theorectically kill 16. I guess what I am saying is what does it matter if this thing is so dominant the worlds best is destroyed before it even knows it is there? At that rate the only thing holding the F-22 back is its weapon load.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

Skill helps, but if I can shoot missiles and kill you before I'm even visible to your plane, skill isn't going to save you. The key to air superiority is preeminence in research, according to the USAF official coin (paraphrased, since I don't have mine in front of me). That saying was from a USAF general at the end of WWII and is just as true today.

Germans were the preeminent weapons researchers in WW2, didn't work out that well for them.

If they had the tech they researched towards the end of the war at the start imagine how that would have turned out for the allies... I'm personally fine with having the more advanced tech before wars start rather than worry about them once it's too late.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

Skill helps, but if I can shoot missiles and kill you before I'm even visible to your plane, skill isn't going to save you. The key to air superiority is preeminence in research, according to the USAF official coin (paraphrased, since I don't have mine in front of me). That saying was from a USAF general at the end of WWII and is just as true today.

Germans were the preeminent weapons researchers in WW2, didn't work out that well for them.

If they had the tech they researched towards the end of the war at the start imagine how that would have turned out for the allies... I'm personally fine with having the more advanced tech before wars start rather than worry about them once it's too late.

If they didn't botch the Russian invasion, they would have won the war easily. The OKC, German High Command, wanted a straight push to Moscow to cut the Soviet Union in half. After that, they could easily handle Russia's armies because of a lack of command and control. It was basically a repeat of the Poland/France strategies. Hitler overrode them because he wanted to humilate Stalin, and to do that, he wanted to capture Stalingrad and the oilfields in the south and north respectively. So now, the German armies were split into three groups, diluting their strength and military objectives. Then the T-34s came and the Germans had no answer to them for about 1.5 years, which was devastating to the overall war effort.

 

[LTC8K6]

Hold your horse folks. It is the WP after all. Let's hear another side:

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html

 

[LTC8K6]

More rebuttal:

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3621.html

 

[KMFJD]

It's not every day that a president threatens to veto his own defense spending bill.

But that's the rare position President Obama finds himself taking after senators made an 11th hour addition of $1.75 billion to buy seven F-22 fighter jets whose price tag has ballooned to about $350 million apiece.

The fifth generation fighter jet has been overtaken by the newer F-35, critics argue, and Obama wants to keep with the recommendation of former President George W. Bush and cap the purchase at 187 jets.

The president's not alone in opposing the change. He's also got the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, and his former GOP rival Sen. John McCain -- a war hero himself -- on his side.

But with jobs on the line, other senators are putting up a fight for the F-22.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., whose state would lose at least 2,000 jobs should the cap be imposed, pushed for the seven extra F-22's to be built.

"While the administration is emphasizing winning current conflicts, its stance regarding the F-22 does not adequately account for other kinds of threats," Chambliss said.

But the F-22 requires 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time and costs the taxpayer about $44,000 an hour to fly, according to confidential Pentagon test results.

"This plane has never flown over Iraq or Afghanistan -- the two wars that we are in," McCain said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to senators Monday to express their dismay at the 11th hour addition.

"We strongly believe that the time has come to close the F-22 production line. If the Congress sends legislation to the president that requires acquisition of additional F-22 aircraft beyond fiscal year 2009, the secretary of defense will strongly recommend he veto it," the letter said.

Gates earlier said the insertion of more money, into the already $680 billion defense budget, for F-22s posed a "big problem" for him.

Analysts say it would be unprecedented for a defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs to urge the president to veto their own defense bill.

But they, and Obama, have made clear that they view such expenditures as wasteful.

"We do not need these planes. That is why I will veto any bill that supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress," Obama said in a letter Monday to senators. Source

[/b]

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Germans were the preeminent weapons researchers in WW2, didn't work out that well for them.

That's debatable at best.