F-22 constructed of titanium and cotton candy?

[the330thbg]

are they kidding?

Is this fact or typical media BS?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 34382.html

[RyanShort1]

I doubt the USAF pilots flying them are that stupid... and 30 hours of MX for one hour of flight? I doubt any would ever fly if that was true... It's GOT to be better than that.

Ryan

[retroaviation]

Actually, according to an F-22 Crew Chief that I met during the Nellis Air Show in 2007, 30:1 sounds about right. It's sad to say, but just about everything in that article jives with what he was telling us about the airplane. Of course, that was just one man's opinion, but he knows the airplane pretty well.

Gary

[Cvairwerks]

30:1 is not bad for as complex an aircraft as the F/A-22 is, especially when you consider the SR-71 ran in excess of 500:1 and it was "only" a recce platform. Your average airliner is probably over 600:1 thoughout the operational fleet. It's too bad that they refuse to understand that those hours for combat aircraft also include reconfiguration times, ground service and maintenance times and completing all of the necessary paperwork. Even a simple mission reconfig can run up your manhours. Taking a jet from slick to three bags and all weapons stations loaded takes manpower and time. Every time you do it, up goes your maintenance down time per flight hour rate, especially when you consider that it might require 5-6 people and more than an hour each to get the work done. We're long past the time in our military when you can toss a load of gas in the bird and hang a couple of dumb bombs or missle on the racks and be back in the air in 15 minuets.

As to the coating damage from rain...I haven't seen a coating used in the military or civilian world that didn't suffer degredation and/or physical damage when flown into rain at high speed for any significant length of time.

[RyanShort1]

Does anyone have numbers on the F-15 or F-16 for comparison? Also the point about coatings through rain is a good one.

Ryan

[Cvairwerks]

Fleet wide, all versions of the F-16, if I remember correctly, is under 12 hours. CrewDawg probably can give you the current USAF hours on the 16.

Hours on the 15 are probably wacked with the near recent spate of emergency TCTOs due to the longeron cracking issues and accelerated service life usage.

Something to remember is tha the sustained tempo of combat operations in the Mid-East enviroment is wrecking normal long term planning for maintenance and replacement of all combat gear and support equipement within every branch of the services.

[tom d. friedman]

a scathing report in the current issue of "american legion magazine" tells plenty. the article is titled "the shelf life of warplanes". in a nutshell, it hits on the fact that b-52's & c-130's have pulled their weight for a fraction of the price of 1 f-22. bang for the $$$. the soaring cost of warbirds to build since ww2 verse today's economy....

p-51 mustang... 1945 50 grand... 2009... $573,173 retired, 1957
f-86 sabre... 1952 $ 220.000 2009....$.1,711,206 retired 1965
f-105 thunderchief 1960 2,140.000 2009... $14,909.085 retired 1984
f-4 phantom 2 1965 2,400.000 2009... 15,708,972 retired 1995
f-15 eagle 1998 $43,000.000 not retired today now over 55 million
a-10 thunderbolt 1998 13 million, today $$16 million not retired
f-16c /d fighting falcon .. 1998 near 19 million, 2009... 24 million per copy.
f-22 raptor $$$ 137,500.000
f-35 lightning 2... 83 million per copy

the last 2 aircraft haven't fired a shot in anger! can you pony up this kind of dough when were fighting 2 countries who combined have no functioning air force??

[A2C]

It's a moot point. We are proposing spending 3 trillion on Healthcare, and have just committed over 2.5 Trillion to the Stimulus. The F-22 at 175 million is barely a drop in the bucket. It's funny, but the current leadership likes to make people think that they cut the budget when they mention cuts in the F-22, and then are deceptive about the spending in creating things like the stimulus and healthcare. Not political, economics 101.

Last edited by A2C on Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[A2C]

are they kidding?

Is this fact or typical media BS?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 34382.html

Just think about it for a second. It's a totally biased article against the F-22. None of those claims are accurate, all opinion.

The plane is capable of supersonic cruise, and it beat 10 F-15's in a 10:1 dogfight. This is lying media at it's finest.

[Neal Nurmi]

Looking at Tom's list really makes me wonder why we're not cranking out A-10s. Seems to me they've proven very useful in our recent Asian efforts, and they would have been heaven sent in Nam.

I guess gee whiz technology (whether it actually works in the field or not) and Mach 2 is what makes stars on shoulders, and that REALLY good-paying job after you retire...

[the330thbg]

Is it true the Pentagon doesn't even want or need the F-22?

Has it seen combat yet? Afghanistan? Iraq?

[bdk]

Looking at Tom's list really makes me wonder why we're not cranking out A-10s.

They are being refurbished with new wings instead.