F-22 Fraud suit and 62% mission capable rate.

SIG600

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Posts
1,592
Total Time
375
If it's on the internet, it must be true.

RCS is a tightly guarded secret, and materials and composition is at a classification level that will never be released to the public.

Readiness and capabilities are also extremely sensitive, and won't be talked about to vindicate or invalidate these arguments. What's this engineers street cred? In a buidling full of 50 lb brains the title "engineer" dosen't mean much. Whose to say he's not disgruntled?

Based on my personl experience working with Raptors, both on the blue team and as red, it's every bit the Buck Rogers starship it's made out to be. Of course, your opinions on the matter are well documented on this forum.
 

ableone

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Posts
421
Total Time
13,900
If it's on the internet, it must be true.

RCS is a tightly guarded secret, and materials and composition is at a classification level that will never be released to the public.
The 62% mission capable rate is a direct quote from Young, while he was still serving as undersecretary for defense acquisition, not exactly an anonymous internet posting.
Readiness and capabilities are also extremely sensitive, and won't be talked about to vindicate or invalidate these arguments.
Wrong, actually it is very much included when validating a weapons systems performance.
What's this engineers street cred? In a buidling full of 50 lb brains the title "engineer" dosen't mean much. Whose to say he's not disgruntled?
Obviously, his claims should be instantly dismissed. Clearly not a team player.
Based on my personl experience working with Raptors, both on the blue team and as red, it's every bit the Buck Rogers starship it's made out to be. Of course, your opinions on the matter are well documented on this forum.
I don't recall strongly advocating a position on the F-22. If it is truly much more capable than the JSF, I would advocate more procurement.

Gates does not appear impressed.

I asked if those with experience, with new weapons system, thought that these numbers were especially bad, or in line with early block numbers in other advanced systems.

De wad the panties dude.
 

instructordude

Playing with Fire
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Posts
975
Total Time
3800
This thing should have been canned years ago. The Falcon is just as capable and costs a lot less.
 

AlbieF15

F15 Ret/FDX/InterviewPrep
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
1,764
Total Time
6000
I love going back and reading about the overpriced, non effective F-15, F-16, and maverick weapon systems back in the late 70s and early 80s. The press was full of reports on how bad, expensive, and ineffective those systems were. (The option at the time that got "good press" was the F-5 type fighters...)

Funny thing is as weapon systems matured they got pretty good. Those Mavericks...the ones that would never work in combat? I saw a bunch fired in anger as a FAC in Gulf 1 that worked liked magic. How many of you drive an 78, 79, or 84 car? I flew all those year models into and out of combat zones into the 90s, and continued to fly similar vintage jets until I retired in 2007 from flying Eagles. I'd say getting 30 years out of a 30 million dollar jet is a good deal. The Raptor isn't cheap, but as someone who has fought it I would say its pretty darn cosmic. I also predict we'll get 20-30 or more years out of them, too...
 

lowtimedriver

Marmott Stalker
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Posts
4,222
Total Time
4-Life
I knew avionics engineers working on the F-22 avionics systems at Skunkworks around 1989. They all agreed that the F-22 was a focked up program, especially the avionics. I am sure many of these issues have been corrected, but it does not make sense to cancel a program where billions have been invested in it.
 

ableone

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Posts
421
Total Time
13,900
According to the latest issue of Aviation Week, the F-22 currently costs $50,000/hour to operate. The bulk of this is maintenance work on the aircraft's stealth coatings.
 

bssthound

Enormous Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
541
Total Time
xx00
I knew avionics engineers working on the F-22 avionics systems at Skunkworks around 1989. They all agreed that the F-22 was a focked up program, especially the avionics. I am sure many of these issues have been corrected, but it does not make sense to cancel a program where billions have been invested in it.
1989, I was flying F-4s that year. I'm gonna go WAAAAAAAAYYYYY out on a limb and hypothesize that there've been a few upgrades, mods, and a piece of new technology or three that have made their way onto the F-22. All I've heard from guys who've flown it or flown against it are that it is cosmic, to use a vast understatement. As usual, Albie and Sig have provided some very valuable insight into what the Raptor is and what is shall be . . . to paraphrase Led Zeppelin.
 

AirCobra

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Posts
4,575
Total Time
3600
I love going back and reading about the overpriced, non effective F-15, F-16, and maverick weapon systems back in the late 70s and early 80s. The press was full of reports on how bad, expensive, and ineffective those systems were. (The option at the time that got "good press" was the F-5 type fighters...)

Funny thing is as weapon systems matured they got pretty good. Those Mavericks...the ones that would never work in combat? I saw a bunch fired in anger as a FAC in Gulf 1 that worked liked magic. How many of you drive an 78, 79, or 84 car? I flew all those year models into and out of combat zones into the 90s, and continued to fly similar vintage jets until I retired in 2007 from flying Eagles. I'd say getting 30 years out of a 30 million dollar jet is a good deal. The Raptor isn't cheap, but as someone who has fought it I would say its pretty darn cosmic. I also predict we'll get 20-30 or more years out of them, too...
Albie,
Good post but I think you missed something. The F-15 was designed for the war we were in, which at that time was the Cold War, and the Mav designed to take out Soviet Armor and fixed hardened targets. The F-15's speed was to counter the Mig-25 and like the F-14 the military did not make it a muti-role aircraft until much later. Right now we are in a different kind of war. We don't need aircraft that can shoot down Soviet fighters that have not even been built yet since we are in a real "hot" war. We need helicopters that can operate in mountains, more dedicated CAS aircraft such as the AC-130 and A-10, tactical lift, UAV's, and uparmored vehicles that protect against IED's. Every pennny spent on fighter jets for future wars takes money away from the things we need right now. Money is tight and every fight over funding in the Pentagon delays the weapons soldiers really need on the battlefield. Armored vehicles may not be as glamorous as F-22's but their is no denying you can buy something like 200 armored vehicles or 10-15 armed scout helicopters for the cost of one F-22.

I will use Vietnam as an example. We went into that war with F-104's, F-102's, F-100's and F-105's great for shooting down Soviet bombers but notthe best platforms for CAS or even for shooting down Mig-17's. What aircraft wound up being effective? SPAD's, A-37's, T-28's, F-8's, UH-1M's and our experience later led to the AH-1 and A-10. You have to fight to win the war you are in, and until you get the guys on the ground what they need right now, future weapons systems designed to do battle with theoretical threats should take a back burner.

What do you think an infantry commander would be more excited about, a few hundred armored vehicles with sloped armor bottoms to protect against roadside bombs, or a single F-22 overhead that may be able to drop a few bombs before having to leave to hit a tanker?
 
Last edited:

AirCobra

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Posts
4,575
Total Time
3600
1989, I was flying F-4s that year. I'm gonna go WAAAAAAAAYYYYY out on a limb and hypothesize that there've been a few upgrades, mods, and a piece of new technology or three that have made their way onto the F-22. All I've heard from guys who've flown it or flown against it are that it is cosmic, to use a vast understatement. As usual, Albie and Sig have provided some very valuable insight into what the Raptor is and what is shall be . . . to paraphrase Led Zeppelin.
How well does the F-22 protect against IED's or how many SOF guys can it drop into a mountain LZ? How big is the threat from the Taliban Air Force? The Zeppeilin quote that applies to the Raptor is actually what is and what should never be.
 

JungleJett

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Posts
1,111
Total Time
1
Aircobra..

Come on man. You know as well as anyone we are always preparing for the next war. By the time you get everything you want, this thing might be over...lets hope it is.

Hypothetically speaking, five years from now we are going toe-to-toe with N. Korea and you have canceled the F-22 and all the other programs you want slashed. What will be the VERY FIRST thing that needs to take place before a single boot crosses the DMZ? Will it be an up-armored Hummer? Will it be a UH-60M Medevac? Or will it be overwhelming fighters heading north to clear the airspace? Would you rather have your helicopters and A-10's being shot down or clear blue skies above the battlefield. I get that we are not fighting an air battle right now. But WHO knew we would be in the conflict we are in right now? How did we prepare for that? We did not...so do you really want us to be caught with our pants down for the next one? We DO NOT have the capacity to build a force like they did in WWII. It simply takes too long. In my opinion, you want things today when that is simply not going to happen. We are getting better AC-130's and A-10's (C models) but how long will it take to develop a new CAS airplane? 10 years? They are building Pred's and Reapers like they were free.

Your Vietnam analogy is flawed. While those airplanes you listed did a nice job, they were protected from above. And they suffered a HORRIBLE loss rate due to ground fire. Push some SEAD that way and the rules change. I would also recommend looking at how our fighters did during Vietnam. They learned new rules and they learned NOT TO DISCOUNT the basics..like a gun on an airplane.

All the F's you listed went on to a multi-role capability. The F-104 was a disaster and the -102 was used very little comparatively speaking.

Look what the F-16 and F-15 has become. Do you not think the F-22 will morph into a more multirole airplane? I think it will and there are a couple of Raptor dudes on here that can speak to that.

Does the Army need ships? Does the Navy need subs? Does the AF need a new bomber? Does the Marines need hovercraft?
 

bizicmo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Posts
880
Total Time
+1000
I doubt we need f22s to dominate the skies over Korea. Why do I have a feeling they are still using planes from the first Korean war?
 

JungleJett

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Posts
1,111
Total Time
1
I doubt we need f22s to dominate the skies over Korea. Why do I have a feeling they are still using planes from the first Korean war?
They had MiG-29's in the 1950's? Well that was a well kept secret, even kept it from the Soviets. Kudos to them.
 

BigPappa

Name is Mitch Buchannon
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Posts
367
Total Time
Mucho!
MIG-29 is very impressive in close combat, especially with a skilled pilot (as always). Have friends I went to training with that fly them in the GAF.

As far as what we need, I like to think this way:

All great Empires should have a superior military force at all times. This entails having the BEST and MOST intimidating weapons (available or imaginable).

When you let your guard down (like we are doing some) is when you become vulnerable (China, Kora, etc..).

History is repeating itself. Why did the Greek Empire fall? Ask yourself that question.

I could be wrong, but I am most likely NOT.
 
Last edited:
Top