U.S. Air Force 24 Billion Dollar Turkey?

[MA-Caver]

At $150 Million dollars each and already they have 160 planes making at total of 24 billion dollars and the plane has had problems from the get go. Particularly with it's oxygen supply. How about scrapping the turkey and go for more reliable jets with some of the advanced technology put into the YF-22? They've had several "incidents" which they can't talk about. In my mind... "several" is just one too many.

The US Air Force has had to ground dozens of F-22 fighter jets for the second time this year after concerns a pilot suffered a lack of oxygen in the cockpit, officers said Monday.

Commanders at a base in Virginia and in Alaska ordered a "pause" in flights for the world's most expensive and advanced fighter aircraft as a safety precaution, an Air Force spokesman said.
The decision came after an incident last week in which a pilot at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia suffered "hypoxia-like" symptoms in mid-flight, Lieutenant-Colonel Richard Johnson told AFP.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-air-force-grounds-f-22-fighters-again-214629322.html

I understand the need to make sure we have the advancements necessary to keep our air-defense current. But if it's causing problems enough where the entire fleet is grounded... why bother to have it? And they want to build MORE? 187 more to be exact... so lessee... 187 times $150 million dollars each ... Hmm only another $28.05 billion bucks more! Even if I'm mis-reading it and they want to buy 27 more it's still another $40 billion bucks out of our budget. And this is for a plane that is (presently) too dangerous to fly. How many millions will it take to fix 160 planes?

This is IMO wrongful spending, useless spending. They should've tested more types of fighter aircraft and ensuring that they will be operational when older models are phased out. They did the same with the F-4 and later the F-14 and 15... are the F-18's that old now? Or just obsolete enough where they can't go head to head with (potential) enemy fighters. ... Oh wait yes that's right the F-18's are Naval only not Air Force fighters. So something had to replace the aging F-16 falcon.

Sheesh. One plane has a $150 million dollar price tag... and they bought 160 of them... and none of them are safe.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, they could switch to the moneypit that is the Eurofighter. Those 'start' at $125M. But they rank as 82% as effective as the F22, and reportedly require an ace to fly.

 

[cdunn]

Further production of the F-22 was ended in 2009. The only question remaining is whether or not the F-35 Lightning II is worth the money.

 

[CanuckMA]

We use the F-18 as land based fighters. The idea of a single aircraft being able to fulfill all roles is just a bit crazy. You end up with an expensive compromise.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'd love to know the ins-and-outs of the technical problems they''ve been having. It sounds absurd that such a high-tech piece of kit can't get rigth what has been 'standard tech' for decades .

Then again, look at the fiasco that the F-16 started out with - a very expensive widow-maker and all because they used the wrong length screws that intruded into some cable runs (if I remember correctly, it's been a while ).

 

[jks9199]

We use the F-18 as land based fighters. The idea of a single aircraft being able to fulfill all roles is just a bit crazy. You end up with an expensive compromise.

You can't make a plane that is equally effective land based and carrier based. The demands of carrier flight on the airframe would mean that you have a land based plane with vastly reduced range and payload capability. Or you get a carrier based plane that has insane maintenance issues because it pretty much gets torn apart every take off and landing. Just about every time they've tried -- either the Air Force or the Navy pulls out because the final product won't meet their needs.

 

[CanuckMA]

Exactly. Although you can use a carrier designed plane as land based knowing the limitations. The reverse is never possible.

The fixation on a JTF has sunk an enourmous amount of money. While I can see the simplicity of sharing as much tech as possible, carrier and land based airframes have to be different.

 

[cdunn]

I'd love to know the ins-and-outs of the technical problems they''ve been having. It sounds absurd that such a high-tech piece of kit can't get rigth what has been 'standard tech' for decades .

Then again, look at the fiasco that the F-16 started out with - a very expensive widow-maker and all because they used the wrong length screws that intruded into some cable runs (if I remember correctly, it's been a while ).

It -is- the new kit that's failing. The Honeywell OBOGS has a number of things that are supposed to increase efficency, worked around a polymer binder to increase the available surface area of the zeolite adsorbant. There's a couple avenues of failure, but the abnormal presence of light organics in the blood stream of pilots points certain fingers towards that binder, but supposedly, they couldn't figure out what was causing it.

The major problems with the F-22 have been precisely the new technologies that we wanted to base the plane around - While the advanced targeting and tracking systems have worked splendedly, with some hiccups, the stealth skin has had more problems than an adolescent's face.

 

[MA-Caver]

The major problems with the F-22 have been precisely the new technologies that we wanted to base the plane around - While the advanced targeting and tracking systems have worked splendidly, with some hiccups, the stealth skin has had more problems than an adolescent's face.

With SOME hiccups??? You'd go into battle flying a jet with some hiccups? Braver (and deader) man than me.

Granted nothing is ever going to be 1000% perfect but targeting and tracking systems are pretty damned important enough to focus on fixing those hiccups before clearing the plane to get off the ground. The planes are flown by American pilots not expendable drones. American pilots who, during the course of the history of air combat have landed with some pretty impressive records and a list of kills after a mission. They were only able to do that because their crafts were flying flawlessly. They would not have returned from their missions if their planes had a "few hiccups".

Still the cost to fix those hiccups is just going to dig deeper into tax-payers pockets. At least until they get it right.

 

[cdunn]

With SOME hiccups??? You'd go into battle flying a jet with some hiccups? Braver (and deader) man than me.

Granted nothing is ever going to be 1000% perfect but targeting and tracking systems are pretty damned important enough to focus on fixing those hiccups before clearing the plane to get off the ground. The planes are flown by American pilots not expendable drones. American pilots who, during the course of the history of air combat have landed with some pretty impressive records and a list of kills after a mission. They were only able to do that because their crafts were flying flawlessly. They would not have returned from their missions if their planes had a "few hiccups".

Still the cost to fix those hiccups is just going to dig deeper into tax-payers pockets. At least until they get it right.

Thinks break. They always have. They always will. Historically, we lose a lot of planes by mechanical failure and accident. Often, more than we lose to enemy action. A lot of systemic errors with the F-22 have been fixed already. They've done well when used in war-games. No more F-22s are to be built. The only question remaining is: Is it cheaper to make what we have work right, or to get the F-35 fleet up and working and replace as neccesary with those?

 

[MA-Caver]

Thinks break. They always have. They always will. Historically, we lose a lot of planes by mechanical failure and accident. Often, more than we lose to enemy action. A lot of systemic errors with the F-22 have been fixed already. They've done well when used in war-games. No more F-22s are to be built. The only question remaining is: Is it cheaper to make what we have work right, or to get the F-35 fleet up and working and replace as neccesary with those?

Good question... lessee...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3168.html
http://www.afa.org/professionaldevelopment/issuebriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/10/f22-vs-f35-no-contest.html
And also
[yt]27qdB1D0s9M[/yt]

[yt]KaoYz90giTk[/yt]

 

[billc]

Don't worry, I'm sure they will do better with healthcare than they did with this fighter.

 

[MaxiMe]

24 Billion!!!!!!!!!!
That's a lot of pay raises to some good leathernecks.
When it possitively has to be destroyed overnight--------USMC!

 

[Zealot]

What kills me is that we have wounded soldiers coming back and losing their homes but the Govt can afford to buy some BA plane with tech bugs coming out of its demon hole. I just think there are better ways to spend money than this. People are starving.