There's an article in today's Washington Post about serious problems with the F-22:

Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings

I'm interested in hearing some expert commentary on the issues raised in this article. Specifically:

1. Quality problems with stealth coatings and the canopy
2. Low readiness due to high maintenance
3. Huge cost overruns
4. "Unilateral disarmament" caused by the F-22 sucking up all resources that would otherwise go to modernizing other weapons systems
5. The F-22's inability "to communicate with other types of warplanes"

Thanks.

 

Why am I not surprised by this. I did a fighter movement with these guys and they were plagued with emergencies. Hopefully they can work out the bugs and make this thing the fighter it was meant to be.

 

I also wonder about the strategic implications of this kind of complexity. If you lose an F-22, how many months does it take to make a new one? This isn't like WWII where new planes were rolling off a converted automobile assembly line every hour. If it takes many months to build one, could America ever find itself in a situation where it has more planes in the factories than it has in the fight? Surely someone in the Pentagon has considered this. I just wonder what the plan is.

 

Since they are shutting down the production line, you will never be able to make a new one. You will only be able to replace it with an in-production airplane or an older type from the boneyard.

But that is not really an issue in the modern world. Conventional warfare between nations would be over in weeks, or months at the outside. You fight with what you have on hand when the balloon goes up.

 

OK. Thanks for the replies.

Given the problems with the F-22, was it a good idea to end the program? Consuming all of the resources for other programs seems like a major liability. I can't believe they built a plane that can't talk to other planes.

 

I can't imagine how badly mission effectiveness would suffer if the F-22 were actually in the fight in the sand box. These things are babied like the multi-million dollar treasures they are and can't hold up to normal day-to-day wear and tear?

I know, let's just buy 665 of them.

 

Don't know about expert opinion but I have followed the development and introduction of the -22. It is light years ahead of the -15 and -16 it replaced. The tasks it was assigned are also different in that it was to super-cruise (which nothing else does), be stealthy and be superior to anything the Chinese or Russians were fielding. That is rapidly changing and the latest Flanker is reportedly 'not your father's flanker'. The Chinese are being especially aggressive in fielding new fighters and in number. And the Chinese knock-off is being marketed world wide, a point which had angered the Russians to the point they are NOT offering the Chinese a look at the new Flanker, the SU-25.

This is their J-10 which reportedly has a lot of the Israeli Lavi design in it. The Lavi as I am sure you know never went into production.


The -22 has had problems. No highly sophisticated machine has entered service without problems. The B-1 is a prime example but we could go back to the early Century Series fighters to see the same thing repeated.

Follow the money. The USAF wants lots of new F-35s although the critique of it is short legs, underpowered, not very nimble. And to get the money for the -35, they have to kill the Raptor. And what we will wind up with is a -22 fleet too small to justify the maint and too small to meet the emerging threats.

I could be wrong.

Oh... I would never use the WashPost as the source for the truth on anything.

 

It's light years ahead of the F-15 and F-16?

I would certainly hope so. It's only been thirty years since those airplanes first flew.

The F-22 is incredibly good at a very small skill set. To me, it's doubtful that we needed to sacrifice so much budget to get the nth degree of capability.

The bottom line is the USAF tried to do too much and mortgaged it's entire future on this aircraft.

There were much better and lower risk alternatives.

 

Maybe it depends on the definition, are you talking 1.5 mach, or just above mach 1?

If you're talking just above 1.0 mach does not the Eurofighter Typhoon and the JAS-39 Gripen have the ability as far as current military airplanes go?

 

For example?