www.ditl.org

GrahamKennedy wrote:It's an irony of the modern world with international companies that any assistance the government hands out probably helps other countries as much as their own. Nice aspect of it is that it works both ways; government aid in the UK and other countries probably helps the US just as much.

Here's another wonder : how effective is an F-22 if it flies in a non-stealthy state?

Well it's still very agile but I gather that the issue is the skin of the aircraft is actually being damaged through normal operations, which is reducing it's service life.

Tsukiyumi wrote:About the outsourcing issue: there isn't one. None of the F-22 is built outside of the US, and we aren't sharing the full-spec plans with anyone, either.

Well in that case, yes it is giving us jobs, but still, we should bring back a lot of jobs that we outsourced for no real reason at all, except cheap labor...

Cheap labour is the reason practicaly everything's outsourced.

Yup, and they should bring it back to the U.S.

Just saw this morning that AH-1W SuperCobras, which are considered fairly hardy, logged an 18:1 or 20:1 maintenance:flight time ratio in Desert Storm. Granted, that's the worst conditions possible for a treetop attack copter, but still gives an idea.

So the F-22 has 1.5 x higher maintainence rate in normal weather than a treetop attack helo working in Desert storm....

Mikey wrote:Just saw this morning that AH-1W SuperCobras, which are considered fairly hardy, logged an 18:1 or 20:1 maintenance:flight time ratio in Desert Storm. Granted, that's the worst conditions possible for a treetop attack copter, but still gives an idea.

Helicopters are naturally maintenance intensive due to how they operate though. They literally shake themselves apart, I called a friend last night to confirm those old Sea King numbers I mentioned; it's actually 30:1 instead of 30:10 (dunno what I was thinking of).

I've heard that a big part the F-22's problem is that all the maintenance and weapons hatches need to be sealed before takeoff ( I assume to maintain the stealth aspect). The V-22 is apparently a hanger queen as well, thanks to it's special skin parts can't simply be fabricated on site like with classic aluminum.

I've got to admit, I had no idea that the maintenence hours per flight time on this things would be so high.

How does it compare to civilian aircraft?

Another question; the 30:1 figure is coming from F-22s that are based in and operate in the US, I presume, and thus have access to the best possible maintenance facilities. But suppose there was a desert storm type of deal and a bunch of them had to fly off to Saudi or somewhere like that. How would that impact the repair and maintenance of this skin damage? Is the necessary gear for repairs easy to deploy abroad for long periods, or are these planes having to go back to the factory or something?

You know, I've always though that what the US needs to be doing right now is building something like the A-10 in large numbers. If you want to go kill Osama in a cave somewhere, that's the plane you want, surely?

GrahamKennedy wrote:Another question; the 30:1 figure is coming from F-22s that are based in and operate in the US, I presume, and thus have access to the best possible maintenance facilities. But suppose there was a desert storm type of deal and a bunch of them had to fly off to Saudi or somewhere like that. How would that impact the repair and maintenance of this skin damage? Is the necessary gear for repairs easy to deploy abroad for long periods, or are these planes having to go back to the factory or something?

They operate exclusively from airbases, so I don't think it would be a major issue. I'm sorry, I mean more of a major issue.

GrahamKennedy wrote:You know, I've always though that what the US needs to be doing right now is building something like the A-10 in large numbers. If you want to go kill Osama in a cave somewhere, that's the plane you want, surely?

Totally agreed.

Tsukiyumi wrote:They operate exclusively from airbases, so I don't think it would be a major issue. I'm sorry, I mean more of a major issue.

Yeah, but what I am asking is, does a Saudi airbase have the equipment needed to fix these planes and keep them running? F-15s can operate from a lot of different places. Is that so for the F-22?

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:They operate exclusively from airbases, so I don't think it would be a major issue. I'm sorry, I mean more of a major issue.

Yeah, but what I am asking is, does a Saudi airbase have the equipment needed to fix these planes and keep them running? F-15s can operate from a lot of different places. Is that so for the F-22?

Probably not. They're pretty much for home defense, I guess.

Wow. If so, then they truly are pretty useless.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:They operate exclusively from airbases, so I don't think it would be a major issue. I'm sorry, I mean more of a major issue.

Yeah, but what I am asking is, does a Saudi airbase have the equipment needed to fix these planes and keep them running? F-15s can operate from a lot of different places. Is that so for the F-22?

Probably not. They're pretty much for home defense, I guess.

No but when you deploy all that stuff comes with you.

The thing to remember about maintenance hours is that on the ground its not one guy working a 9 to 5 day. It's a team of techs, 3, 4, 5 guys working on the plane. Not that 30:1 is a good ratio, but it's not like the airplane spends 1 hour in the air then 30 on the ground. A crew of five working a single 12 hour day can put in the maintenance your "average" 2 hour flight requires.

Also, when a piece of equipment first goes into operation it's maintenance is going to go up as parts begin to wear. It will eventually peak and start down. So seeing maintenance requirements isn't unexpected. It does have to peak eventually though and come down to something more reasonable. It doesn't excuse the other issues though. Less than half the life span of canopies, misfitting parts, etc.

The purpose of the F-22? Simple, right now we don't have anyone who needs an asskicking with a Gen 5 fighter, that doesn't mean in ten years we won't. You don't gear up for the war you're fighting, you gear up for the next one. Why? Because you're already fighting for this war, you don't have time to develope major weapons systems in the middle of a conflict. If someone does get pissy, like say China, Russia, India, anyone like that the war is unlikely to last more than a few months, modern conflict is simply to destructive. You don't have the time to develop a new fighter in that time, you fight the war with what you've got on hand. If all you've got on hand is kit to fight an insurgency with well sucks to be you. Not that we need to ignore low intensity conflict equipment but we have to maintain our ability to fight a major war. Why not build another Gen 4 fighter? Because other people are. If you have the ability to build a Gen 5 you do it in order to hold an edge over the Gen 3 and 4 users. Is the F-22 that fighter, dunno, but building a Gen 5 is the right decision.

If you wanna know how well gearing up to fight the last war works just ask a Frenchman who was around in 1941.