Posted: 12/16/2011 12:14:49 PM EDT
|
F-22 Jet Is ‘Expensive Corroding Hangar Queen,’ McCain Says F-22 Jet Is ‘Expensive Corroding Hangar Queen,’ McCain Says Says By Tony Capaccio - Dec 15, 2011 12:58 Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-22 jet is among several U.S. weapons that are flawed, waste taxpayer dollars and benefit from the military-industrial alliance, Senator John McCain said today. Lockheed’s F-22 “may very well become the most expensive, corroding, hangar queen ever in the history of modern aviation,” McCain, a Republican from Arizona, said in remarks as prepared remarks for delivery on the Senate floor. The 187th, and last, of what McCain said is a $200 million fighter rolled off Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, Georgia plant this week. He also cited Lockheed’s Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite and F-35 jet, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapon, as flawed programs sustained by the institutional influence of defense companies, retired military officials they hire and the military services. “The military-industrial complex does not cause programs to fail, but it does help create poorly conceived programs –– that are so fundamentally unsound they are doomed to be poorly executed. And it does help keep them alive long after they should have been ended or restructured,” McCain said. McCain addressed military spending matters as the Senate started debate on the final version of the $662 billion fiscal 2012 defense bill. His prepared remarks were provided by his press office. Skyrocketing Maintenance McCain highlighted cost, schedule and “sky-rocketing maintenance costs” for the F-22 that have made maintaining its stealthy surface “cost-prohibitive to sustain over the long run.” “The Air Force is now faced with a huge maintenance headache costing over hundreds of millions of dollars and growing to keep all F-22 sitting on the ramp from corroding from the inside out,” McCain said. F-22 jets began corroding soon after introduction into the U.S. Air Force in 2005 and it plans to spend $228 million through 2016 to fix the deteriorating aluminum skin panels, the Government Accountability Office said in a December 2010 report. The Air Force bought F-22s “without having conducted careful developmental testing and reliably estimating how much they will cost to own and operate,” McCain said. Operational F-22s are based at Langley Air Force Base, Va.; Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; Holloman AFB, N.M. and Hickam AFB, Hawaii. The entire F-22 fleet was grounded for months this year because of problems with the aircraft’s on-board oxygen system that caused pilots to get dizzy or, in some cases, lose consciousness, a condition called hypoxia, he said. “While this grounding was lifted, exactly why F-22 pilots have been experiencing hypoxia remains unknown –– but similar unexplained incidents continue,” McCain said. To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at [email protected] ... |
I believe in numbers.
|
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. I think what he is trying to articulate is that the program should be managed better, IE think these problems through prior to them spending 200 mil a copy. Max |
|
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. So the answer is to keep dumping money into an underperforming program that has about 18% of its flight testing done because there are no other alternatives? I don't think so. |
|
The most danergous place on Earth is to be between RINO McCain and a TV camera.
McCain was Senator when Clinton cut the F-22 development budget 5 times. The corrosion issue was known in 1994. But because the budget was cut, a decision was made (with USAF consent) to kick the can down the road and fix it later. It is now time to pay the piper. Thanks McCain, you gadfly POS. |
|
Quoted:
OP do you have any knowledge or thoughts on this you can share? Yes. Only a couple that I will discuss here. We witnessed a distressed program that was rushed into early production before the airplane development was complete. I have first hand knowledge of only two LM divisions, not the one building this airplane, so I don't know many details first hand from the trenches about F-22. Some of what I know is related to the wings and aft fuselage as I observed them in manufacture. Without knowing the gritty details of its day to day operation and problems, I can't say much else except give my opinion that the airplane took to long to get where we are today. I think McCain is a jackass, too. He needs to start making proposals for improvement to accompany his criticism. Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. That is wholly inaccurate. The F-15E is light years different than preceding models, and the F-15K is taking another step ahead. These airplanes are less about how you perceive they look and more about the way they compute. |
|
Corrosion on F-22
Some background on the corrosin issue. Year-old article. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. So the answer is to keep dumping money into an underperforming program that has about 18% of its flight testing done because there are no other alternatives? I don't think so. What do you mean 18%? You need to understand, the F-22 is very unique in its capability for these days. The same can be said when the F-16 first show up in the 70's. Everyone of them have teething problems,(engine falling off F-15 mid flight), every one of these problems will eventually be solved, instead of rushing to cancel the program. Case and point, the YB-49 yaw instability problem was solved by using a different autopilot, by the time the program got cancelled by the congress. No, the solution is not to limit the military arms to Joint programs, and load up a system with so much compromise that no one service can use. Reduce the design cycle of each system, and start to rethink multi-role systems. On the other hand, need to fix what we are stuck with, not buying more old obselete system that serves nothing but numbers. To a point, that is what UAV programs are doing, each service is developing their own unique system, and each UAV design are single role. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. So the answer is to keep dumping money into an underperforming program that has about 18% of its flight testing done because there are no other alternatives? I don't think so. No, but putting money into an obsolete weapon that will be unable to compete isn't an answer either. Yes, the F-22 and the F-35 programs both have been mismanaged. Something should be one about that, but I'm worried the leadership is simply going to throw the whole project out and not propose any other solution. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. So the answer is to keep dumping money into an underperforming program that has about 18% of its flight testing done because there are no other alternatives? I don't think so. No, but putting money into an obsolete weapon that will be unable to compete isn't an answer either. Yes, the F-22 and the F-35 programs both have been mismanaged. Something should be one about that, but I'm worried the leadership is simply going to throw the whole project out and not propose any other solution. f15 is obsolete? Interesting. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
OP do you have any knowledge or thoughts on this you can share? Yes. Only a couple that I will discuss here. We witnessed a distressed program that was rushed into early production before the airplane development was complete. I have first hand knowledge of only two LM divisions, not the one building this airplane, so I don't know many details first hand from the trenches about F-22. Some of what I know is related to the wings and aft fuselage as I observed them in manufacture. Without knowing the gritty details of its day to day operation and problems, I can't much else except give my opinion that the airplane took to long to get where we are today. I think McCain is a jackass, too. He needs to start making proposals for improvement to accompany his criticism. Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. That is wholly inaccurate. The F-15E is light years different than preceding models, and the F-15K is taking another step ahead. These airplanes are less about how you perceive they look and more about the way they compute. I admit to not being an expert in these things. If these newer models are up to snuff, then by all means use them. I suppose this is kind of like how everyone said the F-18E model bore almost no resemblance to the earlier models besides exterior appearance. |
|
Quoted: Buy more Super Hornets and Eagles?  Even though having new stealth fighters is sweet. I'd be down with replacing and upgrading all of our current gen fighters to the newest most capable models. I doubt F-16 pilots for example would cry about being put into block 60 F-16s with some kind of thrust vectoring capability thrown in.
 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. So the answer is to keep dumping money into an underperforming program that has about 18% of its flight testing done because there are no other alternatives? I don't think so. No, but putting money into an obsolete weapon that will be unable to compete isn't an answer either. Yes, the F-22 and the F-35 programs both have been mismanaged. Something should be one about that, but I'm worried the leadership is simply going to throw the whole project out and not propose any other solution. You're making the assumption that the F-15 is obsolete. I wouldn't make that assumption. One thing it has going for it is internal volume. Internal volume allows you to stuff all sorts of goodies in it. Just look at the AESA radars that have been added. Hell, look at the engine upgrades other nations have added. Hell, look at the F-15XX. There are plenty of things you can do with the airframe. Yes, it's RCS isn't optimal, but stealth, IMO is over-rated. It is probably the most expensive way to tackle the problem of IADS. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. So the answer is to keep dumping money into an underperforming program that has about 18% of its flight testing done because there are no other alternatives? I don't think so. No, but putting money into an obsolete weapon that will be unable to compete isn't an answer either. Yes, the F-22 and the F-35 programs both have been mismanaged. Something should be one about that, but I'm worried the leadership is simply going to throw the whole project out and not propose any other solution. f15 is obsolete? Interesting. AeroE explained things to me later in the thread
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. So the answer is to keep dumping money into an underperforming program that has about 18% of its flight testing done because there are no other alternatives? I don't think so. No, but putting money into an obsolete weapon that will be unable to compete isn't an answer either. Yes, the F-22 and the F-35 programs both have been mismanaged. Something should be one about that, but I'm worried the leadership is simply going to throw the whole project out and not propose any other solution. You're making the assumption that the F-15 is obsolete. I wouldn't make that assumption. One thing it has going for it is internal volume. Internal volume allows you to stuff all sorts of goodies in it. Just look at the AESA radars that have been added. Hell, look at the engine upgrades other nations have added. Hell, look at the F-15XX. There are plenty of things you can do with the airframe. Yes, it's RCS isn't optimal, but stealth, IMO is over-rated. It is probably the most expensive way to tackle the problem of IADS. I'm not the expert. I'm going to defer to people who know more than me. I just kind of assumed that with the age of the original design you'd be more limited in what you could in terms of upgrades. Somewhat related question. Does the tooling still exist to produce new airframes? One would hope so. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. So the answer is to keep dumping money into an underperforming program that has about 18% of its flight testing done because there are no other alternatives? I don't think so. What do you mean 18%? You need to understand, the F-22 is very unique in its capability for these days. The same can be said when the F-16 first show up in the 70's. Everyone of them have teething problems,(engine falling off F-15 mid flight), every one of these problems will eventually be solved, instead of rushing to cancel the program. Case and point, the YB-49 yaw instability problem was solved by using a different autopilot, by the time the program got cancelled by the congress. No, the solution is not to limit the military arms to Joint programs, and load up a system with so much compromise that no one service can use. Reduce the design cycle of each system, and start to rethink multi-role systems. On the other hand, need to fix what we are stuck with, not buying more old obselete system that serves nothing but numbers. To a point, that is what UAV programs are doing, each service is developing their own unique system, and each UAV design are single role. The F-35 is 18% complete with its flight test regime. We were told that simulations were good enough, so we could cut back on flight testing and build aircraft at the same time we were testing to get the aircraft into the field sooner. What we have found is that more flight testing has been added back into the program. What we have found is that flight testing is showing that parts of the aircraft we have already bought need to be replaced, already. What that means is that we either undergo expensive retrofits to the aircraft that are already built when flight testing is complete, or we write them off sooner, much sooner, than expected. Fun huh? http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3abcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest |
|
Quoted:
He's one to talk about the Defense Industry getting huge contracts handed to them because they're in bed with the government. As I recall, it was McCain who single handed killed the contract with EADS for a new tanker and then gave it to Boeing. Not really. McCain is the one who killed the Boeing sweetheart lease that led to a competition in the first place. |
|
Quoted:
Somewhat related question. Does the tooling still exist to produce new airframes? One would hope so. As I recall, Boeing recently built aircraft for Singapore and South Korea, and they're pushing the "Silent Eagle" which honestly looks long on promises. So I assume they're either still producing them or they have the capacity to do so. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Somewhat related question. Does the tooling still exist to produce new airframes? One would hope so. As I recall, Boeing recently built aircraft for Singapore and South Korea, and they're pushing the "Silent Eagle" which honestly looks long on promises. So I assume they're either still producing them or they have the capacity to do so. Well that's a relief. |
|
Regardless of how good the latest F-15/16/18s are, how much sense does it make to buy them at $80+ mill a pop, when they will have ZERO chance of survival against a decent air defense a decade from now- or sooner?
Josh has sold me on the F-35. We've already paid for it (mostly), and we really don't have an alternative. |
|
Quoted:
Regardless of how good the latest F-15/16/18s are, how much sense does it make to buy them at $80+ mill a pop, when they will have ZERO chance of survival against a decent air defense a decade from now- or sooner? Josh has sold me on the F-35. We've already paid for it, and we really don't have an alternative. We have not already paid for the F-35. We are still paying for it. The development is not done and the technology therein isn't working as advertised. The F/A-18E/F, by the way is under $60 mil a pop, and there are other, more efficient ways, of solving the IADS problem. If the USAF really wanted to know how to defeat an IADS they'd talk to a bunch of Navy Aegis guys. They don't. |
|
Quoted: I wonder what he thinks of the F35. This He also cited Lockheed’s Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite and F-35 jet, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapon, as flawed programs sustained by the institutional influence of defense companies, retired military officials they hire and the military services. |
|
Quoted: What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. Would that situation be better or worse than not having enough F-22s to deploy or not willing to risk them? |
|
Quoted:
A PM at Northrup said he hears airforce bitching about the maintenance hours on the f-22 all the time. When we'll need it though, we'll need it pretty bad. It'll be the only thing in the inventory for a particular kind of mission. I'd be amazed if it ever saw real combat. |
|
Quoted: Says By Tony Capaccio - Dec 15, 2011 12:58 Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-22 jet is among several U.S. weapons that are flawed, waste taxpayer dollars and benefit from the military-industrial alliance, Senator John McCain said today. Lockheed’s F-22 "may very well become the most expensive, corroding, hangar queen ever in the history of modern aviation,” McCain, a Republican from Arizona, said in remarks as prepared remarks for delivery on the Senate floor. WTF is up with Bloomberg's editors? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Regardless of how good the latest F-15/16/18s are, how much sense does it make to buy them at $80+ mill a pop, when they will have ZERO chance of survival against a decent air defense a decade from now- or sooner? Josh has sold me on the F-35. We've already paid for it (mostly), and we really don't have an alternative. We have not already paid for the F-35. We are still paying for it. The development is not done and the technology therein isn't working as advertised. The F/A-18E/F, by the way is under $60 mil a pop, and there are other, more efficient ways, of solving the IADS problem. If the USAF really wanted to know how to defeat an IADS they'd talk to a bunch of Navy Aegis guys. They don't. You beat my edit. I'm assuming the more efficient ways you're referring to are electronic in nature? If it's that effective, why go to the absolutely enormous expense of developing stealth technology at all? |
|
Quoted:
"as flawed programs sustained by the institutional influence of defense companies, retired military officials they hire and the military services." Nail, meet hammer. This. Any other industry and this kind of waste and ill planning would se people fired left and right. |