Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009 

 

The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show.

The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.

While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress over whether the program should be halted next year at 187 planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's contractors around the country had anticipated.

"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats.

But other defense officials -- reflecting sharp divisions inside the Pentagon about the wisdom of ending one of the largest arms programs in U.S. history -- emphasize the plane's unsurpassed flying abilities, express renewed optimism that the troubles will abate and say the plane is worth the unexpected costs.

Votes by the House and Senate armed services committees last month to spend $369 million to $1.75 billion more to keep the F-22 production line open were propelled by mixed messages from the Air Force -- including a quiet campaign for the plane that includes snazzy new Lockheed videos for key lawmakers -- and intense political support from states where the F-22's components are made. The full House ratified the vote on June 25, and the Senate is scheduled to begin consideration of F-22 spending Monday.

After deciding to cancel the program, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates called the $65 billion fleet a "niche silver-bullet solution" to a major aerial war threat that remains distant. He described the House's decision as "a big problem" and has promised to urge President Obama to veto the military spending bill if the full Senate retains F-22 funding.

The administration's position is supported by military reform groups that have long criticized what they consider to be poor procurement practices surrounding the F-22, and by former senior Pentagon officials such as Thomas Christie, the top weapons testing expert from 2001 to 2005. Christie says that because of the plane's huge costs, the Air Force lacks money to modernize its other forces adequately and has "embarked on what we used to call unilateral disarmament."

David G. Ahern, a senior Pentagon procurement official who helps oversee the F-22 program, said in an interview that "I think we've executed very well," and attributed its troubles mostly to the challenge of meeting ambitious goals with unstable funding.

A spokeswoman for Lockheed added that the F-22 has "unmatched capabilities, sustainability and affordability" and that any problems are being resolved in close coordination with the Air Force.

'Cancellation-Proof'

Designed during the early 1980s to ensure long-term American military dominance of the skies, the F-22 was conceived to win dogfights with advanced Soviet fighters that Russia is still trying to develop.

Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, director of the Air National Guard, said in a letter this week to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) that he likes the F-22 because its speed and electronics enable it to handle "a full spectrum of threats" that current defensive aircraft "are not capable of addressing."

Wow, Slowman, I guess now that the world has learned all that, I'm sure Japan and South Korea won't want it anymore.  I guess all the Senate Republican support will dry up now, eh?

Well, if F-22's RAM coating is this maintenance-intensive, it makes you wonder about F-35's RAM coating(If it has any, especially for the export model)

@ warpig

> I'm sure Japan and South Korea won't want it anymore.

Not at all, Japanese are adamant about it; it's either F-22 or else, and this position remains valid today.

For Koreans, the story is more complicated as F-22 was not a high-priority on their purchase list, they were going to buy a squadron or two as a counter-measure only if Japanese bought , and probably wish that Japanese do not buy F-22 so that they don't have to deal with dreaded Lockheed Martin. Unlike Japanese F-X competition where Japanese DoD already selected F-22 and is lobbying the US to sell, the Korean 3rd F-X competition is currently running between F-15K(Not SE) and Typhoon, with the winner of KFX project contract also getting the 3rd F-X contract. The reason for this is that Korean DoD is combining both 3rd F-X and KFX contracts to a contract package worth $25 billion as a bait to lure in Boeing and EADS into giving them the most favorable term. Boeing is currently said to be leading the competition by offering a further redeveloped F/A-18(Nicknamed "Ultra Hornet" with all-aspect stealth except for rear) as the bases for KFX, and Koreans are willing to keep buying F-15K as an incentive to Boeing. Talks of F-15SE appear to be dead at the moment, and F-35A was never seriously considered because Lockheed Martin fighter division burned too many bridges with Korean DoD.

The supercruise engine sourcing problem(EJ-2X0 ran into development funding problems while F414 EDE is progressing smoothly) tips the balance to Boeing's favor over EADS as well.

> I guess all the Senate Republican support will dry up now, eh?

Nope. GOP is determined to export F-22 to Japan as ever.

Why? Just because? Is there any indication of problems in this area? I'm not sure if you are aware but the F-35 uses different and allegedly more economical and robust signature management techniques that eliminate these concerns. The F-35 is a generation ahead of the F-22 in terms of stealth technologies. Before that gets taken out of context, I don't mean to suggest which aircraft is more stealthy, just that the technologies and manufacturing processes used to manage the signatures are more evolved in the F-35 and different from previous generation high maintenance stealth aircraft like F-117, B-2 and F-22.

-DA 

Yea, supposedly shape based stealth only with no RAM coating on export models. RAM coating on US, UK, Australian and Israeli versions only.

> The F-35 is a generation ahead of the F-22 in terms of stealth technologies.

Yet F-22 is much harder to detect.

An M1 Garand has a more powerful bullet than my issue M4. What is your point and how are you quantifying "Much Harder?" Stop adding your own spin please and stick strictly to data.

-DA

I know how to fieldstrip and M4. I am a pretty good shot as well. I suppose that means I am well situated to offer a valid and relevant opinion on the requisite number of F-22 for the USAF that has more value than any person who does not know how to properly take down an M4.

 

*rolls eyes*