Air Force Claims To Have Solved Fatal F-22 Oxygen Riddle

Hugh Pickens writes "DefenseTech reports that Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Lyon, the director of operations for Air Combat Command, told the Pentagon press corps that a valve that inflates the Combat Edge upper pressure garment is the cause of hypoxia-like symptoms in pilots flying the F-22. The problem forced the service to ground the Air Force's most prized stealth fighter fleet for four months and led two Raptor pilots to tell the nation on CBS's 60 Minutes that they refused to fly the jet because the pilots feared for their lives. The vests help control the breathing of pilots in high G-force environments, inflating before pilots start to experience extreme G-force conditions. However Lyon explained that the valves caused the vests to inflate too early in an F-22 flight, causing pilots to hyperventilate in the cockpits. 'It's like putting a corset around your chest,' said Lyons. Eagle and Viper pilots stopped wearing the upper pressure garments in 2004 'because they were not giving us the contribution we thought they would,' said Lyon. F-22 pilots kept wearing them because they flew at higher altitudes and the vests protected the pilots from 'rapid decompression,' adding that F-22 pilots, many of whom flew the F-15 and F-16, didn't notice the vests had inflated early because of the layers of gear a pilot wears in flight. Such a simple answer to a problem that has eluded Air Force engineers and scientists for four years has left some Air Force pilots skeptical that the USAF has solved the problem. An F-16 pilot said the Air Force is either 'incompetent for missing this until now,' or 'dishonest and trying to sweep something under the rug.'"

Comments

It's an Emergent Bug

[CajunArson]

The valve explanation in the summary is a gross oversimplification. The valve - in isolation - was just fine. The combination of the valve, anti-chem warfare filters, the vest, and potentially other components in the *entire system* were causing the issues in seemingly random ways that were hard to fully pin down. If you took any of these components and tested it individually, you'd never spot the issue.

The moral of the story is that, just like complex software, complex aircraft can exhibit emergent bug behaviour that you won't catch with unit tests.

Re:It's an Emergent Bug

[tftp]

Breathing is not dependent on gravity. You can walk on your feet, lay on your back, stand on your head, or float inside the ISS - and be still breathing.

Covering up for a crony?

[Anonymous Coward]

The story I heard from someone who works at Lockheed-Martin and who specifically worked on the F-22 was that they were using the wrong lubricant on the valves of the oxygen system and that the bad lubricant was somehow to blame. At least, that's what the mechanics who worked on the jets were told...

Makes me wonder why the official story would differ so much? Maybe the Air Force is covering up for a Lockheed mistake? The big defense contractors are definitely in bed with the government; I just wonder how far it really goes.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[Lumpy]

The real story?
The problem is they did not realize that Anubis had recall technology built into everything so when we based the YF22 on the captured Goa'uld technology was causing this. They modified the recall system so the controls would not respond so the Naquadah generators simply started to kill the pilots instead.

Really simple. It was a contractor oversight.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[interval1066]

The big defense contractors are definitely in bed with the government...

Oh please, you're just now understanding the Real World? Put on your big boy pants. The REAL story here is if an improper lube can cause a system to fail, what does that say about modern American aircraft design? Out in the field units run out of things. I think we need to start designing things for real-world combat again. Read about the differences between an M-16 and an AK-47 some time.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[Richard_at_work]

It doesn't say anything about American aircraft design - aircraft are complicated beasts, and if the lubrication used is out of spec for the task at hand then it may cause unexpected behaviour. Does it stick when it shouldn't? Does it jelly when it shouldn't? What is its operating temperature ranges? What does it react with?

There are many reasons why a specific lubricant can only be used in certain ways and places on an aircraft - you don't want a low friction lubricant with a narrow operating temperature being exposed to low temperatures for example, but you also don't want a lubricant which can be exposed to low temperatures to be used in its place because it probably has a different viscosity and this will change how the lubricant works.

The differences between an AK-47 and an M-16 is that an M-16 is a finicky beast, but its also a more accurate beast - you will achieve rates of fire and accuracy with an M-16 that you wouldn't with an AK-47, but it comes at the price of higher maintenance requirements.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[Richard_at_work]

One further point to say - sure, its possible to make systems resilient to using the wrong lubricant, but the penalty for that is ... weight.

More weight means a less efficient aircraft. More thrust required, higher fuel burn penalties, lower performance ratings etc etc etc.

So require a specific lubricant, put that in the maintenance manual and move on.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[nighthawk243]

I once used the wrong lubricant. My wife still hasn't let me live that one down.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[Richard_at_work]

I'd love for you to come and design an aircraft someday, if you think its a solvable problem that doesn't carry penalties...

We've moved on from the days of the Wright brothers - even a Boeing 787 requires on average about 400 different types of lubricant.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[Richard_at_work]

Simpler maintenance is just one operational requirement on a shopping list with dozens of others - if you want to prioritise maintenance over everything else then sure, that's something we can do. Won't make for a good aircraft tho...

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[DNS-and-BIND]

It says that the Americans put on their thinking caps and came up with a solution to a very difficult problem, in the best tradition of their kind.

Let me guess, your next example is going to be the old saw about the American vs. Soviet space programs, and how the Americans spent millions on a pen while the Soviets used a pencil. The AK vs. M-16 debate has been had a million times. Think of a slider bar with "reliability" on one side and "accuracy" on the other. Then, think about each nation's militaries (conscripts who have never seen a flush toilet vs. motivated volunteers).

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[supercrisp]

I think the point is that the benefits of these beasts don't outweigh their finickiness. We didn't need an M-16. An AK-47 would do the job. And we don't need an F-22 because there's not even a job for it currently. Yet we're talking about or are phasing-out the A-10, which we clearly need. Another great example would be the B-2, which can't fly a useful number of sorties because it has to be based on the other side of the world from its targets because of its finicky maintenance demands. We were better served in Iraq by the B-52 flying 18-wheeler from the 50s, which can haul twice the payload of the B-2 and was operated from in-theater bases as well as from US bases. Granted, the B-52 is plenty complicated, but is nothing like the "Spirit." Another great example would be the obviously failed combat radio project, which ended up with a device a soldier couldn't carry, couldn't operate in anything like outdoor temps, and took a few minutes to boot up. Can't recall the name, but there was an article on Ars Technica a few weeks ago.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[x3CDA84B]

We didn't need an M-16. An AK-47 would do the job.

Have you ever actually fired those two weapons? I was sure I'd prefer the AK (due to high reliability) until I actually tried one and compared it with an M-4. The AK was almost embarrassingly inaccurate, and jumped around like a madman. The M-4 was extremely-accurate, and very stable while firing. It may take more careful maintenance, but there's no question which of the two I'd want to depend on as a weapon.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[Richard_at_work]

No one is talking about phasing out the A-10, they are spending billions of dollars right now hanging new wings on 250 examples to keep it flying for the next 25 years...

The B-52 is a notable bomb truck, but it certainly cant haul twice the load of a B-2 - its more like a third more, and it requires more support structure to carry that payload the same distance as the B-2. The B-51 also can't be used on first day strikes these days due to the absolutely huge radar signature it has - if the Vietnamese could shoot it down in the 1970s, its going to get massacred by todays technology unless those SAM sites are taken out before the B-52 arrives.

My point? Theres a job to be done and the only suitable aircraft for that job are doing it. Once the integration of the F-22 has been completed, it will also do more of its job in operational theatres, rather than languishing in what basically amounts to advanced training roles right now.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[hey!]

The notion that the M16 is unreliable got started with the shaky roll out in Vietnam. The normal teething problems of any system were exacerbated by a switch to ammunition that caused fouling problems. Recent surveys of combat troops show a very high rate of satisfaction with the weapon (80%).

I suspect the myth lives on in part because of lack of statistical sophistication. Any weapon will jam from time to time, and Afghanistan is America's longest running war ever. Over eleven years there have no doubt been countless jams, and firefights where multiple weapons jammed. These incidents are immediately taken as "proof" that the device is unreliable, failing to take into account the sheer number of rounds fired. There's probably no way to disprove this idea in the public mind, because every failure is "proof" of unreliability, and statistics showing failures are rare are bound to be seen as a cover-up.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[SplashMyBandit]

Note also that the AK-47 was design to produce volume of fire by barely trained recruits (necessary from the Russian experience when over 80% of their army was killed in 1943 alone). The Western way (weapons and aircraft) is to build maximum performance systems. This require skill to operate and some effort to maintain, but result is *vastly* better performance (eg. the *recent* combat records of Western aircraft+pilots+weapons vs Soviet-design aircraft is incredibly impressive, eg. 1982 in the Bekaa Valley). The M-16 (and M-4) is a fairly unreliable design, as shown in recent US Army tests where alternatives were considered. Just because the inaccurate AK-47 is more reliable than the M-16/M-4 does not mean there are not more accurate *and* reliable Western alternatives out there (although the increase in reliability is not considered worth the expense for the US to replace the M-4 at this time).

The AK-47 has developed a mystique from the uninformed that is doesn't deserve (in part from now out-of-date poor M-16 experiences in Vietnam). The modern M-16A4 and M-4 are much better weapon than the AK-74 (successor to the AK-47). Just ask the insurgents in Falluja about that (hint: you'll need a psychic medium to do that; in fact, the number of headshots the US was able to achieve due to the accurate nature of the weaponry firing at the only exposed part lead to investigations of war crimes [thinking the headshots were executions], it turned out there were no executions simply a very accurate weapon in the hands of very well trained Marines).

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[flyingsquid]

I think the point is that the benefits of these beasts don't outweigh their finickiness. We didn't need an M-16. An AK-47 would do the job. And we don't need an F-22 because there's not even a job for it currently.

The problem is that the extraordinary sophistication of modern combat aircraft means a longer design cycle. Here's some numbers from Wikipedia: The P-51 Mustang is widely regarded as one of the best planes of WWII, and it took just four years, 1938-1942, to go from concept to combat. The F-4 Phantom II took seven years, 1953-1960, to go from initial designs to entering service. The F-15 takes 11 years, 1965-1976, to enter service. The F-22 takes 24 years, 1981-2005. Maybe you could shorten that cycle a bit with better project management and less bureaucracy, but the trend isn't specific to the U.S. The Soviet Yak-3 goes from concept to service in 3 years (!), 1941-1944, but the Mig-29 takes 11 years, 1971-1983. Development of Russia's fifth-generation fighter, the Pak-Fa, begins in the late 1980s and it should enter service in 2015-2016.

The end result? The F-22 is an anachronism. It's something out of a time warp, a throwback to an era that's long past. Sort of the Austin Powers of fighter jets. First, it's designed to deal with a radically different strategic picture. In 1981, when design began on the F-22, the major threat was a large, sophisticated, Soviet military. Now the real threat is a guerrilla with an AK-47 and an IED. Conflict with an advanced nation like Russia or China isn't impossible, but it's unlikely. Second, the technological picture has changed as well. In 1981 the cutting edge in computing was a 1MHZ Apple II with 48k of memory; now computing hardware and software have advanced to the point where an onboard computer can take off, fly, and land the plane, so the pilot is increasingly redundant. The F-22 is an expensive, obsolete solution to a problem that no longer exists.

Fifth-generation fighters like the F-22 and F-35 are an expensive throwback. We've seen what the Predator can do, and it's been revealing. If you're familiar with military history you probably know about the 1921 battleship bombing trials. That was when bombs dropped by aircraft were used to destroy a dreadnought; it signalled that the era of battleships was over and that future naval battles would be conducted by and decided by air power; it signalled the rise of the carrier. We're seeing something similar now, with Predator UAVs being armed with Hellfire and Stinger missiles and used for precision ground attacks, close-air-support, and air-to-air. It's only a matter of time before UAVs take over missions traditionally left to manned aircraft. So instead of trying to refight the Cold War, a more realistic plan would be to maintain air superiority against Russia and China by upgrading fourth-generation aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 over the next decade, while leapfrogging past fifth-generation fighters to sixth-generation fighters- unmanned fighters. Eliminating the pilot isn't without it's issues (as the loss of the RQ-170 Sentinel over Iran shows), but eliminating the pilot and cockpit makes for a lighter, more streamlined aircraft which improves speed and range. Survivability also becomes less of an issue, so you don't need as many backups, the airframe doesn't have to be as tough, and stealthiness is less of an issue. Again, that means longer range and better speed. Eliminating the pilot and all the systems associated with his survival also means a cheaper aircraft, and one that takes less time to develop. Most importantly, without a pilot to worry about, you can carry out risky missions without worrying about the political implications of having a pilot shot down in Iran or the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[hairyfeet]

But the elephant in the room is this...we don't really need pilots anymore. Frankly since the F15 we've had to put limits below what the aircraft could actually do because it would kill the pilots while the plane would be just fine. The drones are cheaper, smaller, don't need all the extra billions in safety and comfort for the meatsack inside, now that Russia is building their own mach 2 stealth drone the days of spending tankers full of money to put meatsacks in planes is rapidly coming to an end.

Instead of blowing trillions we don't have on the F35 we should pull the plug, buy more F15s and F16s (and F18s if the navy won't take the F15 or F16) and spend the money on new drone designs. in the end the machine can just do it better than the meatsack and at a hell of a lot less cost. The F22 is a pretty little money pit that we can't afford to field in enough numbers to ultimately make much of a difference if we faced someone other than goat herders.

I say let the military keep what they have, buy some more of the proven designs to tide them over, but make it clear the future isn't Maverick parking his ass in a cockpit, its Ned the nerd playing Nintendo.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[danversj]

So there is a grain of truth to the so-called "Bad Guy Marksmanship myth"?

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[flyingsquid]

The notion that the M16 is unreliable got started with the shaky roll out in Vietnam. The normal teething problems of any system

C.J. Chivers covers this in "The Gun", his history of the AK-47. The inherent reliability of the AK-47 goes back all the way to the prototypes. There are a couple of design decisions that make the AK-47 very reliable. One is that the gas piston reloading mechanism that ejects the spent casing has heavier components and has a much forceful action, it just hammers the spent shells out, so it is harder to jam. Another is that the components were deliberately made to fit together loosely, if the rifle gets dirty or is dropped in sand or mud, it can still fire. The rife was also protected by chrome, which made it corrosion resistant. And the other thing is, they field-tested the prototypes. They didn't settle on the AK-47 design and then start field-testing, they had a number of different designs they were experimenting with and they were rolling them all around in the mud to see which would hold up well under combat conditions.The AK-47 was the design that emerged from this Darwinian design process.

The M-16 has more moving parts, they fit together closely and, critically, the Armalite company never did the kind of field-testing that the Soviet design bureau did. The GIs sent to Vietnam did the field-testing, and when the reports came back that there were problems, the company and the Army were slow to respond. One of the biggest issues is that the M-16 was sent to wet, humid Vietnam without chroming the barrel to protect it against rust. Eventually they worked a lot of the kinks out, but a lot of GIs died in the process. There's an excerpt from the book talking about this you can read online http://www.esquire.com/features/ak-47-history-1110-3.

I think the comparison of this oxygen system to the premature rollout of the M-16 is a valid one. In both cases, contractors fielded a system before it was ready, jeopardizing people's lives. And given the cost of the F-22, I think the design philosophy behind the AK-47 is also worth talking about. The Soviet approach was to create a gun that had several key features- it was lightweight, it had a rapid rate of fire, it was cheap enough to produce in vast numbers, and it was simple and rugged enough that it didn't require a lot of training and maintenance to use. They emphasized quantity over quality. An enemy with accurate weapons and superior training could be overcome if you just rounded up a whole bunch of peasants and gave every one of them a gun that shot 600 rounds per minute. And all you have to do is look at the American experience in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan to see that there's a lot to this philosophy. Because of planes like the F-22, nobody can possibly defeat the U.S. in a head-to-head contest for air superiority, but that doesn't guarantee victory any more than it did in Vietnam or Afghanistan.

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[CharlieG]

Yes. YEARS ago (probably more years than most /. readers have been alive), I was at a conference, and there were talking about one of the HUGE differences in the F15-A and the F-15C that almost no one talks about. It seems THE most common failure part on the A was a fuel pump (or something similar) that took HOURS to replace - you had to take down the center line fuel tank, open lots of panels etc. When the did the C, they put it in a spot to make it easy to get to - instead of something like a 20+ hour job, it became something like a 1-2 hour job. THAT is the kind of thing you learn as you build enough of an airplane for a long enough time to say "Hey, lets change X"

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[funwithBSD]

Come on now, I got the blue shit, the white shit, grey shit and black shit. I don't more than 4 kinds of shit to lube an airplane!

Dear old pops loves to tell the stories about working on everything from A-6 Intruders to the B-2 before retirement.

His chop is on thousands, if not tens of thousands, of such technical revisions on the repair manuals for those aircraft.

"The problem is the engineers that write the manuals, they don't work on the airplane."

Re:Covering up for a crony?

[flyingsquid]

The shift to drones is already happening. Right now there are three UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles) in development. These are the General Atomics Avenger (Predator C), which is a jet-powered answer to the Predator, the Boeing Phantom Ray, and the Northrop-Grumman X-47B. All three have undergone flight testing, and the X-47B is scheduled for carrier testing in 2013 and then will undergo aerial refuelling tests. These are all subsonic aircraft, and the Phantom Ray and X-47B both use a flying wing design which is designed for long range and stealth, not maneuverability. But it means that within a few years, the U.S. will have three different unmanned aircraft capable of filling the strike role currently filled by planes like the F-15E, F-16, and F/A-18.

The obvious next step is to make a UAV with supersonic capability, vectored thrust and large control surfaces for improved maneuverability, and a powerful radar to track aircraft- basically, an F-22 minus the pilot.

Be skeptical of quotes like this

[sco08y]

An F-16 pilot said the Air Force is either “incompetent for missing this until now,” or “dishonest and trying to sweep something under the rug.”

Usually a reporter throws out dozens of quotes until she finds one like this that is sensational.

A quote like, "yeah, this is a really hard engineering problem to solve, and every time you go up and run a test flight it's expensive and dangerous," just wouldn't get printed because it's not news.

Re:Be skeptical of quotes like this

[MacGyver2210]

wouldn't get printed because it's not news.

It's plenty newsworthy, it's just not sensational enough for our retarded "If it bleeds, it leads" type 'news' here in America.

Re:Be skeptical of quotes like this

[AngryDeuce]

I really miss the old days when they just reported the news factually and let people make up their own minds, rather then the "news as a product that must be tailored for optimal consumption" corporate-whore mentality that we're stuck with today.

It's not a new phenomenon (William Randolph Hearst was doing the same shit a century ago) but it's certainly become totally pervasive these days...

Re:Be skeptical of quotes like this

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I miss the days when trending twitter comments weren't considered "news" by mainstream outlets.

I think we're both out of luck.

Re:Be skeptical of quotes like this

[Frosty Piss]

I really miss the old days when they just reported the news factually...

I'm sorry, *which* "good old days" were these?

Perhaps you're referring to the days of Cronkite or before? You are of the "get off my lawn" era? I somehow doubt you are of that vintage, because if you were, you would know that the news-media has always had a heavy bias towards whatever the current power structure was. History proves this.

Unsupportable anecdotes aside, you are referring to something that has never existed.

F-16 Viper?

[Henriok]

It's unusual to have the F-16 referred to as Viper in articles like this. I had to look it up and indeed, it seems to be a common and old nickname for it. I think it suits the aircraft better than the "Fighting Falcon".. I never understood why they had to put the "Fighting" in the name.. wasn't Falcon enough?

Re:F-16 Viper?

[nighthawk243]

Forgot to mention: Many aircraft have official names that the pilots rarely use. F-16 Fighting Falcon: "Viper" A-10 Thunderbolt II: "Warthog" B-52 Stratofortress: "BUFF" (Big Ugly Fat Fucker) F-4 Phantom II: "Rhino", "The Flying Brick"...etc

Re:F-16 Viper?

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's OK - just call it the Lawn Dart and everyone will know what you're talking about. The joke comes out of the fact that the F-16 is a single engine airplane and has all fly-by-wire flight controls without manual backup. Combine that ALSO with the fact that a lot of F-16s were powered by the Pratt F-100-PW-220 engine, which has had a reputation for being not exactly the most reliable motor. This has led to a lot of people needing to bail out of the jet for engine problems -- failure, fire, bird ingestion, etc. This leaves that sleek, pointy-nosed aerospace vehicle to fall to earth ballistically, just like a lawn dart. They lost nearly a squadron a year this way.

They called it the Viper after the Colonial Viper from the Battlestar Galactica TV series. The real one - the one with the inimitable Lorne Greene as Commander Adama and the dashing Dirk Benedict as Starbuck the cigar-chomping, womanizing lovable rogue. You know, back when they used to come up with new ideas for TV shows instead of "re-imagining" old series that frankly weren't that great in the first place.

F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter

[Glock27]

The F-22 production line should be restarted, with limited exports allowed to Japan and Australia. Also, some portion (probably about 1/4) of F-35 production should be replaced by F-22 production.

The F-22 is operational now, and completely wipes the F-35 on at least two fronts - supercruise and all-aspect stealth. It also has a worthy air-to-ground role, carrying up to four small diameter bombs or a single 1,000 lb JDAM per weapon bay. Finally, with two engines it has a margin of safety that the F-35 can't match.

With F-35 costs spiraling out of control, the F-22 is looking to be quite a bargain at around the same cost per airframe.

Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter

[khallow]

What would be the point? All the profit was in developing the F-22 not building it. F-35 is where it's at now.

Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter

[ducomputergeek]

And meanwhile the after action reports from the conflicts fought in the last 25 years have all said the same thing: need more A-10's and B-52's.

It still seems to me that the best course of action would have been to invest a little in an update of the F-15 20 years ago and kept it in production a little longer similiar to what the Navy did with the F-18 Super Hornet. (I think R&D for that was around $200M).

The only problem with the F-15's is not that it's being out classed even today as it is the number of flight hours on the existing airframes.

Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter

[DesScorp]

The F-22 production line should be restarted, with limited exports allowed to Japan and Australia. Also, some portion (probably about 1/4) of F-35 production should be replaced by F-22 production.

Absolutely not. Neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are a "bargain" at close to a quarter billion dollars apiece, flyaway. As an aviation writer put it 30 years ago, "building a fighter with all the electronics of the starship Enterprise will do you no good if you can only afford two of them". We're at that point, budget-wise. We need a fighter that we can affordably build in quantity, or it's useless. Admiral Greenert was right. It's time to ditch the luxury car aircraft acquisition idea and go to flexible, cheaper "trucks" that we can build relatively quickly and in higher quantities. And as there is no proof that either the Russian Pak-Fa nor the Chinese J-20 are anything other technology demonstrators or outright Potemkin frauds to convince the West that "hey, we can do stealth too", we should probably just continue to build teen-series fighter with AESA radars. Nothing that the Russians or Chinese have that are in actual production are any better.

Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter

[TubeSteak]

The only problem with the F-15's is not that it's being out classed even today as it is the number of flight hours on the existing airframes.

Boeing's F-15 production line is still up and running.
A few years ago, they unvieled the F-15 SE (Silent Eagle) for ~$100 million
It has updated avionics and a stealthier aspect + export legal stealth coating that is good against air-to-air radar.
The current crop of F-15C/E airplanes is also getting some updated radar and avionics, but not a full overhaul.

/Boeing is also offering F-18 variants for ~$50 million each.

Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter

[Loki_1929]

I agree with you about restarting the production lines of the F-22, but I can't disagree enough regarding exports. The F-22 represents 20+ years of the best R&D money can buy. Every part of that plane is filled with advanced tools that make it the most lethal air-to-air combat machine in the history of the world. I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't even as-yet be admitting the thing exists, let alone showing it off at airshows. While we don't have the complete picture, there's been enough public information leaked about the plane that even amateur fighter junkies have a fairly solid understanding of its capabilities. That means intelligence agencies and foreign militaries likely have an even better understanding of it. Does that mean they can then field planes to challenge it? Not in the next 20 years; no. At least not without pouring hundreds of billions into R&D in a massively accelerated program.

What would allow them to jump ahead in the R&D process cheaply? Getting in the cockpit, getting trained maintenance crew members to turn, etc. In the US, we have a massive counter-intelligence infrastructure capable of limiting that kind of risk. Not eliminating it, but minimizing it. If we start shipping this aircraft to other nations (even our best allies), we open the door to a Russia or a China to get their hands on exactly what they need to build an almost-as-good fighter in half the time. They'll not only use them to deter the US from threatening their interests around the world (because realistically, we aren't attacking each other directly, but countries like Georgia and Taiwan provide perfect examples of where this would come into play), but they'd also sell them to a lot of countries who would be happy to challenge the US directly (like Iran, North Korea, etc). That's just far, far too much of a risk to take.

The US military is counting on the F-22 (with upgrades along the way) to completely dominate the skies anywhere and everywhere in the world for the next 20-30 years. If someone else gets their hands on enough information to cut their R&D time and expense in half and build something that's nearly as capable, we've lost a massive air advantage. You cannot win a modern war militarily without control of the air. Right now, the F-22 gives us that hands-down. With the F-22, no country on Earth could field aircraft in any skies on Earth; including over their own soil. You really cannot underestimate what kind of deterrent that is to those who'd like to see our power balanced or who would like to take by force those who we protect.

So yes, the production line should be started by taking all future monies out of the F-35 program, but with one change: the entire production process should be completely overhauled to streamline it. When the F-22 production was begun, a political calculation was made to spread the program to as many states and districts as possible so that most politicians in Congress would have to choose between voting to fund the project and cutting off money and jobs to their own constituents. That drove up the cost of building the plane significantly (I've seen figures as high as $30 million per plane). By consolidating and streamlining the process, we'll be able to build many more F-22s with a lot less money.

I'd also note that it would be a huge mistake to try and add any significant ground attack capability to the plane. Our most successful aircraft do one job and do it well. The F-15 rules the skies. It does so wherever it goes and it's done beautifully. It kills planes. It's not great at doing a ton of ground attacking, but it doesn't need to. We have bombers hitting bombable targets and for moving targets we have another hugely specialized aircraft: the A-10. The A-10 is the pinnacle of anti-vehicle attack aircraft. You'd never fly A-10s in against enemy aircraft because that's not its job. The F-15s clear the skies and the A-10s clear the mobile ground targets. The F-22 should be a simple drop-in replacement for the aging F-15. The A-10 still does a f

Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter

[Loki_1929]

Neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are a "bargain" at close to a quarter billion dollars apiece, flyaway.

Ahem, the F-22's flyaway cost is $150 Million. 150 is not "close" to 250. Further, if you streamline the F-22 production chain such that it isn't spread all over the country to force politicians to vote for its funding (or cut off jobs to their own people), it'll be closer to $125 Million flyaway cost.

By all means, take all the money from the F-35 program and feed it into an overhauled and streamlined F-22 production line to pump out as many air dominance aircraft as that'll get us. That buys us complete control of the skies anywhere and everywhere in the world for the next 25+ years if we don't bother developing any other aircraft between now and then. You cannot win a modern war militarily without control of the air. It simply cannot happen.

Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter

[Sollord]

The fly away cost of an F-22 is $170million while the current and ever increasing fly away cost of an F-35A is $207.6 million. The R&D cost of the program adds $242million but that's R&D money that was already spent over the last 20 plus years. The F-22 cost $170million to physically build but people love to throw out the $400million+ figure with all sunk costs that's already been paid out. If we had built 400 of them it would of spread the $34billion dollars R&D costs out more and dropped it to $250Million from the $412million it is now make it 800 and it drops to $212M 1000 and it's $204Million which is $3 million less then an F-35A's fly-away cost as of 2011 and they want to buy 2,200 F-35s and the F-35B and F-35C cost at least $30million more then a F-35A and none of this takes into the account adding the R&D costs of the F-35 program which is projected to be at least $56billion only $22Billion more then the R&D costs of the F-22. As of right now each F-35 built this year costs $304million with current R&D costs added on to the $207million fly-away cost. /rants

Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter

[subreality]

Trucks vs luxury cars doesn't really capture it though. Top notch stealth is a huge force multiplier. Two F-22s can take on several dozen non-stealth fighters: the conventionals swarm around not finding anything to shoot at while the F-22s pick them off one by one. It's really that dramatic of a difference.

In limited-scale wars, the F-22 is just overwhelmingly better even in small numbers. In a protracted world war things would be different: eventually the other guys would take them out through blind luck, or a significant portion of the small fleet would be down for maintenance; then the "lots of cheap fighters" strategy wins (and the US still wins, since it still has tousands of cheap F-15s, F-16s, and to a lesser degree F/A-18s). The thing is that every war fought in the last 50 years has been the former sort where having a small number of F-22s IS the better plan, and I don't see anything on the horizon that will change it.

Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter

[flyingsquid]

The US military is counting on the F-22 (with upgrades along the way) to completely dominate the skies anywhere and everywhere in the world for the next 20-30 years.

Couple issues here. First, the U.S. currently has air superiority and isn't in danger of losing it anytime soon. The F-15 can shoot down anything flying, and the other thing is that the U.S. has a lot of other capabilities that go into maintaining air superiority- AWACs planes, refuelling capabilities, air bases situated around the world, carriers, and so forth. It's not enough to build a fifth-generation plane without the technology and infrastructure to wage an air war. Even if the Chinese J-20 or the Russian PAK-FA do enter production in the next five or ten years, they're a long way from being able to challenge U.S. air superiority. No other non-allied country would even come close to posing a threat.

Second, how likely are we to get in an air war with Russia or China? Probably not very, and the reason is the same reason we haven't already gone to war. When both sides have nuclear weapons, they're going to do everything in their power to avoid a direct confrontation. While it's entirely possible that we'll find ourselves on the opposite side of a fight like we did in Vietnam or Afghanistan, the odds that we'll see American F-22s dogfighting Russian Sukhois or Chinese J-20s are pretty remote. The odds of a war with China are even lower- China makes all our favorite high-tech gadgets and cheap Wal-Mart stuff; a shooting war would do so much damage to the Chinese and American economies that both sides will do everything in their power to avoid a direct fight.

Finally, the F-22 and F-35 are going to be obsolete soon enough. The Economist called the F-35 "the last generation of manned fighter". The Predator has already been used successfully for air-to-ground strike and close air support, and (with somewhat less success) in air-to-air combat over Iraq. It's shown the ability to do a lot of the missions that manned aircraft do, and a lot of missions that manned aircraft can't do. Building a plane without a pilot or cockpit means less drag and weight, which means longer range, better speed, more payload. Plus, the computer doesn't black out in high-G maneuvers, or need to sleep, or need to get rescued if it's shot down. So if maintaining air superiority is the goal, then we should invest in developing an unmanned air superiority fighter.

Look at Libya. In early 2011, the Predator is sent into action conducting airstrikes against Gaddafi loyalists. Meanwhile the F-22 ends up grounded for months because of these oxygen issues. That pretty much says it all.

Re:I think they are covering up something else

[Loki_1929]

There were a handful of reports of some ground crew members experiencing some similar symptoms. However, any psychologist will tell you that could very easily be psychosomatic response to a perception that something about the aircraft causes those kinds of symptoms. If it were widely reported that the A-10 were giving the pilots skin cancer, the ground crews would see members freaking out over every bump, blister, rash, and zit they found for months afterwards.

I'm not saying they've 100% nailed this problem and case-closed. I'm only saying that the most logical thing to do is sit back in a wait-and-see mode until we find out whether pilots continue experiencing symptoms during flight. If pilots are still blacking out at (or close to) the rates from before the 'fix', then we have no actual fix. If pilots are pretty much all ok after this, then the ground crew reports are almost certainly unrelated to this particular issue.

Re:Whose problem?

[Loki_1929]

Building weapons of war works a little differently than building a Prius. Once the government accepts a contractors product as meeting the specifications requested, and so long as the contractor does not conceal relevant information from the government, it's nearly impossible to hold the contractor liable for defects in the design. Basically, we're asking Lockheed Martin to design and build the most complex flying machine ever imagined by mankind. It wouldn't be possible - let alone financially feasible - to expect each and every single aspect of the product to be perfect from day one, nor would it be viable to expect Lockheed to go back and find, diagnose, and fix every single problem in every single aircraft produced. It'd put military contractors out of business to do so (and that isn't fixing your planes either).

Now I completely agree that we should be doing a whole lot more to fix the issues of cost overruns without sacrificing quality control, but holding them to your average consumer product warranty isn't the answer. We'll end up with nobody left to build any of this stuff and nobody else willing to try.

Re:Fatal?

[Loki_1929]

One known death associated with this issue.

Next, please look up the number of deaths associated with the F-16 potential wire chaffing problem (hint: dozens). Then, please look up deaths associated with all the various issues of the F-4 (hint: more). Then look up the deaths associated with design flaws in every combat aircraft ever produced.

Result: The F-22 is possibly the safest and most well-designed (nearly flawless) aircraft developed for combat in the history of air combat aircraft. It just so happens that in the era of 24-hour news, the Internet, and the high profile of that aircraft, we hear about every single issue in incredible detail. That's not a bad thing (transparency in government never is), but we need to keep perspective.