It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

$1 billion to Fix F-22A Raptor Structural Flaws

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
As was reported by the Chairman of a House defense panel a couple of weeks ago, the F-22 has structural flaws. Today it became clear it will cost roughly $1 billion to fix them.




Air Force Aimpoints - Fixing the F-22A

The U.S. Air Force has discovered structural flaws in its most expensive fighter jet that could cost roughly $1 billion to test for and fix, service officials said.

F-22A Raptor program officials have found weaknesses in structures that attach the wing and tail to the plane’s fuselage, the officials said. A portion of that estimated $1 billion also will be used to fix aircraft panel corrosion.




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
That'll be fixed under warranty and not cost the Air Force (tax payer) right?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
thanks for the update Zion hopefully this wont turn into the predictable f-22 bashing thread.
As for an openion on the thread I think that stuff like this happens hopefully we dont find the same problems that the 18's had. Canada already had them at that point and we helped with all the testing etc but with the US just having them they dont get any out side help etc. not saying the US needs the help im just thinkin back thats all.
My final say on this. Sounds good because if they found no problems Id be more afriad.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Sounds from the report like it was a manufacturing error, if it had been a structural design fault then it would have been far more serious and would have led to such lengthy delays and costly alterations that scrapping the whole thing might have been an option. That would be something to get worried about. At least this way they just need to tighten up procedures and go back and correct the errors.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
#1 OK, par for your course Zion, and ill leave it at that.

#2 So? You mean the brand new prototype, 5th gen fighter never ever before produced prior to now needs some modifications? OMG!

Man you guys make me laugh in regards to the F-22.

Look, we get it: It’s expensive!

But to introduce things like this like it’s telling about the program or unique is nothing but plain silliness. Nearly every plane produced known to man has undergone changes and modifications at one time or another, some a great deal more significant than this. There have been commercial planes that flew for DECADES with flaws that weren’t detected.

Bottom line is there is nothing to see here, barely news worthy. Same as that locked cockpit. The only reason this is news is because you guys have an agenda against the plane and the program is expensive.

I hate to say this, but I have too: Its jealousy. The plane is better than whatever plane you chose as your favorite prior to this one. Here is this great plane, made by the *gasp!* Americans heavens forbid, that’s supposed to dominate the skies. And it mostly looks like it meets the hype.

Im sorry guys, once and awhile American arrogance is founded in reality. The F-22 is the real deal, just accept it and find something else to hate us for…There is plenty to choose from, but this isn’t one of them.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
What do you mean with:

#1 OK, par for your course Zion, and ill leave it at that.

??

Anyway, its not a prototype, it's in production, already in service and it has been declared battle ready.



The only reason this is news is because you guys have an agenda against the plane and the program is expensive.

So nothing bad can be reported about defense programs, no matter how much they cost, and no matter how useless they have become over the years?
Why is that? Just because it looks great? And why do you repeatedly claim it's jealousy? Thats utter nonsense.

Just becasue you think it's a great plane, and because it's made by Americans there shouldn't be any criticism at all?

*shakes head*



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
ok maybe im wrong but no one on the thread yet has bashed the 22 and as soon as you go crazy and start spouting that your always under attack for liking the 22 you will get bashed. Alot of the people on these threads dont hate the 22 we know its a good plane. please stop being so over the top skippy because you creating your own circle of bashing. I know you position heck i agree with it alot of the time but you starting to sound like the people you dislike so much.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
My, how predictable. The member who rips into everyone elses planes but reacts to criticism of the F-22 like you've just called his mum a bitch has arrived.


Yes, again you overreact skippy, zion just posted a piece of information, he didn't make it up, it is true, neither did he pass comment on it?

What about me then, have I betrayed my 'agenda' as you accused me before? Oh no, what I posted was quite posiotive wasn't it. How do you explain that then?




So? You mean the brand new prototype, 5th gen fighter never ever before produced prior to now needs some modifications? OMG!


WRONG! it is in full production and service, the fault affects around 90 (ninety) airframes.




Man you guys make me laugh in regards to the F-22.


Not nearly as much as you make me laugh with your wild overreactions.

Ooh, lets see. Nobody is post anything at all about the Raptor unless they are extolling its vast superiority, all other discussions are banned. Is that what you want?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

Bottom line is there is nothing to see here, barely news worthy. Same as that locked cockpit. The only reason this is news is because you guys have an agenda against the plane and the program is expensive.


Its not huge news I/WE know that butt its money and it has to do with one of my FAV planes so if Zion wants to let me know something he knows I'm not going to tell him to shove it like you are skippy.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
ok maybe im wrong but no one on the thread yet has bashed the 22

Yeah, I forgot to mention that, apart from the
smily, I was objective in my start post, all I did was report on the (extreme) high costs of modifying a flaw in the F-22 design, that's it. It's pretty amazing it must cost 1 BILLION to come up with a fix, test it and modify the airframes that have been build so far. Only around 60 have been build so far...

And dont get met wrong, we're getting the F-35 here in Holland, and I know the F-22 is better than the JSF, but that doesn't mean I'm jealous were not getting the Raptor.

Lets stop these silly discussions about jealousy and which plane is best. I deliberately stayed out of the recent chainsaw massacre and "Fans of the F-22 Raptor need to wake-up" threads.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   


the (extreme) high costs of modifying a flaw in the F-22 design,


From the article I took it that it was not a design flaw but a manufacturing one, as I said in my previous post, unless I misunderstood it. This is actually quite a crucial difference.

(brace yerselves)

Anyway, that F-22 is just a piece of overrated old tat isn't it?


Just as long as people realise that was a joke, right?

[edit on 1-5-2006 by waynos]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Anyway, that F-22 is just a piece of overrated old tat isn't it?


Yeah, basically it's just a piece of junk


But you're right, they seem to be manufacturing flaws, but in the older article the Defense Panel chairmen also mentioned the flaw may require redesign as well.

Karas stressed that the aircraft’s design is not flawed, but rather the problem lies with one supplier’s manufacturing process. He did not name the supplier in the statement.


"He did not name the supplier in the statement."
That supplier is BOEING, right? See, I always new Airbus was much better



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Anyway, that F-22 is just a piece of overrated old tat isn't it?


Just as long as people realise that was a joke, right?

Yeah, much like that 'piece of overrated old tat' EF-2000/Eurofighter, huh?






seekerof



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by waynos
Anyway, that F-22 is just a piece of overrated old tat isn't it?


Just as long as people realise that was a joke, right?

Yeah, much like that 'piece of overrated old tat' EF-2000/Eurofighter, huh?




Not quite, but nearly. Its nosewheel might be occasionaly stubborn but at least its wings stay on and, so far, it hasn't held on to its pilot like a jealous bunny boiler


(this is fun!)



[edit on 1-5-2006 by waynos]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Not quite, but nearly. Its nosewheel might be occasionaly stubborn but at least its wings stay on and, so far, it hasn't held on to its pilot like a jealous bunny boiler


(this is fun!)


Yeah, I hear ya, try this one on for size.





seekerof



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
The F-15A had similar problems (as did the F-16A) and most of the fleet was in fact 'rewinged' at least once, in the 1980s and then again in the MSIP program. Indeed the A-Rodan was /pulled/ from NATO Europe as fast as possible.

It was also known throughout the service as a 'hangar queen' for the massive problems in it's avionics (BIT test didn't go deep enough into the LRU to be reliable) and engines.

What the F-22A represents is the same problem. You put a new type into service -and- production with an 'EMD' (FSD) phase that was largely paper airplane based for 7 years and there are going to be synergistic problems that crop up which nobody could predict from 'Engineering and Manufacturing' studies.

Structural problems with the aft booms have been a known for at least 5 years and though the airframe is highly stressed with the combined loads of a short arm tail and the vectoring, it is something which I feel to be greatly exaggerated as a threat to the airframe for much the same reason that I find 'dogfighting' in a _133 million dollar_ (not 355) stealth airframe to be LUDICROUS.

Stealth jets don't dogfight, they don't have to, _in combat_ they will fly like airliners, just to stay invisible.

Speaking of price, you folks do realize that you are being sucker punched on the 'diminishing returns' shell game don't you? Cut the budget until the fraction of (already ammortized) R&D /as a function of production costs/ seems unnaturally inflated. I mean, this is not a house where sunk costs are /equity/ that you can get back by resale. They are just debts-long-paid. Like your January 2001 electric bill.

In any case, with a limited asset force acquisition plan, there is no way to 'new production block' fix what are likely imbedded (unreachable) manufacturing flaws.

So you will continue to see _minor_ patchwork fixes as the jets are both their own test fleet and production force. In the F-111 program, when they found that the L6AC Steel wing pivot box was pitting and cracking; they ended up spending 1970'ish princely sums of 100 million dollars to stand up 3 separate facilities to inspect and repair each of about 200 airframes already produced. Today, that kind of 'fix' would amount to 2-5 billion dollars, so this is actually rather cheap.

Especially when compared to the ungodly amount of 257 billion dollars being hurled at the utterly worthless trash that is the JSF.

In the end, that's all the matters. TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS.

The F-22 will run about 70 billion + 1. With another 20 to reestablish the original 'Spiral' process of upgrades for proper A2G (new radar and EO). That's 90 billion total people.

The F-35 will run 257 billion and is gaining what some estimate as a half a billion a year for every 100 jets under the original 3,000 which were 'deemed utterly necessary' for the U.S. services alone (so that foreign exports would be cheap enough to undercut the Flubber and Rafale).

Since we are now down to about 1,457 jets, that means we have not even /begun/ to see the true price hikes which will come crushingly late in THIS program. 320 billion would be my first-cap guess before Congress 'loses patience' with letting the tax payers cover up another pork pie production effort at unbalanced trade. And there will be no alternative, because the F-22 will be long out of production and the UCAV has been (predictably) strangled in the crib.

Of course 'nobody planned' on the EU continuing full steam ahead on their own UCAV efforts which will form the basis of Gen-6 and leave the JSF in the dust of it's own inflated MSRP.

Morons.


KPl.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Yeah, I hear ya, try this one on for size.


seekerof


Ha, you wouldn't believe the number of articles like that I've laughed at. They're great aren't they


If you want a real laugh, look up the Daily Mirror piece on the receny emergency landing by the Typhoon with its nosewheel still up. THAT is a complete classic!



The imbeciles who write these are worse than the imbeciles who believe them



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Ha, you wouldn't believe the number of articles like that I've laughed at. They're great aren't they


If you want a real laugh, look up the Daily Mirror piece on the receny emergency landing by the Typhoon with its nosewheel still up. THAT is a complete classic!



The imbeciles who write these are worse than the imbeciles who believe them



I tend to find the Daily Mail as the worst for producing sensationalist crap, particularly when there is european involvement.


For instance, the aircraft carriers were going to "be french", totally overlooking the fact Thales (which has a design office right here in belfast for instance) was just a sub-contractor, and is not 100% french.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Hmm, I'm wondering are LockMar going to use this opportunity to fix the flutter problems they have with the vertical fins themselves.

The report only seems to talk about the wing and horizontal stabiliser, and it is a design problem, again, not mentioned in the report.


Maybe not, as its been indicated that its a manageable problem, so to minimise costs they'll leave it alone and fix on an as-needs basis...



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Mmm...It’s worse than I ever anticipated. The jealousy of the F-22 is staggering. I knew it was a factor on these boards, but I had no idea it was so rampant.

And thank you ch1466 for mentioning other planes and programs that had similar issue's, as I am sure there are many many more. Again proving this is not news worthy and a common occurance with new programs, regardless of expense.



[edit on 2-5-2006 by skippytjc]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join