Young: 100 F-22s Need $8 Billion For Upgrades

www.defensenews.com...

Pentagon acquisition executive John Young says the U.S. Air Force will spend $8 billion to upgrade 100 F-22 fighters, which he said would be "lesser models" without the modifications

and the big damning report

But that's not all the next Pentagon leaders will have to debate about the super-secret Raptor, he said. He said operational tests have showed the plane is "proving very expensive to operate."

We're not seeing the mission-capable rates that we expected. And it's complex to maintain," Young told reporters. "I would highlight the maintenance on the plane is too high. They are struggling with some of the [low-observable features] and other issues."

183 + 4 is all there getting - theres more reports as well how if the ultra high maintanence requirements arnt`t kept then the LO goes through the roof to the worst case that current aircraft AESA and high end PESA can detect it at viable ranges.

a first look i think as to why no more will be bought.

edit: source link might help

[edit on 1/12/08 by Harlequin]

I hope certain people bear this in mind when they next roll out Lockheed Martin presentations and present it as unequivocal fact.


For far too long endless numbers and stats (which are in reality utterly meaningless out of context) have been strung out on here which are supposed to convince people of the utter dominance of A, B or C. Whereas in reality, just like every war machine ever built, things are not that clear cut.

You guys can let me know when you think it would be OK for me to start interjecting a occasional ' I told you so' into the general flow of Aviation related topics. Luckily the F-22 isn't a bad plane( especially as compared to what's out there) either way and luckily few threat air forces even operate 200 very modern combat aircraft...

Stellar

Classic. Young, England and Gates hate the F-22, or anything which isn't relevant to fighting guys in flip flops. Just the day before this was released Congress berated Young for not following their directives to order 20 new Raptors, he only ordered 4. The next day, this comes out. No doubt block upgrades will cost and are not uncommon. As such, don't jump the gun when there a lot of other things going on behind the scenes. He is a beurocrat after all.

Its one of the most complex craft to ever put to the air (after the B-2) and its has been in squardon service for only a fraction of its expected lifetime its not unheard of to take a bit to iron out procedures and the like for the airframe.

Also, what airframe has not gone through multiple upgrades? Todays F-15, F-16, EF-2000 is a different beast that when it first rolled off the line. heck the Typhoon has had 3 distinct upgrades between tranch 1,2,and 3

Edit to add: The uspecified upgrades are probaly keeping in line with electronic attack and the like something not in the intial specs for the airframe.

[edit on 12/1/08 by FredT]

Please explain to me how the fact that the F-22 has a low percentage of mission capable aircraft is different from ANY other brand new aircraft that has ever been introduced into service. The F-15 had teething problems when it entered service. As did the B-52, KC-135, C-130, F-16 etc. EVERYTHING that is brand new has problems when introduced. That's how they figure out where and when they can shortcut maintenance, and what does and doesn't work well with maintenance. When the B-2 entered service they were excited to get to 75% mission capable.

I don't have a link to the thread right now but I did a thread about a week ago about two distinct upgrades to the F-22s. One gives them ground attack capability with synthetic imaging radar. The other gives them A2A upgrades, which will lead to the AIM-120D and other distinct upgrades. They were going to do a 100/80 split to the upgrades.

[edit on 12/1/2008 by Zaphod58]

Maybe my self congratulation were as premature as it normally is when it comes to issues where people can still find enough material to justify their denials. Let me then ask the armchair warriors if the B-1's stealth/( without spending weeks in hanger between missions) and electronic attack/countermeasure problems have ever been resolved enough to employ these aircraft in numbers against even third world enemies? Do you guys understand that B-52's and B-2's flew more mission in both gulf wars than B-1's did despite the fact that B-1's outnumbered the B-2's almost five to one these days? What's that in terms of mission capable standards?

But feel free to just keep on finding excuses for this 'stealth' aircraft; at least stealth is by no means the only thing it has going for it.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Maybe my self congratulation were as premature as it normally is when it comes to issues where people can still find enough material to justify their denials.

Funny have you checked out a mirror lately, strawmanning a report is better how?

Let me then ask the armchair warriors if the B-1's stealth/( without spending weeks in hanger between missions) and electronic attack/countermeasure problems have ever been resolved enough to employ these aircraft in numbers against even third world enemies?

I prefer the term barcolounger warrior myself and unless you are posting from an active duty unit 'Hello pot? Its the the kettle.......... your black" At anyrate I thought this discussion centered around the Raptor and not the Bone

That being said, the mission profiles for the B-2, B-1B and the B-52 are different with the B-2 having the most overlap That being said the mission ready rates fo the B-1 have had much less to do with the aircraft itself and rather the USAF decison to cut the number of combat coded airframes and reduce priority levels for parts.

Do you guys understand that B-52's and B-2's flew more mission in both gulf wars than B-1's did despite the fact that B-1's outnumbered the B-2's almost five to one these days? What's that in terms of mission capable standards?

You realize dont you that the Block E upgrades which brought the B-1 into the realm of precision weapons like the WCDM and the JSOW etc were not completed fleet wide untill 2006 right? Considering that the bomber was desinged for the nuclear deterence role as part of the SIOP you cannot expect it to have B-2 targeting capacities overnight.

Really now I expected abit more research tsk tsk.

The base problem with the F-22 is its surface tolerances. Quite simple.


The USAF has 20 B-2s... all of which are wrapped in cotton wool.

The USAF had how many F-117s... which had terrible availability rates, requiring quite intensive maintenance between each and every mission IIRC.

Now, the same problems are evident on the F-22, so why should anyone be surprised?


If you ask for tight tolerances and strict operating protocols in a chaotic environment (which an airfield is, especially in times of war), then you can expect low mission availability. The USAF are just as susceptible to the laws of probability as everyone else on this planet.

(Of course, some will probably still not accept that)

Kadena F-15's net highest mission capable rate in a decade

10/16/2007 - KADENA AB, Japan -- Airmen of the 18th Maintenance Group set new standards this year by achieving the highest mission capable rates for the F-15 Eagle in a decade.

The 18th MXG achieved a mission capable rate of 81.1 percent in fiscal year 2007, up from 74.5 percent in 2006, and 62.4 percent in 2005.

This rate exceeds the Pacific Air Force standard of 81 percent and was accomplished in the midst of transformation of the fleet here at Kadena.

www.pacaf.af.mil...

LOL.

[edit on 2/12/2008 by C0bzz]

I took Stellar off my 'Ignore List' after having seen this response.
It was simply too wonderful to pass up.

Originally posted by StellarX
Maybe my self congratulation were as premature as it normally is when it comes to issues where people can still find enough material to justify their denials.

Oof! Assuming you're right again? -A big leap considering how it was just pointed out your immediate post disregarded any sense of history or knowledge on the article at hand.

Let me then ask the armchair warriors

Ah, yes. Let's listen to the 'experienced' voice of StellarX! Who proved a clear ignorance of the topic, let alone has shown any supplementing evidence. [And can we get new evidence this time? You rehashing old disproven links is painful. ]

if the B-1's stealth/( without spending weeks in hanger between missions) and electronic attack/countermeasure problems have ever been resolved enough to employ these aircraft in numbers against even third world enemies?

The B-1's stealth is not as incredibly labor intensive as you seem to want to make it. If you were arguing the F-117, or B-2 I would concede that, but please at-least use the correct airframe.

Do you guys understand that B-52's and B-2's flew more mission in both gulf wars than B-1's did despite the fact that B-1's outnumbered the B-2's almost five to one these days? What's that in terms of mission capable standards?

A vastly larger and more venerable force flew more missions? Heavens! Well, that certainly discredits my view of the world. And there's something to be said for proving new toys, in the case of the B-2.

But feel free to just keep on finding excuses for this 'stealth' aircraft; at least stealth is by no means the only thing it has going for it.

And you feel free going on with a trumped-up ego and lack of evidence, friend!

Ah, a good day indeed.
Stellar

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by StellarX
Maybe my self congratulation were as premature as it normally is when it comes to issues where people can still find enough material to justify their denials.

You realize dont you that the Block E upgrades which brought the B-1 into the realm of precision weapons like the WCDM and the JSOW etc were not completed fleet wide untill 2006 right? Considering that the bomber was desinged for the nuclear deterence role as part of the SIOP you cannot expect it to have B-2 targeting capacities overnight.

Really now I expected abit more research tsk tsk.

I have to disagree here Fred, the B-2's are much more advanced in Tech & Airframe than the B-1's and for the B-2 's to be made available for "non-Nuke bombings", and the B-1 not, speaks volumes about the B-1's "problems"

[edit on 3-12-2008 by 121200]

The F-22 has been prototyped and tested and re-tested and re-re-tested for over 15 years before the first one was ever dedicated to service. Several variants of it exsist now.

This notion that it has a few "bugs" that need ironing out is hogwash. The only "bugs" about it all is the military industrial complex and the contractors building the thing want to ensure their cash cow flow.

The thing flies, it shoots ammo, it does fancy aerobatics, it lands, it consumes fuel, it works.

Upgrading only means that the improvements that are ready to be installed are ready to be installed. Those improved pieces of hardware were tested, re-tested, and re-re-tested 5 years ago.

Again, its simply a sure-fire way for military hardware conractors to maintain their cash flow on a piece of hardware that is already older than most cars on the road.


The trend for military hardware is 20 years before the public even sees it or is told that it exsists.

So how old is that F-22? Older than you think.


Perhaps its time to bring out the next toy that is already at least 10 years old.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
The F-22 has been prototyped and tested and re-tested and re-re-tested for over 15 years before the first one was ever dedicated to service. Several variants of it exsist now.

This notion that it has a few "bugs" that need ironing out is hogwash. The only "bugs" about it all is the military industrial complex and the contractors building the thing want to ensure their cash cow flow.

I distinctly remember the first deployment to Japan having issues because of software problems during the ferry flight....

Complex systems are never, ever, ever finished.

I agree.

After all, how many people here have had their car break down before for seemingly random reasons? The car is a fairly old invention, though these things still happen.

Now take into consideration the most state-of-the-art fighter ever designed which incorporates mechanics, computer, radar, etc.

I'd be surprised if there weren't the occasional hiccup.

After all, it's not Germa-.. perfect!

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Iblis]

When I hear things like this, I recall what a turd the M1 Abrams was supposed to be. Hell, it outran it's engineering. What a problem to have! Air filter gap.

I have a feeling we'll regret not having at least 400 more.

Originally posted by 121200

I have to disagree here Fred, the B-2's are much more advanced in Tech & Airframe than the B-1's and for the B-2 's to be made available for "non-Nuke bombings", and the B-1 not, speaks volumes about the B-1's "problems"

The B-2 is at the top of the tech pyramid (for now) and I have never disagreed with that. However, the B-2's already had a precision bombing role more or less built in.

The B-1 as concived was a nuclear bomber or able to drop dumb bombs (and a whole lot of them) but no PGM's. The first Gulf war most B-1's were still designated as part of the SIOP / Nuclear deterence role. Development began not long after that to give the B-1 the ability to drop PGM. That system was not fully in place in the fleet for GWII and only a few airframes were avalible.

Not to mention the fact that the B-2's were the only bombers considered "safe" to go downtown untill after the Iraqi sam system was taken down. DSII etc. called for PGM on a scale never seen before. B-1 have been used and thier mission ready rates as I noted above have more to do with Pentagon / USAF policies than the airframe itself at this point.

Originally posted by FredT
Funny have you checked out a mirror lately, strawmanning a report is better how?

I think the language in the report makes it clear that these are not 'upgrades' but fixes for problems that could not and where not resolved before the initial production runs where started on a insufficiently tested airframe. This has all been documented by many researches online

According to Young :

"The Air Force had planned and accepted to have a two-tiered structure where some of the earlier jets were not fully capable jets, not to the Block 35 configuration, which provides important capabilities. I think something like 100 jets would kind of be lesser models" under that plan, Young said. "One thing that's in the [2010 budget plan] is to bring more of that fleet to common, high-end, capable configuration. The cost of that is $6.3 billion of [research and development]."

He expressed concern about spending so much to upgrade the Air Force's prized fighter because "this is [for] a platform we've already developed."

"Those discussions need to be had before you talk about buying more jets," he said. "That's really a requirements and capability discussion that Air Force and OSD has to have."

www.defensenews.com...

From this it looks to me that the Pentagon doesn't see the point of buying more F-22's when the first 100 are non functional without a additional six billion worth of research and development to make up for what couldn't be afforded before the planes where built for fear of total program cancellation. This basically looks like a air force trick to get something built despite the fact that they understood that it would be operationally useless without massive additional spending on a program that exceeded it's original budget estimation by a few hundred percent.

Last i checked they have only built about 120 F-22's so isn't it surprising then that basically the entire production run so far needs further research and development to prevent their operational costs from seriously escalating?

He said operational tests have showed the plane is "proving very expensive to operate."

Those tests have shown what he called a negative trend, meaning the "maintenance man-hours per flying hour has increased through those tests. The last one was a substantial increase."

www.defensenews.com...

So are maintenance ours supposed to escalate noticeable as the test phase continues and more is learnt about how to keep the plane operational?

And then just to make sure that no one could misunderstand:

The bottom line, according to Young: "There is clearly some work that needs to be done there to make that airplane capable and affordable to operate."

www.defensenews.com...

So they are not affordable to operate nor capable without another 6 billion in research and development. Where is my straw man?

I prefer the term barcolounger warrior myself and unless you are posting from an active duty unit 'Hello pot?

No and that's the funny thing here. Shouldn't even armchair warriors ( or whatever your reclining in) be able to see spot a trend and notice deception when it's openly declared? What would you require the Pentagon to say as admission that the F-22 program so far has failed to produce a operational fighter without a large additional infusion of resources and time?

Young piled on, saying the plane “still does not meet most of its KPPs (Key Performance Parameters).” But it’s not just pure operational shortcomings that have Young worried. “The airplane is proving very expensive to operate.. and it is complex to maintain.”

Of the $8 billion to upgrade the planes, Young said $6.3 billion would be research and development “for a plane that is already in production.”

www.dodbuzz.com...

Its the the kettle.......... your black"

At anyrate I thought this discussion centered around the Raptor and not the Bone

This discussion does but i have found that people who wish to restrict the parameters of a discussion are normally just worried about others noticing the overlapping trends. If anything the bone is a prime example of pentagon wastage which led to a 100 strong force of planes that are so maligned with trouble's that they are reserved for national emergencies only.

That being said, the mission profiles for the B-2, B-1B and the B-52 are different with the B-2 having the most overlap

Same general mission profile with both altered to make them low altitude penetrating strategic bombers when the USAF finally figured out that high altitude penetration with or without stealth were no longer a credible deterrent. IF anything the B-2 is a open admission that the B-1 program failed to meet expectations and the fact that it was redesigned to also make it a low altitude perpetrator may be a reaffirmation of the potency of the SAM threat or just a acknowledgment that mobile and fixed direct energy weapons were a immediate threat.

That being said the mission ready rates fo the B-1 have had much less to do with the aircraft itself and rather the USAF decison to cut the number of combat coded airframes and reduce priority levels for parts

Which has almost everything to do with the major problems in it's EW suite which, as i understand, has not been fully resolved to this day. In my opinion this Monday morning quarterbacking on your part does little to obscure the fact that the B-1 were a total failure in terms of redesigned goals( low altitude). In my lay opinion the F-22 went exactly the same direction with the JSF following closely in it's footsteps. The USAF have for decades now consistently failed to deploy planes which are suited for a high operational tempo war and the moment it engaged a first world power ( Yugoslavia) these shortcomings were quickly exposed.

You realize dont you that the Block E upgrades which brought the B-1 into the realm of precision weapons like the WCDM and the JSOW etc were not completed fleet wide untill 2006 right?

No i didn't which hardly matters given the fact that these planes had to past the twenty year deployment mark before these types of precision weapons could be integrated. Why do you need a B-1 for anti terrorist policing activities in Afghanistan and Iraq? Hasn't those wars been won? Who is kidding who here and why wouldn't the B-1 be effective against a occupied country that lacks credible s2a assets?

Considering that the bomber was desinged for the nuclear deterence role as part of the SIOP you cannot expect it to have B-2 targeting capacities overnight. [/quote

Not overnight just not twenty years after initial SAC deployment and about thirty years after it should have been fully operational but not for the multitude of problems due to improper testing and development.

Really now I expected abit more research tsk tsk.

We all have our shortcomings with some just far more aware than others. You can keep defending the 'integrity' of this massively wasteful program as costs keep escalating and i will keep trying to evaluate it in accordance with it's supposed original costs and objectives.

Stellar


[edit on 4-12-2008 by StellarX]

Its not that the F-22 is `non functional` - but its an aircraft conceieved and built for a wa thats no longer valid - the same can be said of the Typhoon;

which is why EADS are cramming as much A2G stuff into the Typhoon i the early stages as they can get ready on time; and thats the problem with the F-22 , the system is buuilt and deployed - but its only real world job is shooting down other aircraft , a role which is was built for - but must be asked , does it really exist now for that job only?


i think the answer has to be `NO` and the upgrades are really to give it some mud moving ability so the air force arn`t left with a white elephant that can do party tricks , costs a bucket of $$$ to keep flying but without a mission.

Originally posted by Iblis
I took Stellar off my 'Ignore List' after having seen this response.
It was simply too wonderful to pass up.

So your still posting on ATS?

Originally posted by StellarX
Oof! Assuming you're right again? -A big leap considering how it was just pointed out your immediate post disregarded any sense of history or knowledge on the article at hand.

Be more specific please....

[quoteAh, yes. Let's listen to the 'experienced' voice of StellarX! Who proved a clear ignorance of the topic, let alone has shown any supplementing evidence. [And can we get new evidence this time? You rehashing old disproven links is painful.

Any chance you are going to tell me what you are referring to or mention those 'disproven' links? Funny how i am one of the few to regularly use sources and so frequently the first to be accused of 'ignorance'. Maybe if i just started citing popular mythology ( thus never having to qualify it with actual honest to go proof) my opinions would become acceptable?

The B-1's stealth is not as incredibly labor intensive as you seem to want to make it. If you were arguing the F-117, or B-2 I would concede that, but please at-least use the correct airframe.

Well then you should say B-1b, right? The B-1 is stealth only in that it's far stealthier than the B-52 which obviously isn't saying much. The reason why the B-1 were redesigned for low altitude penetration is due to the fact that it it's proposed stealth wasn't even good enough to counter the processing/tracking threats of the 70's.

A vastly larger and more venerable force flew more missions? Heavens! Well, that certainly discredits my view of the world. And there's something to be said for proving new toys, in the case of the B-2.

The B-1b's couldn't fly in desert storm due to the multitude of continuing problems ;in fact they were not even forward deployed in open admission that however long that conflict took the B-1s wouldn't be of any operational use half a decade after becoming operational.

And you feel free going on with a trumped-up ego and lack of evidence, friend!
Ah, a good day indeed.

Well if time allows i intend to do just that. As for trumped up ego and lack of evidence i didn't notice any proof to the contrary beside all the demonstrations to the contrary.

Here are some press clippings that in my mind demonstrates the common knowledge element you apparently lack.

query.nytimes.com...
www.thefreelibrary.com...
query.nytimes.com...
findarticles.com...
www.tpub.com...

The B-1b IS slowly starting to become operational ( but still probably wont be able to penetrate anything other than the ground against first world defenses) only in the basic of ways and only after twenty years of upgrades and experience with it.

Stellar