The F-22 overperformance

Originally posted by Harlequin
- but for the official report to say its not as good now as it was in 2004 is of itself damning.

How much of that was simply a disinfo campaign?

Originally posted by FredT
How much of that was simply a disinfo campaign?

There are lies and there are political lies.


I dunno if they can get away with saying its slipped relative to hard benchmarks.


Some political bull like "performance not quite what we had hoped" would be more a political lie - as its opinion based with no absolute given - try to pin them down on that and they can move the goalposts around until they are right.


But, when they give the absolute your measuring against (the KPPs) - then... I'm not sure. Of course, the parameters may be brake wear or tyre wear or something anal - in which case you would expect the press to lay the verbal smackdown.

reply to post by FredT


its more of politico speak rather than a disinfo campaign - john young said:

Follow-on operation tests in 2007 raised operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs. It meets some, but not all. Key performance parameters. The trend in those operational tests, there was an IOT&E (Initial Operational Test & Evaluation), a follow-on test I think in 2004 and a follow-on test in 2007. The trend is actually negative.


The maintenance man hours per flying hour have increased through those tests. The last one was a substantial increase. The airplane is proving very expensive to operate, not seeing the mission capable rates we expected. And it's complex to maintain

*i bolded and added the acronym explanation*


which is all politco jargan , except the straight talking:

operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs

he has said since it was first tested , then tested again in 2004 then again in 2007 - on paper its an amazing aircraft - but the real world , its not shaping up as lockheed promised.

thats my take on it anyway

What does KPP entail? Does it include maintainence, performance, and so on, or what? Before continuing the discussion, that's what I need to know. As far as I'm concerned, the mission ready rate for the F-22 is similar to the Super Hornet and similar to the F-15, in previous years, and while it is bad, and NEEDS to be fixed (at manufacturer expense), it's not exactly unusual.

[edit on 7/2/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


The i would contact the DoD - as they won`t reveal , unless its behind closed *and secret clearance or above* doors as to what exactly is the failings of the aircraft.

edit:

in 2007 the F-15`s had a mission availability rate of 81.1%

www.kadena.af.mil...

and i believe (but cant linka source) that the hornets are above 85%

[edit on 7/2/09 by Harlequin]

reply to post by Harlequin


In the 2005 at Kadena the F-15 had a mission capable rate 62.4% in 2005. In 1981, the F-15 had a mission capable rate GOAL of only 62%...

www.gao.gov...

www.gao.gov...

archive.gao.gov...

Some interesting articles... I was incorrect, Super Hornet is in the 70%'s... F-117 was in the 80%'s.... guess stealth can be easy after all!

Then you Sir, are ignorant. Of course the hot# pilots will tell you that what they are flying is the HOT #. It's the bureaucrats who actually pay attention to the numbers. Good luck with that though.

Too much emotionalism. Pilots fly the aircraft. Maintainence maintaince the aircraft. Beaurocrats be... bureaucratic. So if the F-22 is not meeting KPP, well, what the hell does that mean? Capability? Price? Maintainence? Or what? We don't know.

Everything I have ever read only shows the F-22 failing at price and maintainence, not what the pilots would be concerned about; the capability in the sky...

[edit on 7/2/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by Harlequin
do they also mention it has the most intensive of all USAF maintenence requirements and if any are missed or done in a shoddy way then the raptor becomes detectable at killable ranges from todays fighters?

whilst the `tech` might be great - it also puts a huge burden on the men and women looking after it

Thats correct labor intensive indeed.

In my opinion, US government went on too fast with mass-producing Stealth aircraft. Sure, today they're quite practical because only very modern radars can detect them, but anti-stealth systems are under developement. If they only had taken the F-117, B-2 and few Raptors, it wouldn't be too bad - but if some affordable, effective anti-stealth-system will be developed, all F-22, F-35 and so on have that expensive technic that is almost useless. They should have waited (Cold War is over) until these systems are ready and built their aircraft then with effective countermeasures integrated. Like Europe and Russia are doing.