F-16.net

Elite Joined: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 1175 Status: Offline

I was looking at another Forum when I saw the low FC rate of 65% for the F-22......and they were bragging about it. I can't believe we would spend the money we have to get a product that is great when it flys, but, can't because it's not FMC. So what is the issue? Parts? Training? Or is it a maintenace POS? Coming from a long line of working fighters 65% is unheard of. So if you need to bragg that you reached 65%, I feel sorry for you and that also means the taxpayers have been ripped off.

Purple

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Veteran Joined: May 23, 2005 Posts: 444 Status: Offline

Lets leave Raptor FMC rates for discussions behind closed doors. Yes I know you can find FMC rates for other fighters fairly easy but IMHO Raptor FMC rates should not be discussed. Let alone why they are/are not so low.

Veteran Joined: May 26, 2008 Posts: 286 Status: Offline

Can anyone answer what the FMC rate was for the F-14 and F-15 at around the same equivalent timeframe after their respective IOCs? If it was significantly higher than the Raptor's, then there is an issue with the Raptor; if not, then it's part of the predicted (and predictable) learning curve.

Learning Curve....Enough said

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2832

Well consider this. F-22 Maint. Supers have stated that the engines and some other things don't require much work and are running great.

However you have a lot of people doing L.O. skin refurb work as a part of normal maintenance. Have no clue if this is phase/ISO type stuff but if there is such an animal in the maintenance process, it sounds like it. You open a certain panel or some such process and the L.O. material/appliances have to be brought back up to snuff.

Again I say I hope the F-35 is true to the word of the 2008 Navy league brief where they claim L.O. refurb work isn't much ( 2% of all maintenance tasks ) and that the F-35 is not following in the steps of the F-22 for these kinds of issues.

And yes one could say it is still early in the part of full operating capability where learning curves and processes may still have some good things to show over time. We'll see.

The idea that with weapons bay doors, L.O. skin etc, that you are going to get ease of maintenance of a new F-16 (as claimed by the F-35 pukes) needs some real proof.

"Advanced" stealth to me is now something that is easy to maintain. I hope to god everything about F-35 ease of maintenance is true.

I wonder how many of the wonder big bombers that are supposed to magically appear by 2018 under this thin greyhound budget climate, will be easy to maintain or what kind of slave shop in ISO/phase one has to run to make MC rates of worth.

Veteran Joined: May 26, 2008 Posts: 286 Status: Offline

We know that the AESA rarely, if ever, breaks down (you could practically seal the radome, its MTBF is longer than the expected life of the aircraft), so that alone is a huge advantage over either the APG-63 or AWG-9. The F119 engines, from what I understand, are extremely reliable, far more so than either the F100 or TF30 at the early point of their respective lives. So what is undoubtedly driving up the maintenance of the Raptor is the need to maintain its LO coatings. The promise was that it would be a far easier task than with the B-2 or F-117. Doesn't seem like we're quite there yet, does it?

It ain't easy being LO.

vertical

I work on the Raptors and our FMC is a lot better then 65% I can tell you that. Our biggest problem is L.O. restore which when needed the aircraft is taken to an LO hanger. Cleaned and sprayed then the cure check (which seems slower then a snail in glue) and then brought back out to the line. Mind you this happens whenever a panel needs to come off. Well some panels. But say something craps out in one of those panels. First LO is called out to pick the panel then we can remove it. We take the item out repair/replace it whatever and put in back in. Then the LO restoration can start. But our LO guys are coming up with quicker better ways to do it and this will be a minor problem. Believe me the F-22 is maintenance friendly compared to the old frames and its worth its weight in gold. The taxpayers are getting their money back many times over. I noticed the people who hate the 22 are people who have not worked with it. I was the same way back at Nellis. I hated the 22. I couldn't grasp the concepts that old planes need to be replaced and that news ones will have bugs in them. I even laughed about the 22 crash. But I now know that the 22 is the new step forward and that bugs have plagued ever aircraft when they first came out not just the Raptor. In short quit hating and embrace the future Very Happy

Veteran Joined: May 26, 2008 Posts: 286 Status: Offline

Here's a thought: the Raptor has a lot of doors and what not, most notably the weapon bay doors (the gun door and the refueling door and so on), that are DESIGNED to open and close repeatedly - in the course of a mission - without the need to do LO work on the seams every time they open and close (as far as I know there isn't some little LO gnome that comes out of a hidden compartment while the airplane is in flight to apply a coating of LO stuff after the weapon bays open and close). Now, why couldn't they have designed ALL panels to work on the same principle. I get that this is probably, on the face of it, a really stupid question, but it does sort of still make you go hmm...

Veteran Joined: May 23, 2005 Posts: 444 Status: Offline

Because if all panels were designed like the weapons bay doors the jet would light up like a flash bang grenade on radar. Not to metion leak fuel and water like crazy. There would be no use for the Raptor since we already have jets that do that and the whole point of this thing is stealth. There are things called frequently accessed panels and infrequently accessed panels. With out going into much detail I'm sure you can guess which ones are your traditional door/panel type and which ones aren't. The weapons bay doors were designed to open and close a certin way and access panels were designed to be opened for maintenance. Hence the different designs.

This whole thread needs to be deleted ASAP. Those of you that work on the jet need to shut the hell up, right now, before OSI decides its time to smack some more people around.

Remember the OSI investigation on LtCol Dozer Shower? He posted stuff that was PA approved for release and got slammed as an OPSEC violator.

NONE of this crap should be being discussed here is my guess. Remember, just because its unclassified doesn't mean you should be talking about it.

FOUO, OPSEC, leading indicators...any of this stuff mean anything to you folks?

Seriously, please go back and delete your responses. In my opinion, this thread should be reported to the closest security office.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1031 Status: Offline

Take it easy Blu4, everything mentioned so far is out in the open and pretty well known. Here is a good article from this year. Also, mission rates are dictated by maintenance issues no matter what aircraft your talking about. As stated in the article, better ways of doing it were found and are being passed on to the next set of F-22 maintainers. Everyone wins.

Low observable: The smart way

by Airman 1st Class Chase Skylar DeMayo
1st Fighter Wing Public Affairs

http://www.langley.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123091304

Blu4, Dozer is one of my more frequent pilots and he is still cheery as ever. He's still a commander and he still flies and guess what? He still goes online and talks about the Raptor. See because people who actually work on the jet know what we can and can not talk about.

Forget it.

Obamanite wrote:

Here's a thought: the Raptor has a lot of doors and what not, most notably the weapon bay doors (the gun door and the refueling door and so on), that are DESIGNED to open and close repeatedly - in the course of a mission - without the need to do LO work on the seams every time they open and close (as far as I know there isn't some little LO gnome that comes out of a hidden compartment while the airplane is in flight to apply a coating of LO stuff after the weapon bays open and close). Now, why couldn't they have designed ALL panels to work on the same principle. I get that this is probably, on the face of it, a really stupid question, but it does sort of still make you go hmm...

My understanding is that LM tried to put as many systems as possible which require frequent inspection / service into the weapons and landing gear bays. Other systems which require frequent access also have frequent access panels which can be open and closed without requiring reapplication of stealth coatings. The reason that the aircraft isn't covered in frequent access panels is that they are more expensive to develop and build and heavier compared with standard panels.

Mike

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Low FMC Rate?