Forum: F-22A Raptor

Sounds like politicians trying to blow things out of proportion...

Quote:

Potential flaw found in F-22A fighter jets
By P-I Staff and News Services

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-22A fighter jet may have a structural flaw that would require redesign or major modifications to most of the planes delivered to date, says Bill Young, chairman of a House defense panel.

Young, a Florida Republican who chairs a House subcommittee on defense spending, said he told Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne that he opposes buying any more of the $338 million planes until the problem is diagnosed and fixed.

The problem involves the aft fuselage, which comes from The Boeing Co., a major partner on the fighter jet. Boeing also supplies the wings for the F-22A. That Boeing work is done mostly at the company's Developmental Center across from Boeing Field in south Seattle.

Both the Air Force and Lockheed agree there's a potential flaw that must be investigated. The Air Force said flight safety is not at issue and no redesign or modification is necessary.

Young, in an interview, said the concern is that an engine casing made of titanium may not meet Air Force standards.

"There's been a specification deviation and they are evaluating it," he said.

"The engine casing is a significant part of the structure of the aircraft," Young said. "If it turns out that it's not being manufactured to specification it could be a serious issue but they don't know the answer yet."

Boeing subcontractors make the titanium parts.

The Air Force, in an e-mailed statement, said Lockheed, the world's largest defense contractor, discovered the "anomaly" in December, the same month the service declared the F-22A ready for combat.

P-I aerospace reporter James Wallace contributed to this report from Bloomberg News.

F-16.net Sponsor

This is just political rubbish. You will always find some type of flaw that requires redesign or rework. We still are finding things today on the F-16 and look how old it is. That's why we have engineers and maintenance.

It's a new bird, things like this happen, and will be fixed.

I guess this is the reason why pilots have the code, "Don't fly the "A" model of any acft."

I totally agree. I wasn't trying suggest that the article was factual, just how much BS the media latches on to and sensationalizes things that are common in military aviation. Anything to get a headline....

Quote:

Both the Air Force and Lockheed agree there's a potential flaw that must be investigated. The Air Force said flight safety is not at issue and no redesign or modification is necessary.

I know that specs are important, but I think this quote shows just how inflated this story is.

The Anti-Raptor crowd is looking for every reason they can to kill this deal. After the initial investment we have already made in developing this thing, killing it now would be completely irresponsible and IMHO criminal.

Quote:

Quote:
Potential flaw found in F-22A fighter jets
By P-I Staff and News Services

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-22A fighter jet may have a structural flaw that would require redesign or major modifications to most of the planes delivered to date, says Bill Young, chairman of a House defense panel.

Young, a Florida Republican who chairs a House subcommittee on defense spending, said he told Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne that he opposes buying any more of the $338 million planes until the problem is diagnosed and fixed.

The problem involves the aft fuselage, which comes from The Boeing Co., a major partner on the fighter jet. Boeing also supplies the wings for the F-22A. That Boeing work is done mostly at the company's Developmental Center across from Boeing Field in south Seattle.

Both the Air Force and Lockheed agree there's a potential flaw that must be investigated. The Air Force said flight safety is not at issue and no redesign or modification is necessary.

Young, in an interview, said the concern is that an engine casing made of titanium may not meet Air Force standards.

"There's been a specification deviation and they are evaluating it," he said.

"The engine casing is a significant part of the structure of the aircraft," Young said. "If it turns out that it's not being manufactured to specification it could be a serious issue but they don't know the answer yet."

Boeing subcontractors make the titanium parts.

The Air Force, in an e-mailed statement, said Lockheed, the world's largest defense contractor, discovered the "anomaly" in December, the same month the service declared the F-22A ready for combat.

P-I aerospace reporter James Wallace contributed to this report from Bloomberg News.

Where were all these people when the F-18E/F slipped through the system with what weren't tething troubles as it was never properly R&D prototyped? Causing numerous after the fact band aid fixes. Laughing

Talk about a double standard and short memory. Laughing

Add the Stryker AFV and C-130J to that list too. Laughing

Key word there is "Potential". Doesn't mean it's gonna fail. Just monitor it. Hell.....I have the "potential" to make Jessica Alba think I'm a hottie. Is it gonna happen?...I'm gonna say.......nah. Laughing

And is it really up to $338 million per now? (Sigh....) I can remember when it was only gonna be $100 million. Wink

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

If they were built in the original numbers that were planned it would be closer to $100 million. That's what happens when you divide R&D costs per airframe, then cut the number of orders.

NO, it is not up to $338M each. That is more bad reporting. That number includes the already-spent-never-gonna-get-it-back development money. By saying $338M each folks think they will save that much for each jet not built. Bang Head

In reality they are around $130M now with the hope that with production learning curve and higher production rates it can get down to $100M flyaway cost. Let's see...four time the cost of a Viper. I submit that it is almost four times better than a Viper in terms of mission effectiveness. Sounds like a square deal to me. I'll bet if you added up all of the R&D we paid up to the Block 50 (the $25M version I am comparing the Raptor to) you would find that it was almost as much.

Roscoe wrote:

NO, it is not up to $338M each. That is more bad reporting. That number includes the already-spent-never-gonna-get-it-back development money...

2! You know that...and I know that...But your average public school educated taxpayer-on-the-street and/or scoop-seeking journalist wannabe will be clueless 'til ya sit 'em down and give 'em a beginner's lesson on how defense spending really works. Rolling Eyes

"Defense Spending For Dummies"...coming soon to a Barnes & Noble near you! Wink

LinkF16SimDude wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

NO, it is not up to $338M each. That is more bad reporting. That number includes the already-spent-never-gonna-get-it-back development money...

2! You know that...and I know that...But your average public school educated taxpayer-on-the-street and/or scoop-seeking journalist wannabe will be clueless 'til ya sit 'em down and give 'em a beginner's lesson on how defense spending really works. Rolling Eyes

"Defense Spending For Dummies"...coming soon to a Barnes & Noble near you! Wink

Which is why those who are in favor of Raptors and understand cost and aquisition should speak out and point out the descrepencies of the idiotic media. God knows they're trying to skew it in the most negative ways.

Unfortunately it is`nt just the media is it? There are various ex generals, USAF and the like whom have written the same twaddle.... Riccioni for example.

You still pay 340 million per plane. It is totally foolish to forget about RD costs. just because the money is gone alredy.

The EF despite all the delays and international compromise costs 140 million, including R&D and in the case of austria..ots of support a 200% offset 10 year payment plan.

Anyway, how many F22 have been planned for that 100 million target price?
How many are on contract right now to make that 338 million figure?