| Author |
Message |
|
sewerrat
|
 Posted: Dec 19, 2010 - 02:30 PM
|
 
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Mar 23, 2009 - 06:03 PM
Posts: 287
Status: Offline
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-1 ... pairs.html
"F-22 jets began corroding soon after introduction into the U.S. Air Force in 2005 and the Defense Department plans to spend $228 million through 2016 to fix the deteriorating aluminum skin panels, the Government Accountability Office said in a report today.
The newer F-35 aircraft, which are also built by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed, have an improved design and use updated materials and paint to prevent the corrosion seen on the F-22 jets, according to the report sent to the Senate and House Armed Services committees.
“Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels was first observed in spring 2005, less than six months” after the F-22 jets were first deployed, the report said.
By October 2007, 534 cases of damage to the panels were documented, the report said, and “corrosion in the substructure was becoming prevalent.”
Air Force spokesman Chris Isleib said the service is reviewing the report and had no immediate comment.
After being deployed, F-22 jets “indicated corrosion issues resulting from interaction” with stealth materials used to hide the aircraft from enemy radar, Lockheed spokesman Christopher McGee said in an e-mail. The company has developed alternative material that “eliminated that interaction” and began making changes to the fleet starting in early 2010, he said" |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Jun 19, 2013 - 9:37 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
madrat
|
|
Posted: Dec 19, 2010 - 05:17 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Mar 03, 2010 - 03:12 AM
Posts: 987
Status: Offline
|
| I always wondered about how they overcame those corrosion issues. That epoxy is caustic on aluminum. Add in even more dissimilar metal ions floating around the mix, its a formula for interaction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jacarlsen
|
|
Posted: Dec 19, 2010 - 11:51 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Jul 02, 2004 - 01:08 PM
Posts: 107
Location: AIM Norway, Kjeller, Norway
Status: Offline
|
why is this a problem on production aircraft. did the R&D departement screw it up? I thought lockheed made the F-117 as well. They should have a few years of experience with RAM coatings  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
squirl
|
|
Posted: Dec 20, 2010 - 12:10 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 27, 2005 - 08:13 AM
Posts: 43
Status: Offline
|
| I've heard that the B-2 also had issues with galvanic corrosion with composite/metal contact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
flyboy22
|
|
Posted: Dec 20, 2010 - 01:26 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 26, 2010 - 05:58 AM
Posts: 57
Location: USA
Status: Offline
|
|
jacarlsen wrote:
why is this a problem on production aircraft. did the R&D departement screw it up? I thought lockheed made the F-117 as well. They should have a few years of experience with RAM coatings
Mainly because the Raptor's fast. Supersonic airflow/heating is pretty tough on the coatings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jacarlsen
|
|
Posted: Dec 20, 2010 - 11:34 AM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Jul 02, 2004 - 01:08 PM
Posts: 107
Location: AIM Norway, Kjeller, Norway
Status: Offline
|
| [quote="flyboy22"]
jacarlsen wrote:
why is this a problem on production aircraft. did the R&D departement screw it up? I thought lockheed made the F-117 as well. They should have a few years of experience with RAM coatings
Mainly because the RaptorIf heat is the big problem, impose a speed limit. Fixing the RAM indused corrotion could take time but changing skin panels takes even longer. The aircraft is supposed to last for MANY years. Being gentle with it now can help maintenance in 20-30 years time. The F-16 has been taken to the limit all the time it has been in service, and boy are they cracking up now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arl8733
|
|
Posted: Jan 03, 2011 - 03:03 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 16, 2009 - 07:05 PM
Posts: 27
Status: Offline
|
| Many of the F-22 bases are coastal making for a harsher environment than where it was developed and tested. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
