PDA

View Full Version : ongoing issues with f22




jaffo4011
May 12th, 2008, 02:51 PM
i wasnt aware of the f22's problems until i came across this;

GAO 2003 - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03603t.pdf

However, problems have surfaced related to some overheating concerns during high-speed flight-testing, reliability, avionics that perform radar, communication, navigation, identification and electronic warfare functions as well as excess movement of the vertical tails. Modifications are being made to some test aircraft to address some of these problems. For now, however, testing in some areas is restricted. In 2001, we reported on continuing increases in aircraft weight and that more frequent maintenance than planned on the aircraft was being required. We also reported on structural inadequacies in the aft (rear) fuselage and on problems with the separation of some materials within the horizontal tail section and cracking of the clear section of the canopy. In 2002, we again reported that the F/A-22’s performance could be affected by increased aircraft weight and maintenance needs as well as a potential problem with “buffeting”, or excessive movement, of the aircraft’s vertical tails. We also continued to report on problems with the separation of materials within the horizontal tail section and cracking of the clear section of the canopy. We reported last month that the F/A-22 developmental program did not meet key performance goals established for fiscal year 2002 and continues to confront numerous technical challenges, specifically:

• Avionics instability: Software instability has hampered efforts to integrate advanced avionics capabilities into the F/A-22 system. Avionics control and integrated airborne electronics and sensors are designed to provide an increased awareness of the situation around the pilot. The Air Force told us avionics have failed or shut down during numerous tests of F/A-22 aircraft due to software problems. The shutdowns have occurred when the pilot attempts to use the radar, communication, navigation, identification, The cost limitation, before adjustment under the act’s provisions, was $43.4 billon. Performance Issues and electronic warfare systems concurrently. Although the plane can still be flown after the avionics have failed, the pilot is unable to successfully demonstrate the performance of the avionics. Therefore, the Air Force has had to extend the test program schedule. The Air Force has recognized that the avionics problems pose a high technical risk to the F/A-22 program, and in June 2002 the Air Force convened a special team to address the problem. According to the team, the unpredictable nature of the shutdowns was not surprising considering the complexity of the avionics system. The team recommended that the software be stabilized in the laboratory before releasing it to flight-testing. The team further recommended conducting a stress test on the software system architecture to reduce problems and ensure it is operating properly. The Air Force implemented these recommendations. Further, the Air Force extended the avionics schedule to accommodate avionics stability testing and it now plans to complete avionics testing in the first quarter of 2005. However, Air Force officials stated they do not yet understand the problems associated with the instability of the avionics software well enough to predict when they will be able to resolve this problem.

• Vertical fin buffeting: Under some circumstances, the F/A-22 experiences violent movement, or buffeting, of the vertical fins in the tail section of the
aircraft. Buffeting occurs as air, moving first over the body and the wings of the aircraft, places unequal pressures on the vertical fins and rudders.
The buffeting problem has restricted the testing of aerial maneuvers of the aircraft. In addition, unless the violent movement is resolved or the fins strengthened, the fins will break over time because the pressures experienced exceed the strength limits of the fins. This could have an impact on the expected structural life of the aircraft. Lockheed Martin has developed several modifications to strengthen the vertical fins.

• Overheating concerns: Overheating in the rear portions of the aircraft has significantly restricted the duration of high-speed flight-testing. As the F/A-22 flies, heat builds up inside several areas in the rear of the aircraft. Continued exposure to high temperatures would weaken these areas. For example, a portion of the airframe that sits between the engines’ exhausts experiences the highest temperatures. This intense heat could weaken or damage the airframe. To prevent this heat buildup during flight-testing, the aircraft is restricted to flying just over 500 miles per hour, about the same of the speed as a modern jet liner, and significantly below the supercruise requirement. Currently, the F/A-22 flies with temperature sensors in those areas of the aircraft and slows down whenever the temperature approaches a certain level. The Air Force may incorporate a modification that adds copper sheets to the rear of the aircraft to alleviate the problem. The Air Force began these modifications in January 2003 and plans to complete them by July 2003.

• Horizontal tail material separations: F/A-22 aircraft have experienced separations of materials in the horizontal tail and the shaft, which allow the tail to pivot. Because the separations reduce tail strength, the Air Force restricted flight-testing of some aircraft until it had determined that this problem would not affect flight safety during testing. The Air Force and the contractor initially believed that improvements to the aircraft’s manufacturing process would solve this problem. However, the Air Force has determined that it could only solve this problem by redesigning the aircraft’s tail. The Air Force plans to conduct flight-testing of the redesigned tail between February 2004 and April 2004.

• Airlift support requirements: The Air Force estimates it will not meet the F/A-22 airlift support requirement—a key performance parameter.8 The
airlift support requirement is that 8 C-141 aircraft or their equivalents would be sufficient to deploy a squadron of 24 F/A-22s for 30 days without resupply. Today, the Air Force estimates that 8.8 C-141 equivalents will be necessary.

• Impact of maintenance needs on performance: The F/A-22’s performance may also be affected by maintenance needs that exceed established
objectives. The Air Force estimates that the F/A-22 should, at this point in its development, be able to complete 1.67 flying hours between maintenance actions and 1.95 flying hours by the end of development. However, aircraft are requiring five times the maintenance actions expected at this point in development. As of November 2002, the development test aircraft have been completing only .29 flying hours between maintenance actions. Therefore, the development test aircraft are spending more time than planned on the ground undergoing maintenance.

the following video appears to have negative bias but sums up the above....GAO 2003 - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03603t.pdf


now these issues go back some time but are any of them still valid do we know and have they contributed greatly to the f22 delays?




Scorpion82
May 13th, 2008, 04:03 AM
Well AFAIK an operational speed limit was introduced for the USAF with warnings for the pilot when achieving a critical speed. Speed is limited to mach 1.8 for operational aircraft. AFAIK the tail sections has been strengthed as well with additional materials being added to overcome the heat problem.
Software for the avionics has been improved and runs more stable now, but the MTBF is still relative low.

Dr Freud
May 13th, 2008, 04:40 AM
A key
reliability requirement for the F-22A is a 3-hour mean time between
maintenance, defined as the number of operating hours divided by the
number of maintenance actions.
Currently (as of 2007, my note) the mean time between maintenance is less than 1 hour." (GAO-07-406SP)

Sea Toby
May 13th, 2008, 05:21 AM
Not one of the six independent organizations have given the green light to produce Raptors with a multi-year contract. Thus, the ongoing year to year Congressional buys. One of those six organizations which have not given the green light is the GAO. Everyone says we should build more Raptors, but none of the organizations have approved the project, including the Pentagon. Oh, except for the USAF generals who wish for more, and their supporters in the Congress. And to think 180 have been ordered without any organization support. The USAF and the Congress have trumped our government watch dog institutions.

F-15 Eagle
May 13th, 2008, 11:51 AM
Speed is limited to mach 1.8 for operational aircraft.

Does that include all aircraft?

Not one of the six independent organizations have given the green light to produce Raptors with a multi-year contract. Thus, the ongoing year to year Congressional buys. One of those six organizations which have not given the green light is the GAO. Everyone says we should build more Raptors, but none of the organizations have approved the project, including the Pentagon. Oh, except for the USAF generals who wish for more, and their supporters in the Congress. And to think 180 have been ordered without any organization support. The USAF and the Congress have trumped our government watch dog institutions.

I think people underestimate the importance the F-22 is to U.S. national sercurity. The F-15 can't do the job anymore and the F-35 is still a ways off and the only fighter in production now is the F-22 but the Pentagon and the GAO are so anti-F-22. This might sound a little extreme but I think they should just get rid of the GAO because they cause more problems then they solve by cutting programs or critizing them for cost blowouts even though some independent anylisis say there are no cost blowouts as in the F-35s case like when they said the F-35 will cost $338 billion to build 2458 jets when it is still only $298 billion.

Grand Danois
May 13th, 2008, 12:53 PM
A key
reliability requirement for the F-22A is a 3-hour mean time between
maintenance, defined as the number of operating hours divided by the
number of maintenance actions.
Currently (as of 2007, my note) the mean time between maintenance is less than 1 hour." (GAO-07-406SP)

In between the two select snippets, you forgot:

This is required by
the time it reaches 100,000 operational flying hours,
projected to be reached in 2010.

In full text:

Other Program Issues
In an effort to improve the reliability and
maintainability of the F-22A, the Air Force budgeted
$102 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The F-22A
continues to be below its expected reliability rates.
A key reliability requirement for the F-22A is a
3-hour mean time between maintenance, defined as
the number of operating hours divided by the
number of maintenance actions. This is required by
the time it reaches 100,000 operational flying hours,
projected to be reached in 2010. Currently the mean
time between maintenance is less than 1 hour, or
half of what was expected at the end of system
development.

Sea Toby
May 13th, 2008, 12:59 PM
Congress expects a GAO report every year at a certain time, its not the GAO fault that Lockheed and the USAF failed to report their numbers in time to be reflected in the GAO report. Its not the GAO fault that they have to report continuing problems which have not been fixed. Its the same for the other organizations too.

As accountants, the GAO doesn't care about the what ifs, all they care about is keeping their paper work in order. And you don't get on the good side of accountants not providing the necessary figures.

Scorpion82
May 13th, 2008, 04:59 PM
Does that include all aircraft?


AFAIK yes. This limit was agreed for safety reasons.

F-15 Eagle
May 13th, 2008, 05:13 PM
AFAIK yes. This limit was agreed for safety reasons.

Well Mach 1.8 is still very fast and an F-15/16/18/22 or 35 zipping around that fast must be very impressive.

Grand Danois
May 13th, 2008, 06:07 PM
A key
reliability requirement for the F-22A is a 3-hour mean time between
maintenance, defined as the number of operating hours divided by the
number of maintenance actions.
Currently (as of 2007, my note) the mean time between maintenance is less than 1 hour." (GAO-07-406SP)

That 3.0 hr MTBM is quite interesting... if one looks at this FY06 appropriation:

Description/Justification
Provides for retrofit to incorporate pattern failure fixes to achieve the Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM) requirement of 3.0 flight hours (FH) at 100,000 total flight hours. MTBM of 3.0 FH is an Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) requirement. MTBM directly influences other Key Performance Parameters (KPP) and ORD requirements such as Sortie Generation Rate, C-17 loads and manpower spaces per aircraft. Install kit quantity exceeds aircraft breakdown total quantity due to multiple kit procurement/installation per aircraft in support of various MTBM initiatives.

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070221-107.pdf

p. 28-11 (303)

and compare with this presentation from 2007:

Estimate O&S and Initial Spares of Different F-22 MTBMs (Constant 2006 )

(1) Mean Time between Maintenance. F-22 ORD established MTBM threshold at 3 hours.
(1a) MTBM of 0.65 hours achieved in Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E).
(1b) IOT&E MTBM score 0.45 hours. F-22 will achieve MTBM of 0.825 hours at maturity (100,000 FH), if its reliability growth rate is similar to the historical rates of existing fighter aircraft programs.
(1c) Air Force Program Office projects F-22 to achieve 1.5 hours MTBM at maturity.
(2) O&S cost for 148 Primary Aerospace vehicle Authorization (PAA), 336 flying hours per aircraft per year for 24 years. Initial spares requirement for 182 Total Active Inventory (TAI), computed at $120M recurring flyaway cost each.
(3) Baseline assumes the Air Force projected 1.5 hours MTBM at maturity. At the F-22 ORD MTBM threshold of 3 hours, the estimated life cycle cost would be $4B lower than the baseline in constant 2006 dollars

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007psa_apr/seglie.pdf

p. 19

This begs the question: does the 1.5 hr MTBM include the expected improvements from the FY06 appropriation, i.e. was the LCC savings beyond the 1.5 hr MTBM the rationale for the appropriation, or does the AF Program office only expect 1.5 hr MTBM at maturity?

Dr Freud
May 15th, 2008, 01:27 AM
Well Mach 1.8 is still very fast and an F-15/16/18/22 or 35 zipping around that fast must be very impressive. Very fast compared to what ?
F-16/18/35 are all slower then any russian bomber/attack aircraft except for the propeller driven Tu-95.....

Dr Freud
May 15th, 2008, 02:18 AM
It looks like nearly all of the airframe problems are at the tail of the aircraft.
Is this a design flaw or is this the bleeding edge ? do we need new materials to make planes go faster ?

onslaught
May 15th, 2008, 12:12 PM
Very fast compared to what ?
F-16/18/35 are all slower then any russian bomber/attack aircraft except for the propeller driven Tu-95.....

Why does this matter that much? The only time it will really matter is when the missile are flying right at it. It's not like the American planes are so slow that they barely get off the ground. As for the MTBM, what's biggest maintenance issue with the F-22?

Dr Freud
May 15th, 2008, 12:46 PM
It matters because they cant catch the strike aircrafts, and has thus (partly, they can still block an attack, but gives attacking aircraft another opportunity at a time and place of their choosing) failed their mission. (if the mission is a2a, speed is less important when they are used as bomb trucks, with a very credible self defence, as they where built for)
About the MTBM: the electronics should really only need time to mature, but the material used to obtain "stealth" is very maintenance intensive, and the tail is either a design flaw, or the technology simply isnt there to build it strong enough to withstand the stress.

ps. not all american planes are slow, F15 and F22 are both speed demons, especially F22 with its tremendous supercruise, it can hunt down any plane (save Tu-22M and Tu 160) on this planet by forcing them to afterburn until empty fuel, while cruising around with a smile at military setting themselves. generally a plane consume > 4 times as much fuel while afterburn vs military.

Scorpion82
May 15th, 2008, 01:04 PM
It matters because they cant catch the strike aircrafts, and has thus (partly, they can still block an attack, but gives attacking aircraft another opportunity at a time and place of their choosing) failed their mission. (if the mission is a2a, speed is less important when they are used as bomb trucks, with a very credible self defence, as they where built for)


That's nonsense, usually the attacking side will come in head on and don't think these aircraft are ever flying at max. theoretical speed. They can't do that for a long time at all, let alone that the payload will prevent them to fly really fast.

Dr Freud
May 15th, 2008, 01:40 PM
That's nonsense, usually the attacking side will come in head on and don't think these aircraft are ever flying at max. theoretical speed. They can't do that for a long time at all, let alone that the payload will prevent them to fly really fast.
That's nonsense, usually the attacking side will never come in head on, they will use waypoints to minimize exposure to enemy radar and fighter coverage. (i'm assuming we're not talking about afgan cavemen here!)
And they will fly (for as long fuel lasts) max speed to avoid AMRAAMs, and make a (hopefully) more successful return next time.

F-15 Eagle
May 15th, 2008, 08:20 PM
That's nonsense, usually the attacking side will never come in head on, they will use waypoints to minimize exposure to enemy radar and fighter coverage. (i'm assuming we're not talking about afgan cavemen here!)
And they will fly (for as long fuel lasts) max speed to avoid AMRAAMs, and make a (hopefully) more successful return next time.

Alright before we all get in another 6-day long argument over nonsense let me be very clear about the Russian Bombers.

The TU-160 can only go supersonic for a very short time before running out of fuel(maybe 10 minutes) and I highly doubt it will ever get past Mach 1.3 or more. Besides can a TU-160 go Mach 4 like the AMRAAM does? I didn't think so.:rolleyes:
I find it hilarious that you think a bomber can out run a fighter.:onfloorl::onfloorl::onfloorl:

rjmaz1
May 15th, 2008, 09:55 PM
That's nonsense, usually the attacking side will come in head on and don't think these aircraft are ever flying at max. theoretical speed. They can't do that for a long time at all, let alone that the payload will prevent them to fly really fast.
Exactly right!, It is nonsense. I've bought this up with Dr Freud previously and he failed to comprehend that maximum speed does not mean operational speed, combat speed or transit speed.

It is usually far less and in most cases less than half.

If an aircraft has to travel long distance it usually cannot sustain its maximum short distance sprint speed. However an aircraft that can intercept it could sustain a sprint speed for a short distance that is fast enough to catch the enemy

So even though the F-16/Hornet or whatever is slower it will easily be able to intercept a bomber with a maximum speed of mach 2, as it will most likely not be traveling mach 2.


ps. not all american planes are slow, F15 and F22 are both speed demons
For your information the F-15 in combat has never reached the maximum speed of the F-35, F-16 and Super Hornet.

The speed an aircraft can fly without weapons, and in a straight line until bingo cannot be used to simulate combat.

A comparison of the maximum speed at 100% dry thrust would be more realistic.

However strapping some wings on a jet engine so that it can cruise at Mach 2 with dry thrust for a whole 30 seconds again would also be unrealistic.

You have to take into account fuel capacity and range versus speed graphs to determine how much fuel you will have to perform the mission. This determines the speed.

E.g an F-22 has to escort B-2 bombers 500 miles inland in China. The F-22 would be so short on fuel that it would have to remain subsonic for the entire mission and keep the engines throttled back. If engaged it may consume too much fuel and not make it back to the tanker. A 50 year old Mig-15 would be fast enough to intercept an F-22 if this was the case.

Does that mean the Mig-15 has a higher top speed than an F-22? Of course not ;)

However if you want to look at top speeds, its quite ironic how you say the F-16, F-35 and Super Hornet are all slow yet you call the F-22 a "speed demon". The F-22 has a maximum speed of only Mach 2+, thats the same speed as the F-16 and slower than the Russian bombers...

So how can you say that the F-22 can intercept the Russian bombers with a slower maximum speed when the other aircraft also with a slower maximum speed cant?

Dont tell me you are actually starting to listen. ;)

Awang se
May 15th, 2008, 10:10 PM
Speed is a crucial factor in BVR combat. launch platform speed will determined the range and performance of the missile launched.

The latest TU-22M3 and TU-160 have a top speed of Mach 1.6-1.8.

Dr Freud
May 16th, 2008, 12:45 AM
F-15 Eagle you clearly took the "10 min A/B" out from the blue sky.
The Tu-160 has ~10 times the combat radius vs F35.
F35 can A/B 12.5 min, so a rough estimate is that Tu-160 does 10 times that, which would then be 2 hour A/B.

Performance Tu-160

* Maximum speed: Mach 2.05[18] (2,220 km/h, 1,380 mph, 1,200 knots) at high altitude
* Range: 17,400 km (9,400 nm, 10,800 mi) unrefueled
* Combat radius: 10,500 km (5,670 NM, 6,500 mi)

Performance F-35

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[68] (1,200 mph, 1,931 km/h)
* Range: A: 1,200 nmi; B: 900 nmi; C: 1400 nmi[68] (A: 2,200 km; B: 1,667 km; C: 2,593 km) on internal fuel
* Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km)

I'm just curious: you said you want to be very clear about russian bombers : what was your logic behind coming up with "10 min A/B" ?

Sea Toby
May 16th, 2008, 04:11 AM
F-15 Eagle you clearly took the "10 min A/B" out from the blue sky.
The Tu-160 has ~10 times the combat radius vs F35.
F35 can A/B 12.5 min, so a rough estimate is that Tu-160 does 10 times that, which would then be 2 hour A/B.

Performance Tu-160

* Maximum speed: Mach 2.05[18] (2,220 km/h, 1,380 mph, 1,200 knots) at high altitude
* Range: 17,400 km (9,400 nm, 10,800 mi) unrefueled
* Combat radius: 10,500 km (5,670 NM, 6,500 mi)

Performance F-35

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[68] (1,200 mph, 1,931 km/h)
* Range: A: 1,200 nmi; B: 900 nmi; C: 1400 nmi[68] (A: 2,200 km; B: 1,667 km; C: 2,593 km) on internal fuel
* Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km)

I'm just curious: you said you want to be very clear about russian bombers : what was your logic behind coming up with "10 min A/B" ?


When we talk about speed, we are talking about maximum speed. When we talk about range, we are talking about maximum range at a economic speed, and usually unloaded, the so called ferry range. When we talk about combat range, we are talking about the maximum range the aircraft can go and return to base unrefueled, again at a economic speed.

Once the jets turn on their afterburners to reach their maximum speed, the ferry range and combat radius range change significantly if not dramatically. Its the same with automobiles.

For example I can drive my car around 300 miles at 65 MPH with a full tank of fuel. I can also drive my car 400 miles at 45 MPH with a full tank of fuel. I can also drive my car very fast at 120 MPH, but I guarantee you I won't go 300 miles, more than likely I won't even go 200 miles.

So, when you say the TU-160 can go that fast, I agree, but you are fooling yourself when you say that aircraft can go 10,800 nautical miles at its top speed of Mach 2.05.......Oh yes, the aircraft can go Mach 2.05 in its top speed, but not 10,800 nautical miles. GET IT?

THE FASTER AN AIRCRAFT GOES IS GREAT, THE FURTHER AN AIRCRAFT GOES IS GREAT, BUT YOU WON'T GO AS FAR AT ITS FASTEST SPEED.....
NOR WILL YOU GO AS FAST OR FAR WHEN LOADED WITH ITS MOST WEAPONS.

A FIRST GRADER CAN FOLLOW THIS, WHY CAN'T YOU?

Dr Freud
May 16th, 2008, 04:43 AM
Errr, i think you got the whole thing wrong mate, i never said it can go at mach 2 10.000 km. it can go 10.000 km combat radius, or it can go mach 2. maybe you should calm down when you read a post;)

Tu-160 has roughly the same range at A/B (~Mach 2) as F35 at cruise.(~Mach 0.6)
Btw an aircraft generally consume >4 times as much fuel during A/B vs military, so dramatically is the word, and it isnt the same with cars, its much worse then with cars.

rjmaz1
May 16th, 2008, 05:00 AM
A FIRST GRADER CAN FOLLOW THIS, WHY CAN'T YOU?
Better watch it, or Dr Freud will start ignoring your posts.. :p:

It was clear to me many posts ago that the Doctor at the start of his name is fiction. ;)

It reminds me of the Pro F-111 supporters. They read wiki and think that the F-111 can travel at Mach 2.5 for 5,000kms while carrying 14,000kg of bombs..

A bit of common sense will show that range, speed and payload are all connected. Increase one and you reduce the other two. You must pick a balance between the three to perform the mission.

If the target is towards the maximum combat radius of the aircraft then speed and payload must be dramatically reduced to reach the distance.

I'm just curious: you said you want to be very clear about russian bombers : what was your logic behind coming up with "10 min A/B" ?What is your logic that the Tu-160 can travel on afterburner for 10 times the duration of the F-35?

You again compare an apple to an orange. You compare the maximum ferry range of the Tu-160 to the minimum combat radius of the F-35 multiplied by two :rolleyes:

Why pick an orange when you have two apples to compare. Look at the KNOWN ferry range of the F-16 and F-15. Both are 3,900kms. So based on your 10X figure the Tu-160 has a ferry range of 39,000kms? Who are you trying to kid?

So the Tu-160 may be able to use its afterburner for 4-5 times longer than an F-16/F-15. However when the TU-160 has to travel 5000kms to the target yet the F-16/F-15 only has to travel only 200kms to intercept then which aircraft can use its afterburners more often?

All of a sudden the 10 minutes of afterburner from the Tu-160 is starting to become realistic. Full burner 5 minutes into the target and 5 minutes out of the target.

I do agree that if Russia tried to bomb a neighbouring country like afghanistan the Tu-160 would definitely be able to travel with afterburners for the entire mission. Since the Tu-160 is not a tactical bomber we can ignore your stupid comment. :rolleyes: