« Morning Smoke: Navy Underestimating Ship Costs by Tens of Billions, Says CBO | Main | Safety Board Calls Nuclear Lab's Earthquake Resistance Analysis 'Technically Inadequate' »

Jul 27, 2012


Will Leach

Schwartz said, “There’s an operational requirement and the birds are ready to go.”

The irony here is that the Pentagon's somewhat stealthy "fifth generation" fighters, the unproven F-22 and the useless F-35, are utter failures on an operational level. If we were generous and assumed that these complicated new fighters were as reliable as proven but "outdated" designs such as the F-16, then there are still major shortcomings for "next generation" warplanes. Compared to say an F-16, these new planes will require more money spent on more maintenance so that they can spend much more time in a hanger and tie up much more resources. Even if the F-22 or an F-35 worked as advertised (and thats all that they have been is advertised) then they may be tactical successes. Still, they only carry so much fuel and so many weapons,thats if they want to keep the stealth they depend on. Compared to older designs, Americas so called fifth generation fighters just fly too few sorties, carry too few weapons, and are too expensive too maintain a decent force size. They are so limited in range for a supposed leap forward that they can not be deployed, unless equipped with external fuel tanks, but even then the range issue would come back if fitted for combat. The fuel issue is even more important if these airplanes are used for close air support, as loiter time would be too low... On and on the problems mount once you get past faux tactical questions like who would win an F-22 or an F-16... because wars are never fought between just two airplanes. On a tactical level these turkeys just do not fly.


They needed an easy fix, because anything else would jeopardize the F-35, especially if it had to do with toxic chemical outgassing from composite structures or stealth coatings.


Who in the world are "maintainers"? Having worked in a "rapid paced" jet engine operational situation for twelve (12) a day for more than a year, I find that the reason stated for the "maintainers" health problems is absolutely and totally BS.

pat b

Until you can state the "Root Cause" and clearly show the failure mechanism,
you have no confidence that you have solved the problem.

The comments to this entry are closed.