[HUAG] F-22

[GioFX]

Con riferimento a questo thread di SSP...

F-22 is suck

GAO Asks Pentagon to Justify Fighter Jet

Report Cites Cost, Delays on F/A-22

The General Accounting Office yesterday called on the Pentagon to do a better job of justifying why it needs the F/A-22 fighter plane, a Lockheed Martin-built Air Force program that the agency said continues to suffer from delays and escalating costs.

Coming in a climate when tight budgets and debate over future military needs has already led to the cancellation of one major weapons program, the Comanche helicopter, the GAO report renewed calls from opponents for an end to the F/A-22, which has already cost some $40 billion and could cost another $40 billion to complete.

"Congress needs to act swiftly and eliminate this platinum-plated boondoggle," Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense said in a news release.

A spokesman for Lockheed Martin Corp.'s factory in Marietta, Ga., that builds the plane said many of the problems identified in the GAO report have been addressed. "Overall the program is healthy. It's technically sound, and it remains the Air Force's highest modernization priority," spokesman Greg Caires said.

The GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress, said the program's costs have climbed so much that the Air Force won't be able to buy as many of the radar-evading fighter planes as it wants. The service plans to buy 277 planes but could afford only 218 at current costs, the report said.

It said the per-plane price of the F/A-22, not counting the cost of development, has risen to $153 million from the $69 million envisioned by the Air Force when the program began in the late 1980s. The plane's technology is still being developed even though the Pentagon has already ordered 52 planes -- with preliminary orders for 22 more. Development costs have risen as well -- by 127 percent, the report said.

What's more, the Air Force plans to add extra air-to-ground missions to a plane designed for air-to-air combat, which could push costs up another $8 billion or more, the report said.

The GAO said it was concerned that glitches have caused so many delays that the Air Force will not have enough time to complete testing before it is scheduled to decide whether to start full-scale production of the plane in December.

For instance, the agency said the Air Force originally wanted to see the plane's sophisticated avionics, or electronics gear, achieve 20 hours of uninterrupted flying time without a software failure. When the plane couldn't achieve that, the Air Force changed its goal to flying five hours without a software failure. As of January, the plane could average no better than 2.7 hours.

In addition, the plane's microprocessor is an obsolete model no longer manufactured. The Air Force plans to switch to a newer type, including one created for the upgraded F-16 fighter jet, a type of plane far older than the F-22 but also built by Lockheed Martin.

The GAO also found that the F/A-22's computer-based maintenance system has suffered glitches that cause the plane to miss a significant amount of test-flying time. The Air Force had hoped to get the plane to fly nearly two hours between maintenance events by this point in the program, but has been unable to do better than an average of 30 minutes, the report said.

Caires said many of those problems have eased since January, when the GAO last investigated. The avionics gear is close to flying five hours between failures, he said. While the microprocessors are outmoded, they are ample for current mission requirements, and the plane has plenty of room to add computer gear, he said.

The maintenance system also is improving with use, "learning" how to adjust for real-world experience versus engineering expectations, Caires said.

He said the company was "willing to support" any effort by the Pentagon to look more closely at the costs and benefits of the program, as suggested by the GAO. The Defense Department, in a written response to the GAO report, said it was giving the program a more thorough review as part of the president's next budget submission to Congress.

In particolare mi hanno interessato questi interventi...

Aye, the F-22 is an insane good plane, actually it's the best plane in project. But the europeans models (Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Grippen) even if they are not as good as this one. Are much more advanced than F-16 (and are now avaible). The Typhoon is a direct concurent of the F-22 while the Rafale is clearly a long range plane. I think, if things continue this way, the F-22 will be a failure, there's another project, the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter (F-35?) that's much more interesting actually.

I personally think that we're seeing the final generation of manned combat aircraft. I saw a program on TV that said that the weakest link (in terms of maneuverability and g-force survival) in a modern combat airplane is the pilot in the cockpit, so I think the next advancement in combat aircraft will be to remove the pilot. I wouldn't be surprised if this comes within the next 50 years.

The Raptor is a cool and evidently very capable fighter, but at $135 million a unit, it doesn't seem worth it. The F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-117A are all supremely cabable aircraft, even if they are older, and certainly could be updated to modern avionics and computers for far less per unit.

The F-117 isn't exactly a fighter, but it's the most modern plane for ground attack. F-15, F-16 and F-18 are outdated now.

The simulation made by the royal air force show that a Russian Su-37 win 3 duel on 4 against a F-16, and 2 on 3 on a F-15 and F/A-18, While an Eurofighter Typhoon with 5 duel on 6 against a Su-37, and a F-22 10 on 11, Rafale is one on 1. About the attack range, the Rafale is 1800 km, the Typhoon is 1300 and the F-22 is unknown, F-16 is 800km.

You can not upgrade an F-15, F-16, F-18 to include stealth, supercruise, or thrust vectoring. The F/A-22 is a leap-forward technology, period. As the latest war has shown, current technology (i.e. no stealth) is no match for good missile defense systems (like patriot) the pilots don’t have a chance.

As for cost… Well that is another thing. The problems they are having right now is mainly software (fighter to fighter data linking). As for performance it is doing ok.

To give you a feel for this plane right now the training includes 4 F/A-22s vs. 8 F-15s and the F/A-22s win every time.

24 planes have already been delivered to the A/F and three more are ready to be delivered so if it is canceled your talking 27 planes already built.

I really have no qualms about canceling because I think were ready for unmanned fighters. But to say hundreds of cheap planes are better than a few expensive planes is a joke. I would never sign up to fly if I knew my commander had that philosophy. Plus, pilots are key in a big war, you can build a plane faster than you can train a pilot so you better keep them alive!

While the Americans are having trouble with their new combat aircraft programs, the Russians are rolling off the assembly line new generations of Surface to Air missile systems every few years.

The latest is S-400 Triumf, capable of tracking and shooting down multiple fighters at a time, at a range of more than 400km. "Stealth" planes are easily detectable with latest Russian radars.

The planned S-500 system will have a range of 1000 km.

And lets not even talk about the PAK-FA, the new Russian fifth-generation fighter jet, which will be years ahead of this rickety F-22.

[Ziosilvio]

L'F-22 è una macchina splendida.
Ma ha dei costi semplicemente fuori dalla ragione.
Inoltre, i pasticci con l'avionica non li conoscevo.

Dovendo affrontare un conflitto (non sia mai!), preferirei schierare 200 EuroFighter/Rafale/Gripen piuttosto che 100 F-22.
Riconosco che poter lanciare un missile a un bersaglio lontano 60 Km. è un'idea affascinante: ma se lo schiva? possibile che il chaff ce l'hanno solo gli aerei americani?

P.S.: ve lo ricordate l'F-23, quello che ha perso? Beh: era anche più bello!

[Teox82]

Gli USA sono il paese più potente e devono avere l'aereo più avanzato.L'F-22 è diventato troppo caro.I problemi non sono stati solo di avionica,ma anche,e ben più preoccupanti,crepe sui sebatoi.Come ho scritto su un'altro thread auspico che acquistino meno F-22 e più F-35.Poi verrà l'era degli UCAV

[thotgor]

Originariamente inviato da Ziosilvio
L'F-22 è una macchina splendida.
Ma ha dei costi semplicemente fuori dalla ragione.
Inoltre, i pasticci con l'avionica non li conoscevo.

Dovendo affrontare un conflitto (non sia mai!), preferirei schierare 200 EuroFighter/Rafale/Gripen piuttosto che 100 F-22.
Riconosco che poter lanciare un missile a un bersaglio lontano 60 Km. è un'idea affascinante: ma se lo schiva? possibile che il chaff ce l'hanno solo gli aerei americani?

P.S.: ve lo ricordate l'F-23, quello che ha perso? Beh: era anche più bello!

cosè questa storia dell' F 23?

[Pzed]

l'yf23 era uno dei due concorrenti (oltre al yf22 ) per la selezione dell'atf.
dal yf23 mi pare siano partiti per il progetto jsf...

[loncs]

Mi pare che il JSF sia praticamente un F22 ridotto ... non un F23 rifatto ... ma non ne sono sicuro

[Teox82]

In sintesi:

Negli Anni 1980 l'amministrazione Reagan commissiona i lavori per la ricerca di un nuovo caccia per sostituire il meraviglioso F15.
Fu fatto nascere un programma con il nome ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter)
Nel 1986 il Pentagono allargò la scelta fra due propostedi due grandi colossi avionici i quali entrarono in corsa con :
- Lockheed (associata a General Dynamics e Boeing) con l' YF-22 (la Y rappresenta la sigla di un prototipo in fase di sviluppo)
- Northrop (associata a McDonnel Douglas) f con l' YF-23 (la Y rappresenta la sigla di un prototipo in fase di sviluppo)

Furono inoltre presentati anche due diversi Motori:
-Pratt & Whitney YF-119
-General Electric YF-120
Particolarità di questi nuovi Caccia è il suo Bassissimo valore di Osservabilità ai Radar, riquisito decisamante ritenuto indispensabile nel programma ATF
L'YF-22 vola per la prima volta il 29/09/90. Fu eseguito un test a velocità superiore a 1.5 Mach e con angoli di rateo maggiori di 60°.
Fra i due contendenti nell'Aprile del 1991 fu scelto l' YF-22 che poi verrà chiamato F22 - Raptor.


L'F-23 è adesso negli hangar della NASA.Come caccia era alla pari del concorrente,ma l'F-22 è buono anche per l'impiego aria-terra,per questo è stato scelto

[Blindman]

Originariamente inviato da loncs
Mi pare che il JSF sia praticamente un F22 ridotto ... non un F23 rifatto ... ma non ne sono sicuro

E' un progetto leggermente più semplice....ma sopratutto è "multipiattaforma"..quindi partendo da un unico progetto ci tireranno fuori caccia, intercettore, caccia bombardiere e caccia imbarcato per portaerei...

[Teox82]

Negli ultimi test 4 F-22 hanno ingaggiato ben 8 F-15 "abbattendoli" senza essere agganciati nemmeno una volta!!

[innovazione82]

Originariamente inviato da Teox82
Gli USA sono il paese più potente e devono avere l'aereo più avanzato.L'F-22 è diventato troppo caro.I problemi non sono stati solo di avionica,ma anche,e ben più preoccupanti,crepe sui sebatoi.Come ho scritto su un'altro thread auspico che acquistino meno F-22 e più F-35.Poi verrà l'era degli UCAV

e dell'intelligenza artificiale! le reti neurali stanno facendo passi da gigante!

[Teox82]

Originariamente inviato da innovazione82
e dell'intelligenza artificiale! le reti neurali stanno facendo passi da gigante!

[innovazione82]

Originariamente inviato da Teox82

http://www.venexie.info/html/modules...ticle&sid=1094

[innovazione82]

Originariamente inviato da Teox82
Negli ultimi test 4 F-22 hanno ingaggiato ben 8 F-15 "abbattendoli" senza essere agganciati nemmeno una volta!!

tanto se vogliono colpirli basta mandargli un kamikaze appena scendono alla base militare!

ste cose ormai non servono a nulla! che investano in aiuti ai paesi poveri o in ricerca!

che guerra fondai che siete!

[Teox82]

Intanto NOI NON SIAMO GUERRAFONDAI
E' scritto anche nel regolamento dell'HUAG,leggilo.
Ci scambiamo informazioni tecniche,la mia affermazione è presa direttamente dalle dichiarazioni degli sviluppatori del JSF,non a caso.

La tua notizia mi puzza di fake in maniera pazzesca.Per quanto la tecnologia possa fare passi da gigante,IMHO,è impossibile.Dico solo che,secondo una stima riportata su New Scientist,il cervello umano può concepire un numero di pensieri pari a 1 seguito da 80 mila miliardi di zeri.Altra cosa è che l'uomo conosce solo in parte il cervello e ha ancora molte cose che non conosciamo.Trai tu le conclusioni.

[Teox82]

F/A-22 Important to All Airmen




(Source: US Air Force; issued Apr. 5, 2004)




LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. --- To Air Force people who do not fly or maintain aircraft, the oft-repeated characteristics of the F/A-22 Raptor, ?stealth, super cruise, agility, integrated avionics, and supportability? probably mean about as much as ?independent front suspension? and ?aluminum alloy heads? mean to someone who is not really into cars.

Not much. ?So what,? they might argue, ?I?m just a (fill in duty title of choice). The F/A-22 isn?t going to affect me or how I do my job.?

But they would be wrong -- dead wrong -- and what the ?meanest, baddest bird on the planet,? as it is described, contributes to America?s war fighters, can be summed up in one word: survivability. It is a commodity other ?legacy? fighters -- the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon -- will be less likely to provide in future conflict, according to senior leaders.

?I get a lot of comments on the F/A-22,? said Gen. John P. Jumper, Air Force chief of staff. ?Mostly they say, ?You know general, you guys are so good. The Iraqi air force threw its arms up and quit the first day of the war. They didn?t even fly a single sortie. You had four guided surface-to-air missiles fired during the entire war so you?ve got what you need. What?s the problem???

In response to that kind of questioning, General Jumper often refers to two axioms: first, that you should not fight the last war; and that people who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

?Too many are content to rely, potentially for too long, on yesterday?s technology in the majority of the aircraft we use to fight our nation?s battles,? said Dr. James G. Roche, secretary of the Air Force.

The Air Force has enjoyed some widely publicized successes in the Balkans, Middle East, and Afghanistan during the last decade and a half. However, people like Steve Dunn, a former weapons system officer who now serves as an air threat analyst for Air Combat Command, say that swift, one-sided victories against enemies who have not upgraded their arsenals for the last 15 years are not certainties in future conflicts.

?We?ve spent the last decade fighting an enemy in the Middle East (who) has tended to anchor our thoughts about what we need in the future,? Mr. Dunn said. ?If we use that as a lesson for the future, we?re making a big mistake.?

That potential mistake is poised to manifest itself in the form of next-generation fighter aircraft and integrated air defense systems that are already, or will soon be, available to governments willing to pay the price, he said.

?You might have a starving population,? Mr. Dunn said, ?but you can pick up some advanced fighters.?

Those ?advanced fighters? include the latest Russian Sukhoi-series fighters and a handful of European-built aircraft that are all rolling off of the showroom floor with features that put them on par with, or ahead of, some Air Force aircraft.

?From time to time, we get our hands on these airplanes (the Russian Sukhoi-series) and we put our very best pilots in them up against our very best pilots from the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force flying our own F-15s, F-14s, F-18s, and F-16s,? General Jumper said. ?The fact is that our guys flying their airplanes beat our guys flying our airplanes every single time.?

Mr. Dunn said that systems already on the market have the ability to engage as many as six different targets -- old systems could only engage one. He also said that maximum engagement ranges have increased from 25 nautical miles in legacy systems to 100 nautical miles in modern systems.

In a future threat environment, Mr. Dunn said state-of-the-art aircraft linked with equally advanced radar systems and surface-to-air missiles will present a fully integrated, overlapping, and redundant air defense. This will be a more than formidable challenge for America?s legacy aircraft.

Secretary Roche and General Jumper, people who know the fickle nature of economics and politics make advanced technology ripe for proliferation, knowing where those challenges will materialize is not nearly as important as being prepared to face and defeat them.

Between the two seemingly opposed axioms there is a ?tightrope? between ?jumping to tactical conclusions too quickly? and taking the time-tested lessons of air power into the future, General Jumper said.

One of those time-tested lessons is the concept of ?air superiority.? To the uninitiated, it is the concept of controlling the airspace over the battlefield so that air, land and sea forces can conduct operations without interference from enemy forces.

In the history of American military aviation, it is a concept that is so fundamental to the application of airpower that retired Gen. William Momyer, a former commander of Tactical Air Command, characterized it as ??the most important contest of all, for no other operations can be sustained if this battle is lost.?

In General Momyer?s more than 30 years of service, he saw the machines and doctrine of airpower evolve from massed bomber formations over Europe to the fast-moving war of jets and surface-to-air missiles over Southeast Asia. Though he retired from the Air Force long before operations Desert Storm or Allied Force, the observations he recorded in his 1978 book, ?Airpower in Three Wars? seem almost prophetic today.

?Our experiences suggest that superiority in equipment and superiority in tactics must be viewed as two elusive goals to be constantly pursued...,? he wrote. ?We are not apt to have marked superiority in both equipment and tactics for an extended period; neither side is likely to corner the market on ingenuity for long.?

Ironically, General Momyer recorded those words three years after the F-15 entered active service, and almost 30 years later it is still America?s frontline fighter.

?Not since Orville and Wilbur flew in December of 1903 have we operated an Air Force this old,? said Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Air Force vice chief of staff.

In the aftermath of operations Desert Storm, Allied Force, and Iraqi Freedom, Air Force leaders no longer talk about air superiority; instead, they often refer to ?air dominance.?

The change is more than just semantics; it is an evolution of doctrine.

??It?s different from the old concept of air superiority where we kept the (sky) clear of things that might drop bombs on our soldiers, Airmen and Marines on the ground,? General Jumper said. ?It?s this notion of dominance that allows us first to get into the place we?re trying to go to -- to kick down the door or be part of kicking down the door -- and allows us to operate at the times and places of our choosing.?

Air dominance is sending less people in harm?s way and making sure those who go are safer than ever before, Secretary Roche said.

?It?s not just the parents of Airmen who are going to be glad we have the F/A-22,? said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, ACC commander, ?it?s going to be the parents and the husbands and the wives of soldiers, Sailors and Marines. Because of the capabilities it brings to the fight, the F/A-22 will result in direct tangible benefits and less loss of blood on the battlefield.?