Raptor News

[Sávio Ricardo]

Não acho ele feio não...ta certo que o Raptor é bem mais bonito, mas o 23 é bem simpatico tbm..

[P44]

F-22’s Failings Detailed As Costs Increase and Availability Drops


Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009


The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show.
The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.

While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress over whether the program should be halted next year at 187 planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's contractors around the country had anticipated.

"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats.

But other defense officials -- reflecting sharp divisions inside the Pentagon about the wisdom of ending one of the largest arms programs in U.S. history -- emphasize the plane's unsurpassed flying abilities, express renewed optimism that the troubles will abate and say the plane is worth the unexpected costs.

Votes by the House and Senate armed services committees last month to spend $369 million to $1.75 billion more to keep the F-22 production line open were propelled by mixed messages from the Air Force -- including a quiet campaign for the plane that includes snazzy new Lockheed videos for key lawmakers -- and intense political support from states where the F-22's components are made. The full House ratified the vote on June 25, and the Senate is scheduled to begin consideration of F-22 spending Monday.

After deciding to cancel the program, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates called the $65 billion fleet a "niche silver-bullet solution" to a major aerial war threat that remains distant. He described the House's decision as "a big problem" and has promised to urge President Obama to veto the military spending bill if the full Senate retains F-22 funding.

The administration's position is supported by military reform groups that have long criticized what they consider to be poor procurement practices surrounding the F-22, and by former senior Pentagon officials such as Thomas Christie, the top weapons testing expert from 2001 to 2005. Christie says that because of the plane's huge costs, the Air Force lacks money to modernize its other forces adequately and has "embarked on what we used to call unilateral disarmament."

David G. Ahern, a senior Pentagon procurement official who helps oversee the F-22 program, said in an interview that "I think we've executed very well," and attributed its troubles mostly to the challenge of meeting ambitious goals with unstable funding.

A spokeswoman for Lockheed added that the F-22 has "unmatched capabilities, sustainability and affordability" and that any problems are being resolved in close coordination with the Air Force.

'Cancellation-Proof'

Designed during the early 1980s to ensure long-term American military dominance of the skies, the F-22 was conceived to win dogfights with advanced Soviet fighters that Russia is still trying to develop.

continua:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 9071001019

..............


Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings (excerpts)


(Source: The Washington Post; published July 10, 2009)


(Emphasis added in bold type below)



WASHINGTON --- The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show. (…/…)

-- Thomas Christie, the top weapons testing expert from 2001 to 2005, says that because of the plane's huge costs, the Air Force lacks money to modernize its other forces adequately and has "embarked on what we used to call unilateral disarmament."

-- on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

--"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record.

-- the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece.

--Skin problems -- often requiring re-gluing small surfaces that can take more than a day to dry -- helped force more frequent and time-consuming repairs, according to the confidential data drawn from tests conducted by the Pentagon's independent Office of Operational Test and Evaluation between 2004 and 2008.

-- [Between 2004 and 2008] the F-22's average maintenance time per hour of flight grew from 20 hours to 34, with skin repairs accounting for more than half of that time -- and more than half the hourly flying costs -- last year, according to the test and evaluation office.

-- The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22's predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.

-- At the plane's first operational flight test in September 2004, it fully met two of 22 key requirements and had a total of 351 deficiencies; in 2006, it fully met five; in 2008, when squadrons were deployed at six U.S. bases, it fully met seven.

-- When Gates decided this spring to spend $785 million on four more planes and then end production of the F-22, he also kept alive an $8 billion improvement effort [which] will give F-22 pilots the ability to communicate with other types of warplanes; it currently is the only such warplane to lack that capability.

--One of the last four planes Gates supported buying is meant to replace an F-22 that crashed during a test flight north of Los Angeles on March 25, during his review of the program. The Air Force has declined to discuss the cause, but a classified internal accident report completed the following month states that the plane flew into the ground after poorly executing a high-speed run with its weapons-bay doors open, according to three government officials familiar with its contents. The Lockheed test pilot died. (end of excerpts)

[André]

Este é o grande problema de não adaptar as políticas de acquisições militares às necessidades do presente e futuro. Outro ralo imenso de dinheiro é o programa de escudo antimísseis que o governo Bush estava financiando à todo vapor logo antes do 11 de Setembro (Adiantou muito gastar aquele dinheirão... ). As ameaças tinham mudado completamente daquelas de 10 anos antes mas a cabeça dos estrategistas do pentágono não tinha mudado em nada. Acho o F-22 um caça fantástico, mas acabou se tornando um exagero sem tamanho frente às ameaças que os EUA enfrentam hoje.

Enquanto isso, centenas de soldados americanos morreram no Iraque devido à falta de blindagem efetiva de alguns veículos militares como o Humvee, que eram facilmente destruídos por explosivos improvisados colocados nas estradas.

Isso se aplica em menor escala a outros projetos de caças, o Reino Unido também gasta muito dinheiro em programas como o EF-2000 e F-35, enquanto suas tropas no Afeganistão sofrem de uma falta crônica de helicópteros e portanto são forçados a andar em comboios pelas perigosíssimas estradas afegãs. Não foi por acaso que só na semana passada morreram oito soldados britânicos...

[P44]

The F-22 is to fly its first, and possibly last, real dogfight before the Senate Armed Services Committee, whose vote will decide whether to finally terminate the program. (USAF photo)


Air Force Leaders Side with Obama On Fighter Jet Funding (excerpt)


(Source: Congress Daily; issued July 14, 2009)


Senior Air Force leaders have inserted themselves into the heated congressional debate over whether to buy more F-22 Raptor fighter jets, sending a letter late Monday to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., arguing against funding in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill to enlarge the fleet of radar-evading planes.

The Senate had been expected to vote Tuesday on an amendment sponsored by Levin and Armed Services Committee ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., that would strip $1.75 billion for seven F-22s that was added during the markup of the measure.

But Levin said Tuesday that Republicans would not agree to a time for a vote, so he's hoping it can be scheduled for Wednesday.

In their letter to Levin, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz argued that buying more F-22s would jeopardize funding for other military programs.

Although the defense bill has $1.75 billion for seven F-22s, the program's supporters within the Air Force and on Capitol Hill have suggested that as many as 57 more should be bought. That would amount to "an unfunded requirement estimated at over $13 billion," the service leaders warned.

"Ultimately, buying more F-22s means doing less of something else and we did not recommend displacement of these other priorities to fund additional F-22s," they wrote.

Their appeal follows letters President Obama sent Monday in which he said unequivocally that he would veto any defense bill that includes funding for more F-22s. It also undercuts well-publicized endorsements of a larger F-22 fleet by Gen. John Corley, head of the Air Combat Command, and Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt, Air National Guard chief, who called buying more planes a strategic necessity.

Levin acknowledged that he expects it to be a close vote, although he said he has support from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. (end of excerpt)


Click here for the full article, on the Government Executive website. (ends)
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0709/071409cdpm1.htm


Floor Statement of Senator John McCain On F-22 Aircraft


(Source: Office of Senator John McCain; issued July 14, 2009)



Let me respond to arguments raised during this debate on the F-22.

Argument: 187 F-22s will not meet operational demands at an acceptable level of risk. In the view of some Air Force officials (Air Combat Command General John Corley, for example), a total of 381 F-22s would be sufficient to meet operational demands at a low level of risk, and that a total of 243 to 250 would be sufficient to meet operational demands with a moderate level of risk.

Response: In December 2004, DOD determined that 183 F-22s was sufficient to meet its military requirements. The Department conducted several analyses which affirmed that number based on a number of variables, including the length and type of wars that DOD believes it will have to fight in the future and future capabilities of likely adversaries.

The President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force, have stated that 187 F-22s are sufficient to meet operational requirements, particularly when combined with other U.S. military assets (including cyber-warfare, strike fighter aircraft, long-range stand-off precision weapons) to counter enemy aircraft and surface-to-air missile systems in the future from potential adversaries.

In response to the argument that more F-22s are necessary to close a gap in fifth-generation fighters between the United States and China, on May 14, Secretary Gates noted, “[W]hen you look at potential threats—for example, in 2020, the United States will have 2,700 TACAIR. China will have 1,700. But, of ours, 1,000 will be fifth-generation aircraft, including the F-22 and the F-35. And, in 2025, that gap gets even bigger. So, the notion that a gap or a United States lead over China alone of 1,700 fifth-generation aircraft in 2025 does not provide additional fifth-generation aircraft, including F-22s, to take on a secondary threat seems to be unrealistic.”

Secretary Gates summarized his position on the operational need issue on June 18, when he said that “the U.S. military has to have the flexibility across the spectrum of conflict to handle the threats of the future” and that “this will mean a huge investment for the future, one that is endangered by continuing the F-22 Raptor program.” He concluded, “frankly, to be blunt about it, the notion that not buying 60 more F-22s imperils the national security of the United States, I find complete nonsense.”

As Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition General Mark D. Shackleford said, “the capability that we get out of the 187 F-22s we believe is more than sufficient for the type of threat that the Secretary of Defense is addressing in the future”. Whatever moderate risk may arise from ending the F-22 program now is merely short-term and, under the Air Force’s Combat Air Force (CAF) restructure plan, necessary for the Air Force to transition the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter force for all the Services.

Argument: Buying more F-22s could help mitigate a projected fighter shortfall of up to 800 aircraft by 2024 that Air Force leaders identified in 2008 and a projected gap recently identified within the Air National Guard’s fighter inventory. Such purchases could also hedge the United States against the risk of unexpected age-related problems developing in the Air Force's legacy force.

Response: The fighter gap that the Air Force identified is questionable, given that it turns on various assumptions regarding threats and whether the United States will fight by itself or as part of a coalition. In any event, the Air Force has put in place a plan that will both mitigate any shortfall in fighter capability and bridge the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter force. An essential element of that plan—called the Combat Air Force (CAF) restructure plan—is to stop investing in the F-22 program after the current program of record of 187.

That plan addresses possible shortfalls in fighter capability more cost-effectively than simply buying more F-22s. It does so by restructuring the Air Force’s current fleet of fighters now and directing resulting savings to modifying newer or more reliable fighters in the legacy fleet (including, upgraded F-15s and F-16s), procuring less expensive aircraft (including, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter), and investing in joint enablers. Under the plan, those investments will help create a more capable fleet that can bridge the Air Force to a future fleet with a smaller, more capable force.

In addition, in the years ahead, the Department of Defense needs to focus on improving its capabilities for irregular warfare operations, and the F-22 is not a key program for improving those capabilities. While the F-22 is an extraordinarily capable “air superiority” platform, its limited air-to-ground capability makes it less appropriate for supporting counterinsurgency operations—so much so that, as Secretary Gates has pointed out several times, "the reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater."

Argument: The decision to end the F-22 program is purely budget driven.

Response: Secretary Gates’ has indicated numerous times that his decision to end the program is not resource driven. He announced that decision on April 6, weeks before his plan was even submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for vetting. On April 30, Secretary Gates plainly stated, “if my top-line were $50 billion higher, I would make the same decision [regarding the F-22 program].” That having been said, given the current fiscal crisis, buying more F-22s would likely reduce funding for other more critically needed aircraft, such as the F-35, F/A-18E/F, and EA-18G, which unlike the F-22 are equipped with electronic warfare capability—the combatant commanders’ number one priority. In that sense, continuing to purchase of F-22s could create operational risks for the United States military in the near term.

Argument: Buying more F-22s will ensure the Air National Guard gets modernized fighter aircraft sooner.

Response:Under the Total Force policy, all the Services, including the Air National Guard, will receive Joint Strike Fighters at the appropriate time and at the appropriate rate to replace their aging F-15 and F-16 aircraft. The only requirement that the Air National Guard obtain Joint Strike Fighters “sooner” arises from the “additional views” of Senator Chambliss in the report accompanying the FY2010 authorization bill.

In a letter to Senator Chambliss, the head of the Air National Guard Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III noted, "I believe the current and future asymmetric threats to our nation, particularly from seaborne cruise missiles, requires a fighter platform" such as the F-22. However, that threat is simply not present today. This is something that is being closely looked at now in the on-going QDR debate. When asked about the cruise missile threat during our committee hearing recently, Secretary Gates correctly noted that the most effective counter to these sorts of threats is an aircraft that doesn’t have a pilot inside of it.

Argument: Large-scale production of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters have only recently begun and have not yet increased to planned higher annual rates. Until production of the Joint Strike Fighter has been successfully demonstrated at those planed higher annual rates, it would be imprudent to shut down the F-22 production line, which is the only “hot” fifth-generation production line.

Response: Given how relatively similar the development and manufacturing efforts supporting the Joint Strike Fighter are to those supporting the F-22, concerns about an overall compromise in the industrial base appear to be overstated. In addition, whatever moderate risk may arise from ending the F-22 program now is operationally acceptable: it is short-term in duration and, under the Air Force’s Combat Air Force (CAF) restructure plan, necessary for the Air Force to transition the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter force for all the Services.

It is true that “full-rate production” of the Joint Strike Fighter isn’t anticipated until 2015. But, the program is making very meaningful progress. Maturation in the technical, software, production-processes, and testing aspects of the program are on track to plan and are in fact exceeding legacy standards—including those for the F-22. All 19 “systems development and demonstration” aircraft will roll out by the end of the year and major assembly on the 14 aircraft comprising the earlier “low-rate initial production” (L-RIP) lots have begun. At this point, the first of those copies are expected to be delivered on time to Eglin Air Force Base in May 2010 and the first operationally capable versions of the fighter are expected to be delivered to the Marine Corps in 2012; the Air Force, in 2013; and the Navy, in 2015.

Now, this is not to say that we should take our eyes off the program. We need to track continuously progress on the F-35 to ensure that development costs leading to production remain stable.

I am persuaded, as I hope you are, that the on the issue of whether or not the F-22 program should continue, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of the Air Force are all correct: ending the F-22 program now is vital to enabling the Department to bridge its current fighter capability to a more capable fifth-generation fighter force that is best equipped to both meet the needs of our deployed forces today and the emerging threats of tomorrow. (ends)


Op-Ed: U.S. Military Needs the F-22 Raptor


(Source: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution; issued July 14, 2009)


By Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson



In deciding the fate of the F-22A Raptor, opponents of the stealth jet assembled in Marietta aren’t waging war: They’re waging obfuscation.

If readers based their opinions solely on the anonymous sources who have attempted to crash the F-22’s future — particularly those quoted in a story the AJC ran Sunday — they’d be forgiven for thinking the Raptor is the biggest failure since the Spruce Goose.

As usual, the truth tells a different story.

Here’s a fact: The F-22 will be America’s top fighter/bomber for the next four decades, able to take down present and future air threats.

We support the F-22 program and are fighting President Obama’s efforts to remove $1.75 billion for new planes from the defense authorization bill pending in the Senate.

In the debate over funding more F-22s, the Obama administration has said repeatedly that the plane is unnecessary for fighting the types of wars America is presently waging in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But that fails to take into account the all-too-real threat posed by inexpensive integrated air-defense systems that not only exist but that are mushrooming.

Think about North Korea, or about Iran, nations run by hostile regimes hellbent on obtaining nuclear weapons and buying the next generation of Russian-made surface-to-air missiles.

For planes without the F-22’s stealth technology and supersonic speeds, it will be extremely difficult to penetrate such countries’ airspaces.

The Raptor is the only Western aircraft that can stalk such targets day and night while also piercing enemy airspace.

Here’s another fact: No other aircraft has this capability. This isn’t theoretical. In exercises, other aircraft have proven no match for the Raptor.

In a recent Red Flag exercise in Alaska, the F-22 slew 144 enemy planes with the loss of only one Raptor.

With the F-22’s advanced avionics, it can engage the enemy long before the enemy knows it’s there.

Detractors of the F-22 have been quick to highlight the jet’s reported technical and maintenance problems. To address those allegations, the Air Force has written a rebuttal fact sheet that is posted on our Web sites.

Regardless of whether it’s in the Air Force’s best interest to garner more F-22s — which cynics will undoubtedly say — the service certainly has an interest in owning planes that are safe to fly.

The Raptor’s detractors also persist in using false economics: that the F-22’s hourly flight costs are far more expensive than the F-15 it is replacing.

No wonder. The brand-new F-22 costs $19,750 per hour to fly, instead of $17,465 for the F-15, a plane that is nearly 40 years old, and that has none of the F-22’s advanced stealth and speed capabilities.

Yes, the F-22 requires a large number of maintenance hours per flight hour.

But most of those are spent on the Raptor’s “skin” that gives it the ability to elude radar. Maintaining that stealth requires a great deal of exactitude and painstaking attention. And the plane requires far less work to maintain than did its predecessors, the F-117 and the B-2.

It is a better buy for the taxpayer to maintain the F-22 than to buy replacement models of nonstealth aircraft that have proven vulnerable precisely because they could not infiltrate enemy airspace.

And it is unquestionably better not to expose our pilots and troops to such dangers if we have the technology to protect them as they perform their jobs.

If the Raptor is such a fiasco, as its critics would have you believe, then Americans should wonder why so many of our allies, including Israel, Japan and Australia, continue to express interest in buying it.

Perhaps these nations can see through the radar-jamming rhetoric to understand that the F-22 is an airborne deterrent in America’s arsenal, capable of protecting our fighting men and women now and in the future.


Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, Republicans, are the senior and junior U.S. senators from Georgia.


Click here to read to U.S. Air Force rebuttal of a July 10 article on the F-22 published in the Washington Post. (ends)
http://chambliss.senate.gov/public/inde ... N=13457654


Adding F-22s is Choosing Corrupt System Over National Security


(Source: The Project On Government Oversight; issued July 14, 2009)



More F-22s Will Threaten Our National Defense
"If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s beyond what has been requested, it will come at the expense of other Air Force and Department of Defense priorities—and require deferring capabilities in areas we believe are much more critical to our Nation's defense."
-Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullen, July 13, 2009

Capability of F-22 is Limited
"The F-22 is, in effect, a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios."
-Defense Secretary Gates, April 15, 2009

Funding For the F-22 Relies on Imaginary Money, Smoke and Mirrors Budgeting
The F-22 will rely on anticipated savings from defense procurement reform, even though the Congressional Budget Office has said there is no basis for determining these savings. Other sources report that the money will also take hundreds of millions from operations and maintenance accounts, a common budgeting gimmick that directly impacts our soldiers in the field.

Even if the Money Was There, DoD Doesn't Want More F-22s
"Frankly, if my topline were $50 billion higher I would make the same decision."
-Defense Secretary Gates, April 30, 2009

Comptroller Lied to Congress because Real Costs 'politically unpalatable'
"We knew that the F-22 was going to cost more than the Air Force thought it was going to cost and we budgeted the lower number, and I was there," Hamre told the Senate Armed Services Committee in April. "I'm not proud of it," Hamre added in a recent interview.
-"Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings" Washington Post

Added F-22s for National Guard At Home, Not Troops At War
"The plan shall give full consideration toward: (1) stationing the additional F–22s procured in fiscal year 2010 at strategic Air National Guard locations."
-National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Report

F-22 Maintenance Issues Will Result in Increased Costs
"While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan."
-"Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings" Washington Post


Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government.


Click here for President Obama's Letter Promising to Veto Bill with Additional F-22s
http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/obama-veto ... 090713.pdf


Click here for letter by Gates and Mullen: “More F-22s Will Threaten Our National Defense”
http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/mullen-letter-20090713.pdf


-ends-

[ninjanki]

Oque eles deviam fazer é um overhaul da pele do F-22, com tecnologia do F-35 e outros desenvolvimentos, para diminuir os custos de manutenção e os danos sofridos durante vôos. Parece que toda a fonte de problemas do F-22 está justamente na manutenção dos materiais RAM que cobrem o avião. Ao invés disso, querem matar a linha de produção, redirecionando investimentos para melhorar a performance em guerras contra Iraque e Afeganistão. Só que para Iraque e Afeganistão, eles não precisam de F-22, nem de F-35. Já contra CN, Irã, ou outro maluco que resolva fazer uma bomba nuclear, esses investimentos em contra-terrorismo e guerra de insurgência serão totalmente inúteis.

Ainda que hajam muitos interesses e corrupção envolvidos, o fato é que o F-22 é o caça mais poderoso em operação, na teoria algo que nem Russos, nem ninguém mais pode se defender contra. A menos que seja menos capaz doque anuncia, acabar com a linha de montagem é estúpido. Não entendo porque tem tanta pressa em cancelarem o projeto, se há realmente diversos países interessados em comprar o avião...

Allan

[kekosam]

Bom Ninjaki, pode não ser o caso, mas esta pressa em acabar com a linha de montagem e a recusa de vendas externas pode estar ligado com o fato de que se gastou muito dinheiro pra uma avião que não chega a ser a última bolacha do pacote. É o mais capaz? É! Ninguém tem nada parecido? Não! Mas, pode não ser tudo aquilo que os americanos falam que é. Tanto quem tem F/A-18G com um Raptor pintado na fuselagem, e não foi em dogfight!

[felipexion]

Bom Ninjaki, pode não ser o caso, mas esta pressa em acabar com a linha de montagem e a recusa de vendas externas pode estar ligado com o fato de que se gastou muito dinheiro pra uma avião que não chega a ser a última bolacha do pacote. É o mais capaz? É! Ninguém tem nada parecido? Não! Mas, pode não ser tudo aquilo que os americanos falam que é. Tanto quem tem F/A-18G com um Raptor pintado na fuselagem, e não foi em dogfight!

F-18?
Onde arrumo essa foto?

[LeandroGCard]

Bom Ninjaki, pode não ser o caso, mas esta pressa em acabar com a linha de montagem e a recusa de vendas externas pode estar ligado com o fato de que se gastou muito dinheiro pra uma avião que não chega a ser a última bolacha do pacote. É o mais capaz? É! Ninguém tem nada parecido? Não! Mas, pode não ser tudo aquilo que os americanos falam que é. Tanto quem tem F/A-18G com um Raptor pintado na fuselagem, e não foi em dogfight!

Pois é, tudo realmente aponta para esta direção.

Fica cada vez mais difícil acreditar que o F-22 seja realmente tudo o que se disse dele por aí. Ao que parece os americanos concluíram que o avião pode até ser mesmo muito bom, mas não tanto a ponto de valer o preço que se cobra por cada um deles (aquisição e manutenção), e nem o que se cobraria se fossem construídos mais (o que reduziria o custo unitário), e decidiram apostar no menos pretensioso e muito mais barato F-35.

Mas é claro que nunca darão o braço à torcer, e arranjarão um monte de desculpas para justificar o final antecipado da produção de seu "caça miraculoso".


Leandro G. Card

[kekosam]

O jornalista Stephen Trimble da revista Flight International visitou a Base Aérea de Andrews em 26 de fevereiro e fez a foto acima de um EA-18G Growler com um decalque de um F-22 na fuselagem, que teria sido abatido pela aeronave.
Segundo o jornalista, um piloto disse que o kill foi obtido com um míssil AMRAAM e que o Growler conseguiu o feito usando alguns de seus sistemas de guerra eletrônica para enganar e detectar o Raptor.
O EA-18G é a versão de guerra eletrônica do F/A-18 Super Hornet que, diferentemente do EA-6B Prowler que vai substituir, possui capacidade de combate. Na foto abaixo, um Growler dispara um AMRAAM.

[Penguin]

Bom Ninjaki, pode não ser o caso, mas esta pressa em acabar com a linha de montagem e a recusa de vendas externas pode estar ligado com o fato de que se gastou muito dinheiro pra uma avião que não chega a ser a última bolacha do pacote. É o mais capaz? É! Ninguém tem nada parecido? Não! Mas, pode não ser tudo aquilo que os americanos falam que é. Tanto quem tem F/A-18G com um Raptor pintado na fuselagem, e não foi em dogfight!

F-18?
Onde arrumo essa foto?

[Vitor]

F-35 deveria ser muito mais barato, mas o programa é uma bagunça total com suas 3 versões e já estourou o orçamento diversas vezes, prefiro o 22 mesmo.

[LeandroGCard]

F-35 deveria ser muito mais barato, mas o programa é uma bagunça total com suas 3 versões e já estourou o orçamento diversas vezes, prefiro o 22 mesmo.

É verdade,

Eles se enrolaram com o F-22 (alguém notou que serão necessários US$8 bilhões só para torná-los compatíveis com os datalinks do restante da frota!?! Imaginem se o FX-2 custar por exemplo US$150 milhões cada, ainda daria para comprar mais de 50 com este dinheiro!!!!) e estão seguindo um caminho parecido com o F-35, o risco de acabar ficando caro demais também existe. Mas aí não ficariam com nenhum dos dois, mais provável que desenvolvessem mais uma nova versão do Super-Hornet e do F-16.

A esperança é que os parceiros internacionais do F-35 consigam colocar ordem na bagunça. O F-22 infelizmente para os EUA não tem parceiros e nem mesmo clientes de fora.


Leandro G. Card

[Vitor]

O F-22 tem clientes em potenciais, Japão já expressou diversas vezes a vontade de obter F-22s, a Austrália deu algumas indiretas. Os EUA que não querem vender mesmo.

Os parceiros internacionais dificilmente vão por ordem na bagunça, o desenvolvimento do caça é praticamente todo por parte dos americanos. O que os parceiros fizeram foi mesmo se comprometerem a comprar o F-35 na empolgação de ter "algo próximo ao F-22". Como as vendas do F-35 são dadas como garantidas, a Lockheed tem pouco estímulo de fazer algo competitivo e dentro do prazo.

Ambos os caças refletem um grave problema no sistema de procuração militar americano atual. Antigamente o Pentágono pedia algo, as empresas faziam o R&D (Research and Design) com seus próprios recursos e apresentavam o produto. Isso funcionava muito bem, tanto que o F-15, bastante inovador para a época, foi todo feito em menos de 5 anos, e vale ressaltar que na época não existia Auto CAD da vida, tudo era desenhado na prancheta.

O que aconteceu foi que alguém teve a seguinte idéia "E se o Pentágono patrocinar o R&D com a quantidade absurda de grana que tem, poderá surgir coisas incríveis". Só que o tiro meio que entrou pela culatra, já que as empresas começaram a lucrarem já na fase de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, logo elas não precisam ser agéis e entregar um produto rápido para não falirem já que recebem a grana desde que prometam alguma tecnologia incrível, não importando se é pouco viável na vida real.

Foi basicamente isso que ocorreu com o F-22 e 35, a Lockheed já recebeu bilhões apenas para desenvolver, não tinha pra que ter pressa em entregar o produto final.

Isso que falei foi basicamente um resumo de várias postagens que li de um engenheiro aeronático americano a alguns anos atrás.

[ninjanki]

Isso sem mencionar o fato de que deixar nas mãos de uma única empresa a fabricação do F-22 e do F-35 foi um outro erro. Um dos dois deveria ter sido feito pela Boeing, para manter o equilíbrio e a necessidade de "competir" em eficiência e velocidade de projeto, fabricação, custos e qualidade. Por exemplo, o YF-23 e o F-35 dariam uma boa dupla, o DoD teria dois aviões que poderia comprar para atender suas necessidades, oque colocaria pressão em ambos para fazer bem o seu trabalho. Se ambos fossem competentes, o DoD acabaria comprando o planejado de cada avião, todo mundo ficaria feliz, cada um no seu nicho.
Da forma como ficou, não importa oque o DoD faça, eles vão comprar algo da LM, caro e cheio de problemas de manutenção, atrasado, e mais lentamente doque gostariam.

Allan

[caixeiro]

F-35 deveria ser muito mais barato, mas o programa é uma bagunça total com suas 3 versões e já estourou o orçamento diversas vezes, prefiro o 22 mesmo.

É verdade,

Eles se enrolaram com o F-22 (alguém notou que serão necessários US$8 bilhões só para torná-los compatíveis com os datalinks do restante da frota!?! Imaginem se o FX-2 custar por exemplo US$150 milhões cada, ainda daria para comprar mais de 50 com este dinheiro!!!!) e estão seguindo um caminho parecido com o F-35, o risco de acabar ficando caro demais também existe. Mas aí não ficariam com nenhum dos dois, mais provável que desenvolvessem mais uma nova versão do Super-Hornet e do F-16.

A esperança é que os parceiros internacionais do F-35 consigam colocar ordem na bagunça. O F-22 infelizmente para os EUA não tem parceiros e nem mesmo clientes de fora.


Leandro G. Card

E ai nos temos um Catch-22 como dizem os americanos, o F-22 nao e nao pode ter parceiros nem tao cedo, e nao pelas razoes que muitos pensam o ITAR ou algo relacionado a segredos militares mais simplesmente se tiver ele mata o F-35, os maiores compradores do F-35 sao os mesmo que querem o F-22 abrir essa porteira hoje e decretar a morte do irmao mais novo, e agora que os americanos nao tem a grana para mais F-22 alguma exportacao seria uma solucao, mas se faz isso pode matar o outro, e agora ??

Abracos Elcio Caixeiro