WT Forums

"Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-22A fighter jet may have a structural flaw that would require redesign or major modifications to most of the planes delivered to date, says Bill Young, chairman of a House defense panel.

Young, a Florida Republican who chairs a House subcommittee on defense spending, said he told Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne that he opposes buying any more of the $338 million planes until the problem is diagnosed and fixed."

I saw this posted on a discussion site. But it didnt state the source and had no link.

I hadnt heard anything about a structural flaw or read they cost $338M a copy.

Thanks for any clarification, debunking or corroboration.

Also I read that the USAF plans on seven F-22A 18-plane squadrons.

But using the multiple of .6(ie 7x18=126x.6=~76, 126+76=202(the mutiple I understand they are using) to detrermine the # of aircraft needed to be procured to support such a force structure requires 202 aircraft. Even reducing to a .5 multiple requires 189 aircraft. Although a .5 multiple fits the five squadron 24-plane squadron quite nicely.

Anyone know for sure how the USAF is reconciling a 183 aircrfat buy with a nominal/notional minimum need for 202?

A typical 24 plane USAF squadron would reduce to five the # of squadrons able to be fielded but still results in a need for 192 aircraft vice 183.

By way of comparison the USN/USMC are using .8 for the F/A 18E/F and F-35 because they feel a .6 multiple based procurement plan to be unable to provide enough aircraft to support the force structure envisioned. For legacy/previous aircraft programs the USN/USMC multiple was .92. Im not positive what it was for for the USAF.

Thanks for any info or thoughts.



Edited by - rickusn on Mar 18 2006 09:59 AM

Found it:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... eed16.html

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Potential flaw found in F-22A fighter jets

P-I STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-22A fighter jet may have a structural flaw that would require redesign or major modifications to most of the planes delivered to date, says Bill Young, chairman of a House defense panel.

Young, a Florida Republican who chairs a House subcommittee on defense spending, said he told Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne that he opposes buying any more of the $338 million planes until the problem is diagnosed and fixed.

The problem involves the aft fuselage, which comes from The Boeing Co., a major partner on the fighter jet. Boeing also supplies the wings for the F-22A. That Boeing work is done mostly at the company's Developmental Center across from Boeing Field in south Seattle.

Both the Air Force and Lockheed agree there's a potential flaw that must be investigated. The Air Force said flight safety is not at issue and no redesign or modification is necessary.

Young, in an interview, said the concern is that an engine casing made of titanium may not meet Air Force standards.

"There's been a specification deviation and they are evaluating it," he said.

"The engine casing is a significant part of the structure of the aircraft," Young said. "If it turns out that it's not being manufactured to specification it could be a serious issue but they don't know the answer yet."

Boeing subcontractors make the titanium parts.

The Air Force, in an e-mailed statement, said Lockheed, the world's largest defense contractor, discovered the "anomaly" in December, the same month the service declared the F-22A ready for combat.




Edited by - rickusn on Mar 18 2006 08:31 AM

Obvioulsy they expect to buy more than 180 airframes.

PS: I've heard nothing of the 'structural flaw' or of the '338 million per' either.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

would anyone here know why the F-22's canopy is "tinted" rather than clear like the F-15/16's canopy?

I thought it had to do with the radar absortion material used. A lady on the ICAS forums was asking and that's the only thing that came to my mind?

http://www.airshows.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1612


<img src="http://www.x-plane.org/home/topgun/sigs/A10logo.jpg" border=0>

http://topgunphotography.milavia.net/index.htm

_________________
If it Flys, shoot it

You mean the gold tint?

It's an RCS thing.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

It may be just the reflection of the transparency that makes it look "semi opaque". My experience when I have been removing the canopy has been it looks pretty much the same as other aircraft. Trust me, a little tint underneath a "green house" like an F-22 or an F-16 canopy is a GOOD thing. It can get extremely warm very very fast under the lid when it is closed. As far as and RCS capabilities? Dont know, havent asked (dont have a need to know) so I leave it at that.

<img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0>

Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law.

I think TX ANG F-16s got a tint strictly for temp control sitting in the hot sun all day!
These days you generally get a gold tint because it IS gold or a blue tint because it is Indium, both are to keep RF out of the cockpit which is a HUGE RCS contributor. I think they said the frontal RCS of F-16 went down by 40% when it got a conductive tint, dont remember if it was Gold or Indium.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Not sure on this but I have heard that the goldish color tint on the F-16 canopy was made from gold and it reduced the radar waves reflecting off of the pilots head, which apparently gave back a large RCS. Which boomer said it was reduced as much as 40 percent after the tint.

lol I've known some hard headed pilots but it's all the other stuff in there that makes it bad for RCS. The RF energy rattles around in there and bounces back out as well as bouncing off the canopy bows and ejection seat parts.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Haha good point boomer. I think the person I had this conversation with was "dumbing it down" a little for a kid like me <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

thanks guys for the info, I passed it on

<img src="http://www.x-plane.org/home/topgun/sigs/A10logo.jpg" border=0>

http://topgunphotography.milavia.net/index.htm

_________________
If it Flys, shoot it

_________________
????

_________________
????

Thanx for the heads up stress.

Once again you are worth your weight in gold canopy tint.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>