Home » Air » Learning F-35 Lessons From F-22 Oxygen Errors

Learning F-35 Lessons From F-22 Oxygen Errors

by Mike Hoffman on July 25, 2012

The Air Force says it has found the problem causing its F-22 pilots to suffocate in flight. Service officials are blaming it on a valve in the upper pressure garment vest and an air filter that was restricting oxygen volume.

The search for what caused the hypoxia-like symptoms for F-22 pilot took almost two years. It turns out the Pentagon is developing another fighter generation fighter jet. You might have heard of it, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz’s last press conference Tuesday as the service’s top officer, he was asked what gives him confidence something like this won’t happen to the F-35 — an aircraft with a development history littered with problems.

To his credit, Schwartz didn’t try to pretend more problems are not forthcoming for the Joint Strike Fighter.

“There’s no such thing as engineering perfection,” Schwartz said. Without test failures you’re “not really advancing the state of the art.”

In fact, he said problems have already popped up for F35, but that’s what happens when you push the boundaries of what’s possible in flight.

“I don’t doubt for a moment … and we found some already, frankly, in the F35. This is one of the things that I think is an important message. That the notion of perfection at the outset even with all the computer power we have … I think we went through a period that we could design perfect airplanes or build perfect airplanes,” Schwartz said.

He then gave Steve Jobs a shout out possibly giving legs to those questions about why the Air Force asked Lockheed Martin and not Apple to build it a fighter jet fleet.

“Apple may be the only one who has been successful at engineering near perfect products,” Schwartz said.

The outgoing Air Force chief of staff had a recommendation for his presumed successor, Gen. Mark Welsh, on avoiding similar drawn out problems seen in the F-22’s oxygen system.

“Test deep. Test thoroughly. Test continuously,” Schwartz said.

Also, hope none of your F-35 pilots go to 60 Minutes if you do find a problem you can’t figure out. Oh wait, that might have just been an editor’s note.

Share |

{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }

Matt July 25, 2012 at 5:47 pm


No, really this time!


Lance July 25, 2012 at 6:08 pm

Two BIG points use useful oxygen systems like off the F-15 or F-16 that work. And NO Chinese made parts!!!


porkroll July 25, 2012 at 6:45 pm

I wonder too if the parts that caused the problem were defective in design or manufacture. If manufacturing was to blame, were they made in China? And if so, were they simply shoddily manufactured or counterfeit?


Riceball July 26, 2012 at 12:49 pm

The F-15 & 16 don't use an OBOG, if I'm not mistaken, they used bottled air. I'm guess that there was a specific reason why the Super Hornets, F-22s, and F-35 were all designed with OBOGs instead of the usual bottled air so using legacy systems is not the answer.


Nico July 25, 2012 at 6:21 pm

what about iphone/ipad cable with less than 1 year life expectancy, does programmed obsolescence count as perfection? what about macbook aluminium case giving you a cute little electric shock now and then?


Matt July 25, 2012 at 6:25 pm

Dont worry, these are The Smart People in Charge ™. Just trust them. They have a life tenure as a desk jockey. Sounds really important.


Chris July 25, 2012 at 6:24 pm

I suppose Apple does have near-perfect engineering, when you ignore all the examples of bad engineering. Antennas that short out when you hold the phone a certain way, perhaps?


Pilgrimman July 25, 2012 at 6:17 pm

Anyone can have "near-perfect engineering" as long as you're willing to take out a second mortgage to afford it. Christ, I hate Apple.


ghostwhowalksnz July 26, 2012 at 3:06 am

The F35 front wheel probably has a similar parts count to the iphone . The computer which runs the F-35 fuel tank probably has as many lines of code as the ipad.


blight_ July 26, 2012 at 9:07 am

I assume you meant "as many lines of code as the operating system"…?


Musson July 26, 2012 at 8:43 am

Even 'near perfect' can get you killed quickly at twice the speed of sound.


bmart. July 25, 2012 at 8:58 pm

Don't you just love when people with zero experience in a subject, think they know everything about the subject? I would sooner trust my shoelace to hold up my car than I would a fighter "engineered" by Apple.


Dfens July 27, 2012 at 7:38 am

Every heard of Space X?


bmart. July 27, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Yes, I most certainly have, but I am not sure what you're point is, considering the fact that SpaceX has nothing to do with Apple, and while they do most of their design, engineering, testing, and fabricating in-house, they also partner with NASA for quite a bit of their work. In addition to this, the people working for SpaceX are in no way inexperienced in this field(although don't get me wrong, the program has not been airtight). I have no doubt in my mind that their engineers, program managers, and shop techs came with plenty of experience from related industries, after all it's not as if SpaceX's CEO went to the local Burger King and ordered his crew off the menu and asked for a side order of competency.


Dfens July 27, 2012 at 9:55 pm

Yeah, after all Apple could never hire airplane engineers just to build airplanes… Duh.


blight_ July 28, 2012 at 12:01 am

They'd hire some interface guys and leave the rest of it to their Chinese subcontractors.

Oh wait…

JcRetired August 28, 2012 at 1:32 am

Because they would use talented people, with problem solving skills, to make something(iPhone. IBBQ Grill, IFighter?) on their own dime (cost overruns are on them), not blame the user (well what did you expect when you took your 20 Billion Stealth Fighter into the rain? That wasn't written into the required specs that you gave us.). Smart always wins.
Take for example our latest military fad of Service Fashion Show. Every service has its own camo uniform and boots. Sometimes several times over (WTF Air Force? You seem to be the only ones keeping it simple for once).
With every service having diffuse uniforms (not to mention boots.) costs skyrocket. McNamera was an idiot, serviceman killing fool, but he did get things right with procurement. Right weopon, right price, right now. (To an extent. F-111B was just stupid).
I'd buy an IGun if it worked as well as my iPhone/pad and was cost effective. Look at your gofasters. Where are they made?


JCRetired July 25, 2012 at 11:12 pm

New fangled (15 years on) COMBAT EDGE??


Howe July 25, 2012 at 11:49 pm

lol, it really is painfully sad that it took them 2 years to find the problem.
Any other normal private company would have had that solved in under a month.

I don't like the fact that he is basically scolding the the AF pilots for going on 60 minutes, eventually people say enough is enough, and will tell everyone until the problem is fixed. The AF took waaaaaay to long to fix this issue, and once the fix all the Raptors and it turns out that they actually are fixed, I would hope they send out a formal apology to the family of the pilot who died because of this issue.


ghostwhowalksnz July 26, 2012 at 3:07 am

Have you tried getting Dell to fix a problem on a laptop ?


Matt July 26, 2012 at 12:18 pm

Yeah, they drive across the state and fix it for free. Ever heard of a warranty?


Greg July 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm

I've seen numerous laptops that Dell just could not figure out what was going on. Dell is junk, hate to say it, but I probably look at it from a different perspective.

On the other hand, iMacs sometimes have this glitch where you basically loose command of the system, the mouse still moves around but that's it. You have to hard boot it every time. Apple for some reason is unable to fix this, it has been a problem ever since their upgrade to snow leopard, and here we are 2 OS's later at mountain lion. Some citizen though hacked a fix, figured out it was a video firmware.

I would say there is no way apple could tackle this, they can't even fix their own products.

Everything technical is a PITA. That is why us IT engineers get paid so much, this stuff will never be simple, if they think so they are in dream land. It will always need much maintenance to keep it working and up to date.


NoKidding July 26, 2012 at 12:03 am

More lessons here: (the Raptors got beat by the Eurofighters at Red Flag Alaska

not that it's a surprise.


ghostwhowalksnz July 26, 2012 at 3:10 am

Gee the thrust vectoring loses energy … Eurofighter doesnt have that… what a shame.
IRST works a treat but F22 hasnt got one either


William C. July 26, 2012 at 3:26 am

Thrust vectoring is generally an advantage but a pilot can indeed use it to get himself into a bad position. With enough experience, that can be avoided.

IRST systems are nice to have, but the 50km detection range against a fighter sized target sounds like nonsense.

The one advantage the Eurofighter has in WVR is the combination of a HMCS and a high off-boresight missile like ASRAAM or IRIS-T.

By all rights the F-22 should already have such a helmet mounted display linked with the AIM-9X. But for several reason this hasn't happened.


Matt July 26, 2012 at 12:20 pm

The USAF and DoD put the F22 out to pasture. No more upgrades. No more investment. Thats why.


Pilgrimman July 26, 2012 at 11:54 am



Praetorian July 26, 2012 at 1:58 pm


Looks like the Raptor pilots have another story :

That account, however, is strongly disputed by USAF sources flying the F-22. “It sounds as though we have very different recollections as to the outcomes of the BFM engagements that were fought,” one Raptor pilot says.

USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmanoeuvre the Germans due to the Raptor’s thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22. “We ended up with numerous gunshots,” another USAF pilot says.


Anonymous July 26, 2012 at 4:17 pm

So biased Euro pilots vs. biased USAF pilots.

That's like asking Obama or Mittens who's going to win the election.


joe July 27, 2012 at 2:58 am

True. However; the F-22 raptor was billed as "Wipe-The-Floor-With-You-Whatever-You're-Flying"….so even an ambiguous, partisan argument over its effectiveness is kind of concerning.


Chris July 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Not really.

Training exercises should stretch the limits of the superior force. So rules are tweaked to provide a more even match.

If the F-22 really is completely superior in BVR, there is not much use running serious BVR exercises.

So? July 26, 2012 at 10:11 am

The F-35 will not have the F-22's problems, since it won't have its performance either. Neither speed, nor altitude.


Johnny Ranger July 26, 2012 at 10:26 am

How is it that, with all the money we spend on the aircraft themselves, we don't have a BVR missile with AT LEAST the same range as the nearest threat? How is it that we don't have a HMD that fully exploits the capabilities if the AIM-9X? How is it that we can't add an off-the-shelf IRST to this aircraft that supposedly has so much growth volume? It's like buying a Rolls Royce with hand-cranked windows, no A/C, and an 8-track player! Insane.


Johnny Ranger July 26, 2012 at 10:38 am

Valid point about the design freeze, but I've also read from numerous sources that the aircraft was designed with capacity for new systems/expansions/upgrades, and would argue that if IRST and HMD weren't around at that point, they emerged soon after – MiG-29's have had them from very early on, and they ain't exactly spring chickens anymore.

I'm sure you're vision assumptions are spot-on…meaning that we didn't really learn the lessons we claimed to have learned with the F-4 in Vietnam. Sure, the Raptor has a gun, but that inclusion is starting to seem like a patronizing nod to dogfighting "lessons learned"….


Johnny Ranger July 26, 2012 at 10:39 am

I mean "your", not "you're"…


Matt July 26, 2012 at 12:26 pm

Simple. The USAF and DoD put the F22 out to pasture. No more investment. No more upgrades. We need a new president and senate to in order to fire some of these lifer political desk jockeys in charge of the policies at these departments.


blight_ July 26, 2012 at 1:14 pm

There's military capital within those organizations which will defend their Newest Product to the death if need be.

The USAF put the -22 to pasture because the development spiral could not be stopped, ending with the -22 being capped at 187. Sometimes the R&D gets ahead of the number of units you buy, such as with Copperhead rounds, which cost a bundle but are superseded today by cheaper alternatives.

Sometimes you can make lemonade from lemons. The Virginia SSN's came from the lemon of expensive Seawolf. But generally, the procurement system is indeed not up to the task of getting something out the door on time and on budget.

This is not unique to military systems. Look at the delays for the Dreamliner and the A380.


Matt July 26, 2012 at 4:31 pm

I see you have at least accepted the premise that the plane is officially out to pasture. I think it is fair to say that the true reasons are an unknown mixture of things but I honestly believe it is a political decision. Pres Obama, Gates, etc. (Jimmy Carter, B1) He was throwing a bone to his anti-war base, extreme leftist base, just like the exec order on GTMO. Come into power, shut some sh*t down, "reign in the military", etc. All for show and throwing hard fought project goals, future readiness stances, etc out the window.__It is a well known fact by now that the politics of the elite upper military establishment, I am talking desk jockeys, paper pushers, analysts, are densely populated with leftists educated at leftist universities that will promote their agenda relentlessly in the military establishment. And that agenda contains a narcissistic quality where the US is the bad guy and now we dont need the nukes, or the missile defense, or the F22. We change ROE's to favor the enemy. Etc. The left finally got a president in there, the one they were trying for years, who was a bleeding heart leftist, who would tear the military back down to size.__We end up sending our killers over there with their dick in their hand because the beuracrats changed the nature of the military all together.__Compare and contrast the B1 program with the F22 program. If we get a new prez I can see the F22 program going thru a top down overhaul along with new production orders.


blight_ July 26, 2012 at 4:57 pm

The Cold War drawdown was happening right around GW1. A lot of interesting programs were "put out to pasture", as you say. Stuff like Crusader, Comanche, Osprey, Land Warrior, OICW, F-22 and A-12 were on the chopping block, and many programs limped on through the Clinton years. Osprey got hit by Cheney and mysteriously revived. A-12 was hit by Cheney and did not revive. Crusader limped through the years and got axed by Rummy, along with Comanche and OICW. F-22 costs simply spiralled during the Clinton years, and to compensate the procurement number went down and down and down….

tiger July 26, 2012 at 5:12 pm

Your in dream world. I suggest you check the national checkbook. Your F22 money is needed to pay for a broke Social Security & Debt service. Not to mention some other priorities, like new tankers to refuel those gold plated birds are needed more.

Tiger July 26, 2012 at 10:52 am

How about a new problem? Bad AMRAAM’s…..

July 25, 2012: The U.S. Air Force has another mystery on its hands. The first one is why the F-22 air supply is making it difficult for some pilots to stay conscious. The second problem, which is actually almost as old, is all about defective rocket motors for AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. As a result of the rocket problem no missiles have been delivered for nearly two years. The delays have been due to faulty solid fuel rocket motors, which was discovered during testing that the air force performs on a few of every new batch of missiles. The problem is that when rocket motors are exposed to very cold conditions (as would happen when an aircraft is flying at a high altitude) they become unreliable. The air force is withholding over half a billion dollars in payments until the reliability problem is fixed. At the same time the manufacturer is frantically trying to discover the cause of the failures. The manufacturer insists that it is building the rocket motors the same way it has for three decades. So far it is a mystery as baffling as the one with the F-22 air supply.
AMRAAM has been around for a while and undergone several upgrades, without problems appearing in components that are often built the same way they have been for decades. But there have been many changes to components, including lots of new stuff. Thus it’s likely that some of the components of the solid fuel (a slow burning explosive) rocket have changed and chemists are scrambling to find out what it is.

AMRAAM entered service in 1992, more than 30 years after the first radar guided air-to-air missile (the AIM-7 Sparrow) appeared. AMRAAM was designed to fix all the reliability and ease-of-use problems that cursed the AIM-7. But AMRAAM has had only had a few opportunities to be used in combat, and over half of those launched have hit something. The AIM-120D version entered service five years ago, has longer range, greater accuracy, and resistance to countermeasures. So far, AMRAAMs have spent nearly 2 million hours hanging from the wings of jet fighters in flight. Some 2,400 AMRAAMs have been fired, mostly in training or testing operations. That’s about a quarter of those produced.

AMRAAM weighs 172 kg (335 pounds), is 3.7 meters (12 feet) long, and 178mm (7 inches) in diameter. AMRAAM has a max range of 70 kilometers. These missiles cost about a million dollars each. They are complex mechanical, electronic, and chemical systems and each of them, on average, suffers a component failure every 1,500 hours.

The air force and the navy have had an increasing number of incidents where their suppliers of high-tech weapons and equipment screwed up. Cancelling orders and taking manufacturers to court has not eliminated the problems. The military accuses the manufacturers of having a bad attitude, feeling that if there are problems it’s easier to cozy up to members of Congress than it is to fix the technical problems. So far, that seems to be working, while the weapons and equipment don’t.



biffbutkus July 26, 2012 at 11:20 am

Holy crap you guys are incredibly dense…

The AMRAAM issue is related to a NEW rocket motor for the D model.

As for Red Flag~
The blogger at the aviationist site betrays his lack of knowledge about aircraft with his silly assertion that the Raptor's TV causes the aircraft to lose energy. He is simply parroting the German squadron commander's similarly silly statement about the Raptor "sinking".

If you read any other accounts of this exercise you would know that the German's claims are disputed by the USAF (but we all know they are pathalogical liars no?) and questionable at best. Better climb rate and acceleration? Riiight…. Also, the Raptor pilots were not wearing their Combat Edge suits, so they were limited to 40k altitude and likely G-restricted…and yet they still were basically even with the "slicked down" Eurofighter in canned WVR scenarios (1V1 etc). Even the German admitted that in BVR, the Raptor was "overwhelming."


carl July 26, 2012 at 12:56 pm

the Indian Su's that went to the US for an exercise the other year (red flag I think) also had this problem with TV and "sinking". I assume the raptor pilots were hard pressed to get into such problems.


Alumbrados July 26, 2012 at 1:59 pm

Actually, it does bleed energy, by redirecting it. The more thrust you use for pitch the less you have along the velocity vector, so it does reduce the amount of power for forward flight. Also, with the reduction in thrust at altitude it's easier to over do your maneuvering, but that's because the pilots were probably pulling too hard and bleeding energy faster than they should have. It's simply a training issue, which is the primary reason for these exercises.

We did the same thing to the Indian Su-30's with TV when our F-16's fought them here at one of the Red Flag exercises. The Indian pilots were too ham-fisted and bled their E in tight turns using TV, so the F-16's just went vertical and came down on top of them and smoked them.

Having said that, my understanding is their were a hell of a lot more F-22 kills of Tiffies, than there were of Tiffies taking out Raptors.


Praetorian July 26, 2012 at 9:02 pm

Hmmm, thought it was F-15C's vs the Su-30MKI's, but you might be right though.


Tim UK July 26, 2012 at 3:18 pm

F22's are too few in number , the USAF never factored in their future war plans having so few.

In a high tempo modern air war is the USAF going to let F15's tussle with 5th Gen Russian and Chinese jets while the JSF and F22 are having their stealth coatings touched up ?

Both are hanger queens and a jump to far in tech, I would take a large forec of typhoons over a small force of either of the above.

The Typhoon can operate at hi tempo and will hold its own against the Russian and Chinese threats due to superior training,weapons and avionic.


tiger July 26, 2012 at 5:00 pm

Honestly future war plans will not even see much air to air action anyway. Other than a few shots in the Gulf War, Mig chasing ability has not been needed much since 1973. Very pricey planes for a Cold War foe in a Al Quedia world. China is a dream foe, not a real one.


Praetorian July 26, 2012 at 5:45 pm

As of Jan. 2012 the UK only had 86 operational Typhoons with another 74 more on order. This will give the UK a total of 160 Typhoons. Will the UK be more spread out then the USA ??


Praetorian July 26, 2012 at 5:47 pm

Sorry tiger the above post was for Tim UK


tiger July 26, 2012 at 5:57 pm

The RAF & RN are in a rather sad state today. Too many jobs to do with too few people or equipment. Any idea how many how many Tornados are in service still?


Praetorian July 26, 2012 at 7:49 pm

as of Dec. 2011 124 GR4's & GR4A's, might be less now.

matheusdiasuk July 28, 2012 at 12:27 am

Well, a Jet made by Apple would sold a lot.


4FingersOfBourbon July 26, 2012 at 2:37 am

IRST Range 50km, Aim-120'c' Range, 120km. Dead before you turn it on. Also practicing WVR engagement with other countries is a good idea, do you see what Raptor pilots learned? Burning too much energy isin't a plane issue its a pilot/tactics issue.


William C. July 26, 2012 at 3:31 am

Don't tell me you just went full idiot and jumped onto the "stealth is dead" bandwagon. The F-22 dominates in BVR. The problem is when it gets into WVR combat with fighters equipped with HMCS and the latest generation of HOBS missiles. Both capabilities that the F-22 *should* have.

Of course there are many "should have been" choices that we didn't make when it comes to the F-22.


Riceball July 26, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Wait a minute, what happened to you being an F-22 fan and saying that the F-35A was a good choice for the Air Force? Are you now saying that the Air Force should also buy the Super Super Hornet that you're constantly championing instead of both the F-35A and F-22?


Oppervlakkig July 26, 2012 at 3:04 pm

As David Cenciotti (the writer of that site) regularly states: outcomes of dogfights only have meaning if the ROE are known.

See also the next article, where Eurofighter kill markings on a MB.339 don't mean anything http://theaviationist.com/2010/05/13/mb-339cd-kil


BlackOwl18E July 26, 2012 at 4:20 am

I'm not say stealth is dead. I'm saying that if there is still a high risk of WVR engagments occuring what is the point of having an "air dominance" fighter that can be destroyed by cheap equipment that could easily be attached to a MiG-29? IR sensors, HMCS, HOBS missiles could be attached to older gen fighters at cheap prices. WVR fights still have the potential to happen and having a $300 million dollar fighter get owned by a $30 million dollar MiG because of poor tactics is terrible. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

We need to get better at tactics, but if the USAF hadn't sugar coated every engagment the Raptor had since then we would have found this weakness in our capabilities before hand. Could you imagine what it would be like to find this out during an engagement with Iran or North Korea?


William C. July 26, 2012 at 6:01 am

I'm sure the USAF has recognized the lack of this system on the F-22. it's just not something to highlight. The RAF didn't advertise the problems with the Typhoon they've had over the years either.

It's not an excuse for the lack of this capability today, but when work on the ATF started that technology largely wasn't there. The USAF has wanted to incorporate a proper HMCS and AIM-9X capability into the F-22 for some time, but that capability keeps getting delayed/cancelled. Some of this is due to the money/politics involved, some of it is due to difficulties in integrating such a system, and some is because they USAF can't decide if they should integrate something like JHMCS or wait some time for something based off the F-35's HMDS.


carl July 26, 2012 at 12:46 pm

the Mig already got it. Actually they PIONEERED HMS and HOBS missiles (the AAC11 "ARCHER") in the 80's.


BlackOwl18E July 26, 2012 at 11:37 am

To be honest, I hope you're right.


William C. July 27, 2012 at 3:49 am

The AIM-95 Agile of the late '70s is what pioneered that technology, but the program was cancelled. For some reason NATO didn't really seem to get how useful this capability was until they got to play with some of the ex-East German MiG-29s that had AA-11 capability. Hence a whole new generation of short range missiles since then.


blight_ July 27, 2012 at 8:01 am

"AIMVAL analysis results indicating limited utility of higher high boresight capability and high cost resulted in opinion that it was no longer regarded as affordable and the project was cancelled in 1975"

I guess if all your analysis is based on BVR, Sidewinders are wasted space…


Matt July 27, 2012 at 11:06 am

@ Tiger – again, it's politics. The government is funding "cowboy poetry", Solyndra, etc, but just can't seem to find the dollars for the "old tech" F22.


Matt July 27, 2012 at 11:17 am

Valid points except for the fact that the F22 is an active program. All others (save Osprey) were cancelled and never deployed. If they don't want to support the plane why dont they just retire it?

Its almost like the program is just stagnant. Bad leadership, from the top down. You see this in business all the time. A company has a great product or service that meets demands, but the leadership just isnt there anymore for whatever reason (illness, new owners, etc) and eventually the once thriving business shuts its doors.

Of course in the public sector (which is really what the military is) there are no consequences of stagnation within a program. No bankruptcy, no losses to take, no sacrifices to make. It's not their money, why should they care? The only consequences come when a plane crashes. Then a desk jockey gets shuffled around to another department and things are good again. Of course the military beuracracy is like any other government beuracracy. Department heads are political appointments who's role is to push an agenda. That agenda is pushed from the top down and if you don't fall in line, well, you know the saying.

I think somebody high up, Gates, maybe even higher, gave the edict "We are through with this plane, get in line or get out." God help the pilots.


blight_ July 27, 2012 at 12:07 pm

F-22 was where the JSF is now, where it was functionally in beta form but not as polished as initially overpromised, leading to the cost spiral. The OICW was trapped in such a place and was unable to escape (along with its OSCW cousin).

It is true that the A-12 was fairly nascent when canceled. Crusader and Comanche at least had prototypes, but weren't at the refinement stage where all sorts of things pop up and lead to the cost spiral.

I'd have to review my history of the Osprey, but I think it was more that the Osprey barely survived the cuts because they had a flyable (like the F-22), but it spent the '90s with a poor reputation because VRS hadn't been fully elucidated.


Mitch S. July 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm

I think the difference bet what happened to the A12 etc and the F22 situation is that in the case of the former, the cancellation came from outside the branch (Navy, AF, Army, Marines), but the F22's state results from decisions within the AF to shift budgets to save the new baby – the F35.

I fear the same thing may happen to the F35 down the road.
When that LM test pilot raved about the F35 capabilities was he talking about the plane he flies or about the theoretical capabilities the plane is supposed to eventually have?


Matt July 27, 2012 at 1:40 pm

F22 was where the JSF is now. True. So if past is an indicator, we can expect about 300 JSF total?

My problem with just accepting it and moving on is that the F22 decision was so blatantly political. It is only in the last couple years that things got really bad for the plane. The cost per plane was falling, production was going well, then BAM! Shut er down.


Matt July 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm

It may have been in house or external decision that killed the plane, but for all intents and purposes, it was an external decision forced upon the AF. "Heres your new budget, make it work." type deal… Maybe it didnt officially come from Gates "Cancel the F22" but what did come was "President wants to cut military budget, make it work"


blight_ July 28, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Was it?

1990 Defense Review: 648 aircraft
1991: 650 aircraft, ~100M each

1994: 438
First flight of production aircraft-1997
1997: 339
First delivery to USAF-2003
2003: 277
2004: 183

2006: 62B w/ R&D, 28B R&D, ~180M/unit


Dave August 12, 2012 at 7:01 pm

well, North Korea has MAYBE 40 airworthy Mig-29s. maybe. Iran is still using F-4s and F-5 knockoffs.


Dave August 12, 2012 at 7:02 pm

oh, you mean BlackOwl


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: