Alex says: The issue being that we have been involved in two wars over 10 years using all kinds of air assets, and yet the F-22 at almost half a billion a piece has yet to fly a single combat mission! Why? The Air Force says it just doesn't have any missions that fit. In a time of massive deficits that's the kind of background that leads to program cuts and billions in lost money.

I'd respectfully disagree on the background of this fighter...the F-22 was initially conceived back in the good ol days of the Cold War with the Soviets and was totally prudent and necessary at the time as we projected forward to what the next Century might look like...the fact that the Russians are lagging behind now in the development of their new fighters doesn't mean we don't need the F-22 or that it wasn't a good designs...China, although also lagging as well sure has their plans for new fighter developments...

The fact that our war on terror doesn't have any missions for the F-22 doesn't mean we don't need the fighter for deterrence--esp. in the future

our massive deficits aren't because of national defense...I'd say lets order some more, not less...

The F-22 is a deterrent weapon. We have not used a single atomic bomb since WWII, but we keep them around.

The F-15, F-16, and F-18 are the real air combat weapons.

The F-35 and VC-22, not so sure about.

I watched the "60 Minutes" episode, thought about it long and hard, and observed as this thread discussed the issue.

There have been many excellent comments.

And, like a discussion between a Rabbi, a Priest, and a Buddhist monk on the nature of God: They can't all be right; nonetheless, no one is wrong.

I believe I speak with some knowledge of the military and fighter aviation. I proudly flew the F-100, which had the highest accident rates of any jet, bar the F-104. When we lost two Huns one afternoon at Luke (one landing, one taking-off), I, a Lt, was irritated when, out of respect, the band was cancelled in the stag bar. The fast-jet flying and my experiences in SEA and other parts of the world have left me with a preternaturally low valuation of human life, which my wife, no doubt correctly, views as a significant character flaw. Clearly, my heart is not of the "bleeding" type.

But every so often, military service presents situations which offer no simple answers, as addressed, for example, in "The Caine Mutiny" and "A Few Good Men."

In my score of years in the AF, I only once went up the chain of command in protest. It regarded the composition of the four-ship I was leading. I was told, "It's higher-headquarters-directed; go do it." I did. Four hours later, number four and his WSO were dead, having hit the ground 100 meters at 12 o'clock from their six Mk-82's....

I, for one, remain agnostic.

I beg to differ. Deterrents are weapons so devastating, the enemy won't attack for fear of losing everything - nukes are the only successful deterrent in recent times. The F-22 is a war weapon to gain and hold air superiority over the battlefield so other aircraft can fly recce, interdiction, CAS, etc without undue threat from enemy fighters.

The F-22 replaces the F-15 as our primary air-to-air fighter. The F-35 is a stealthy ground attack aircraft with air-to-air capability - what we used to call a fighter-bomber. The F-35 will, eventually, replace the F16 and F18, as well as the AV-8 and several allied aircraft.

The reason the F-22 hasn't flown any combat missions is because al Qaida doesn't have any aircraft! There are other potential enemies out there with some excellent fighter aircraft, hence the need for the F-22.

The VC-22 is indeed a new breed of animal and I agree we need to wait and see if this new critter lives up to expectations. Word around the nomex community is that it's doing pretty well so far.

The F-22 might be a deterrent if we had more of them and the air, ground and naval forces to exploit the air superiority established by a large force of F-22s. But our whole military is spread too thin. The real danger we face militarily now is that China, Russia and others can clearly see that the Iraq and Afghan wars pretty much maxed out our forces, especially land forces. If it dawns on them that three or four of them can stretch us to the breaking point, we will have another world war. Luckily, the Chinese are making too much money selling us iPads and lawn gnomes and ditto the Russians selling gas and oil. If the world economy goes south (how 'bout them Euros?), the Chinas of the world may decide they can win a world war - and we don't have enough F-22s et al to make them think otherwise. Let's hope we have enough F-22s et al to prove them wrong.

What possible reason would China and Russia have to attack? Further, even if they wanted to attack does anyone else in the world have the ability to wage an offensive cross continent conventional war? I'm no analyst, but it just doesn't seem remotely possible.

Why even bother with an expensive conventional war anyway. If someone wanted to do us harm, plan, finance, train, and support an Al Queida type attack carried out by any number of willing nut jobs. Dirt cheap, WAY easier than trying to establish air superiority over any well armed foreign country. We might not even know who really attacked us, which also makes a conventional retaliation impossible. IMO we would be better served to focus on the way things are vs. how they used to be.

What possible reason would China and Russia have to attack? Further, even if they wanted to attack does anyone else in the world have the ability to wage an offensive cross continent conventional war? I'm no analyst, but it just doesn't seem remotely possible.

Why even bother with an expensive conventional war anyway. If someone wanted to do us harm, plan, finance, train, and support an Al Queida type attack carried out by any number of willing nut jobs. Dirt cheap, WAY easier than trying to establish air superiority over any well armed foreign country. We might not even know who really attacked us, which also makes a conventional retaliation impossible. IMO we would be better served to focus on the way things are vs. how they used to be.

fascinating insight really from someone with your experience....and, I've heard the F-100 was a beast to fly...and I'd like to hear more about the composition of the four-ship you were leading and why you protested; But, I'm also interested in why HQ wanted it flown that way...

I'm just happy to be here truth be told, but I do have some more questions...... weren't you shocked as alot of us when you saw these pilots on 60 minutes? ... it is one thing to go up the chain of command...or to Congress...but for these pilots (in uniform) to announce to the world that the Raptor pilots have no confidence in the fighters? ... there was a time it would have taken significant efforts from Soviet counterintelligence or the other bad guys such as China today to achieve such inside knowledge... back in the day, the Soviet counterintelligence would at least had to expend the efforts to have, for example, at the O' Club in Berlin, a gorgeous Soviet blonde spy with a short skirt posing as a local Berliner to feign interest in a young American Officer in order to gather some intel about the local Army forces.... now the Russians don't have to go to all that trouble of that cloak and dagger stuff--if they want to know the fighting morale of our Armed Forces--well at least that of the AF--all they have to do is to tune into 60 Minutes...your not really giving these NG AF pilots a pass are you?

as an aside, I'd be curious to know how much time the Guard pilots and the Congressman worked this issue up the conventional chain of command...did the Congressman, a former AF pilot himself, armed with the latest knowledge from the Guard pilots that had current experience in the F-22 really work the issue and attempt to talk with the senior members of the Armed Forces Committee, the Sec of Defense, AF Secretary, the President... or did the Congressman and AF pilots just take the easy way out an go on 60 minutes? ...

Donald,

I don't intend to hijack this thread with old war stories. If you wish, drop me a pm and I'll elaborate. I related a couple of experiences only to explain my general mindset and "where I was coming from."

Regarding the F-22 and your above comments:

I wouldn't say I was "shocked," rather bemused.

Apparently the pilots divulged nothing that wasn't already in the public domain; no damage was done to national security. (I might suggest that recent leaks at high levels make this worry pale to insignificance.)

The issue is whether pilots should fly training missions with an acknowledged insidious O2 problem. I'm confident that, were there a "real world" threat, F-22 units would fly with unimpaired capability. The alleged problem doesn't effect the jet's actual combat effectiveness.

I always strove for hard (dangerous) training and spent many years pushing against what I consider(ed) the AF's over-emphasis on safety. But why lose a (possibly irreplaceable?) ~$150 mil. asset to a minor engineering error? And it just seems to me that pilots shouldn't have to worry about a defective O2 system on peacetime missions.

I doubt those guys on TV took the "easy way out," and I'm in no position to hand out "passes."

Thus I remain agnostic.

Donald,

I don't intend to hijack this thread with old war stories. If you wish, drop me a pm and I'll elaborate. I related a couple of experiences only to explain my general mindset and "where I was coming from."

Regarding the F-22 and your above comments:

I wouldn't say I was "shocked," rather bemused.

Apparently the pilots divulged nothing that wasn't already in the public domain; no damage was done to national security. (I might suggest that recent leaks at high levels make this worry pale to insignificance.)

The issue is whether pilots should fly training missions with an acknowledged insidious O2 problem. I'm confident that, were there a "real world" threat, F-22 units would fly with unimpaired capability. The alleged problem doesn't effect the jet's actual combat effectiveness.I always strove for hard (dangerous) training and spent many years pushing against what I consider(ed) the AF's over-emphasis on safety. But why lose a (possibly irreplaceable?) ~$150 mil. asset to a minor engineering error? And it just seems to me that pilots shouldn't have to worry about a defective O2 system on peacetime missions.

I doubt those guys on TV took the "easy way out," and I'm in no position to hand out "passes."

Thus I remain agnostic.

The following article in Aerospace doesn't address the core questions on the thread but may shed some light on the O2 problem.

Combat Edge anti-g ensemble might be causing Raptor’s oxygen woes
06-06-2012

The Combat Edge upper pressure-garment worn by US Air Force pilots flying the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor might be the cause of the fifth-generation fighter's oxygen maladies, sources say.

While pilots need counter-pressure from the vest-like pressure garment to exhale at low cabin pressures found in the Raptor's cockpit, the Combat Edge and associated breathing systems might be providing too much pressure especially under g-loading.

"It just seems a little weird to breathe of off this thing," one source says. "Because you can't expand your lungs as easily because you have something restricting you."

The extra load imposed on the pilots by the added pressure under g-forces could be causing them to "over-breathe the system".

A compounding factor may be a condition known as acceleration atelectasis. The condition causes the pilot's lungs to have trouble bringing oxygen to the blood system because pure oxygen--93% oxygen in the Raptor's case-- and high gravity loads set up the pilots for a condition where the air sacs in the lungs suffer partial collapse.
The result of acceleration atelectasis is the so called "Raptor cough"-where F-22 pilots have a pronounced cough as the pilot's body attempts to re-inflate the sacs under normal atmospheric pressure on the ground.

Earlier tests would not have caught the problem because the breather device used to test the Combat Edge system does not compensate for pilot's lungs being unable to expand as readily. The breather device always draws the same volume of air.

A lack of ability to test for restricted expansion kept the condition from being seen as a problem. The restricted breathing could lead to hyperventilation symptoms or even bigger issues if the pilot is suffering from acceleration atelectasis.

However, the source says, the pressure-garment problem has been a known concern since at least 2000 when a similar garment provided by Boeing was being flown. But at that time, the USAF did not believe that the extra pressure was a serious concern. Now however, the USAF is starting to believe that the Combat Edge is behind the Raptor's woes. But while current USAF research is pointing to the Combat Edge as the primary culprit behind the F-22's maladies, the source says that it is probably only part of the problem.
Unlike U-2 pilots, who fly only after a several-day rest period after each flight, F-22 pilots will sometimes fly more than once a day. This means that the pilots are flying before they fully recover from the effects of acceleration atelectasis. Thus when they are g-loading in flight, they are further exposed to the pressure from the Combat Edge and their breathing device. The exposure to maximum oxygen while already suffering from acceleration atelectasis means even less oxygen saturation for the pilot. The sum total can result in the "hypoxia-like" physiological symptoms that have been vexing F-22 pilots for the past year.

"It was an annoyance issue, but an annoyance issue after you were on the ground," the source says. "But there is no exposure limit on these guys and early on a double turn was a rarity."

Ironically, some of the safety measures that the USAF added after the service lifted the grounding such as flying with a negative-pressure carbon-filter--which is having oxygen pushed through it under pressure-- and with the oxygen system set on maximum at all times probably exacerbated the problem, the source says.

One possible solution might be the new pressure-garment designed for the Lockheed Martin F-35, which could potentially solve the some of the pressure issues. But F-22 crews may need to take a 24h break between flights, the source says. That would cause a sortie generation problem, however.

Officially, the USAF maintains that it has yet to find the root cause of the oxygen-system problem. "Our risk mitigation and data collection are evolving based on our experience and [Secretary of Defense] guidance. Analysis of the data is getting us closer to identifying a root cause or causes, although we don't have preliminary results or a projected completion date to share at this time," the USAF says.

Meanwhile, pilots flying the F-22 have not suffered any new unexplained hypoxia-like physiological incidents in nearly three months, the service says.

"We haven't had an unexplained physiological incident since 8 March," the USAF says.