We'll see how that works out once it gets deployed a lot. Anyone who was a maintenance officer knows how things go as the planes get a lot of hours on them ... hopefully, the allegation/estimate is correct. However, I don't think I'll take that bet to Vegas.
Agreed.
This article contains SOME of the maintenance processes for maintaining an F-22:
Feature - LO: how the F-22 gets its stealth
Just a
few excerpts from the article:
"The 325th Maintenance Squadron's Low Observable team and their contractor counterparts, Defense Support Systems, work to make sure the F-22s at Tyndall maintain their stealth capabilities by restoring and maintaining the low observable coatings on the jets. "
USAF dedicates an entire squadron just to maintain the stealth coating on their F-22s. That would be very problematic on a carrier.
"No one touches the aircraft and gets into the systems without LO having a part in that job," Senior Master Sgt. Angela Stovall, 325th MXS Fabrication flight chief, said.
A very problematic procedural limitation on a carrier. On a carrier, people are often used to push aircraft around on the flight deck, on the elevators, and on the hangar deck. That would be VERY hard to do without touching the aircraft.
"It can be very stressful at times, but when I'm out on the jet, I go into my zone. It is very meditative,"
I challenge anyone to find a "meditative" environment on a flight deck or hangar deck.
"Each week, LO does outer mold line inspections. This involves checking each jet's signature, which is makes an aircraft appear on detection devices. A very high signature equals a very low stealth capability leaving the jet exposed to radar. It is extremely essential..."
A weekly inspection of this sort would be highly problematic in a carrier environment.
Safety is a high priority during the entire process. The maintainer's personal protective equipment is designed to repel the harmful chemicals and debris that they might be exposed to while working with the coatings. Their PPE includes: a Tyvek protective over suit, a pair of gloves and a respirator.
Such toxins released during routine maintenance would be exceptionally problematic in a carrier environment. USN is VERY sensitive about the stuff that comes aboard their carriers. It took an extra two or three years for AMRAAM to get aboard USN's carriers because of USNs concerns with the AMRAAM's rocket motors. Back when USAF used JP-4, one of the first things that happened when a Navy jet flew on board after being refueled with JP-4 (either at a base or from a tanker) was to defuel the airplane. They did not allow JP-4 below the flight deck and would not allow JP-4 into the carrier's fuel storage tanks.
"LO has two climate controlled bays that are the ideal location for restorations, but due to constant need of LO restoration, these bays are never empty."
The requirement to have "climate controlled" maintenance bays would likely be a show stopper on a carrier. I can't even imagine how it would be done on the amphibs that USMC operate from. And I imagine it would at least be just as problematic on the UK's QE carriers.
I don't know if they've actually solved these maintenance issues on the F-35, but the F-35 is (allegedly) "carrier friendly." We'll have to wait and see if this is true or not and just what that means. But these issues further illustrate why USN will have more Super Hornets than F-35s for decades to come, and why it took so long for USN to get a stealthy fighter. So far, stealth technology has just not been compatible with a carrier environment. We'll have to wait and see if the tech has advanced enough to make stealth truly carrier friendly.