You AV-Geeks out there can update me on this, but it seems like the F22 is a maintenance nightmare right now - and it's just getting worse with time. Is this correct or are the stories overblown? Also, isn't this for something like a handful of additional purchases as we've already got the majority of the delivery?

The rider (yes, I giggled, too) is amusing, to say the least. As is the FAB-U-LOOUSSSS pic of the F16 all done up with modern and fashionable paint.

Yes, the F22 definitely seems to be turning into a very expensive plane to operate. This is an especially nasty surprise, as one of the things the AF and LockMart pinky-swear-on-my-mom's-grave promised was it would be cheaper to operate than the B-2 by orders of magnitude. That hasn't panned out.

Likely it'll be worked out in the next 5-10 years, which sounds bad, and in a way IS bad, but it's my understanding this aircraft is expected to last 50 years. It's otherwise shaping up to be a game-changing platform who's capabilities are surprising everyone. It seems to be fitting into the role of "an slightly slower SR-71 anyone can fly which can also kill you if it feels like it."

That seems to line up with the last thing I heard, which was related to coating failures being a prime cause of down time. Those are a pain in the ass (just for regular paint) to fix and if that radar-sucking paint is necessary for that mission, you've gots to have it.

I do like that SR71 with guns comparison, though. Reach out and touch some in a painful manner.

Plus we can always hire more maintenance guys. We're cheap.

A stealthy F-22 is cheaper to operate than a stealthy B-2.

However, a non-stealthy B-2 is not much more expensive to operate than a B-52.

And the USAF, several years ago, quietly decided that some B-2 would just be non-stealthy from here on out...