What's new

F-22 crashes in Florida

The problem is, only 1 out of 5 crash are software related (1 is due to the G-suit, 1 is the oxygen system, 1 is unknow and 1 is for engine problem......) Only the first non-production crash is due to software paroblem, so exactly what are you saying?

The software part, was sarcasm. I was taking a dig. I am not pinpointing any particular problem with the aircraft. I guess you misunderstood.

If you are saying the F-22 is the most unreliable aircraft because of the incident rate, then you can probably say the Boeing 747 is the most unrelible aircraft due to its inicident rate (Not only just crashed)

I didnt say the F22 is the THE MOST UNRELIABLE aircraft. I said it has the highest crash rate in the USAF. Which is fact.

I also never branded it unreliable, this is an extrapolation you have made from my statement. I said:

.Too cost, too unreliable probably

All other nation will encounter the same problem as we do when we are fielding the F-22, if you don't want the crash on your 5th Gen, then don't field them.

Agreed, I never said other nations will be able to do any better.

Look the thing is there are a few people who really cannot comment on reliability, technology etc of the F22. Those people are:

1. Pseudo professionals on PDF.

2. Fighter jet pilots who have flown other aircraft, other than the F22

3. Individual technicians and engineers in Lockheed Martin - Aircrafts are made in modules and hence most people will have an expertise in their own modules. The chance of a guy actually knowing everything about the aircraft is very slim. This is the case in every engineering company. Heck even in software product development companies developers tend to know only their modules and little bit more. Does not mean those views are authentic.

4. Pilots that have flown the F22 - This comes close. But then again, I can always point to the crashes and say that they dont know much. Its based on individual experience.

Reliability can only be judged through actual service records.

Given all these facts we can only extrapolate to a certain extent, logically.

There have been problems, technical or otherwise with the F22. Fact.

It has the highest crash rates in the USAF. Fact.

It is too costly. Fact.

It has never been pressed into active frontline service. Fact.

It begs the question, WHY NOT? The only logical answer is its probably too costly or not too reliable for frontline service given the high crash rates or given the immaturity of the platform itself.

What is so wrong with what I said?
 
These things happen. F-22 is just a plane too after all. Hope the pilot is alright.
 
some pilots grew dizzy mid-air. Oxygen delivery was blamed for the malfunctioning.

All this stuff about oxygen, G-forces, HUDs, etc. will become moot once the pilotless 6th gen aircraft come of age.
 
The software part, was sarcasm. I was taking a dig. I am not pinpointing any particular problem with the aircraft. I guess you misunderstood.



I didnt say the F22 is the THE MOST UNRELIABLE aircraft. I said it has the highest crash rate in the USAF. Which is fact.

I also never branded it unreliable, this is an extrapolation you have made from my statement. I said:





Agreed, I never said other nations will be able to do any better.

Look the thing is there are a few people who really cannot comment on reliability, technology etc of the F22. Those people are:

1. Pseudo professionals on PDF.

2. Fighter jet pilots who have flown other aircraft, other than the F22

3. Individual technicians and engineers in Lockheed Martin - Aircrafts are made in modules and hence most people will have an expertise in their own modules. The chance of a guy actually knowing everything about the aircraft is very slim. This is the case in every engineering company. Heck even in software product development companies developers tend to know only their modules and little bit more. Does not mean those views are authentic.

4. Pilots that have flown the F22 - This comes close. But then again, I can always point to the crashes and say that they dont know much. Its based on individual experience.

Reliability can only be judged through actual service records.

Given all these facts we can only extrapolate to a certain extent, logically.

There have been problems, technical or otherwise with the F22. Fact.

It has the highest crash rates in the USAF. Fact.

It is too costly. Fact.

It has never been pressed into active frontline service. Fact.

It begs the question, WHY NOT? The only logical answer is its probably too costly or not too reliable for frontline service given the high crash rates or given the immaturity of the platform itself.

What is so wrong with what I said?

I am not saying you can't say whatever you want, but when you post your idea, you publicly welcome people to debunk your post, granted, there are some troll outthere and destroy other people post regardless (I do not point to this post) but there are credible source that you need to, at some point, accepted that your view may be incorrect.

So, panning the aircraft is your choice but you also need to give way to people who actually know more and think your view is wrong like this...

There have been problems, technical or otherwise with the F22. Fact.

Fact, name one aircraft that have no fault after they push out of production line?? ALl aircraft have fault and here you got your experimental rate or in the navy they are called "Shakedown"

It has the highest crash rates in the USAF. Fact.

Fact, F-22 is only 5th top on USAF Crash rate. Data as follow

1.) B-1 Lancer 13 accident crash out of 104 planes crash rate of 12.5%
2.) C-5 Galaxy 8 Accidnet of 131 total aircraft, crash rate of 6%
3.) B-2 Bomber 1 Hull lost (+ 1 salvagable crash) of total 21 aircraft, crash rate of 4.7% (or 9.5% if you count the non-hull lost)
4.) C-17 Globemaster 6 crash (5 hull lost + 1 salvaged) with 203 aircraft, crash rate of 2.9%
5.) F-22 Raptor 5 Crash out of 195 (Production + Testbed), crash rate of 2.5%

You are welcome to work it out with a simple wikipedia page.
All crash are ACCIDENT only, does not count hostile action.

It is too costly. Fact.

This is not a fact, it's an opinion........Fact is, this is not the MOST Costly project, F-22 cost a lot of money, but is it costly is not a fact, it's depend on people who use it, if they think the cost is justified by the performance, they will not think it's costly.

It has never been pressed into active frontline service. Fact.

I don't know what you mean by front line service..Do you have to fire a missile in anger to be able to claim "In frontline service"?Because F-22 did deployed to Italy and Turkey and intent to deter Iran, does that count front line service? If you only count the Firing is a front line service then technically speaking i don't think many aircraft have beeninto front line service.....

reliable or not, they are not to be quantified by any requirment, there are no way to determine if an aircraft is reliable but you have to look into their service record and compare where they've gone and how long did each deployment last. THen you also need to put together a report on how many hour of maintence against 1 flight hour, and how did the airforce maintain the aircraft, then you will get a composit report regarding the reliability of an aircraft, even then, the report is not reflect the current truth as oit take time to finish the report and the time could have been improving or deteriotating the reliability of said aircraft.
 
am not saying you can't say whatever you want, but when you post your idea, you publicly welcome people to debunk your post, granted, there are some troll outthere and destroy other people post regardless (I do not point to this post) but there are credible source that you need to, at some point, accepted that your view may be incorrect.

I know I can say whatever I want. And I am not asking people to not "debunk" my post. But fact is they cant, and they havent. Because I have only made a logical extrapolation. I have not claimed anything technical at all.

Fact, name one aircraft that have no fault after they push out of production line?? ALl aircraft have fault and here you got your experimental rate or in the navy they are called "Shakedown"

That does not mean anything. We are talking about the F22 specifically. What does it matter whether other aircraft have problems or not? The F22 has issues. Thats all am saying. The issues could be technical, logistical, cost factor - anything. But F22s have issues. The fact that others have similar issues do not make the F22 any better.

Fact, F-22 is only 5th top on USAF Crash rate. Data as follow

1.) B-1 Lancer 13 accident crash out of 104 planes crash rate of 12.5%
2.) C-5 Galaxy 8 Accidnet of 131 total aircraft, crash rate of 6%
3.) B-2 Bomber 1 Hull lost (+ 1 salvagable crash) of total 21 aircraft, crash rate of 4.7% (or 9.5% if you count the non-hull lost)
4.) C-17 Globemaster 6 crash (5 hull lost + 1 salvaged) with 203 aircraft, crash rate of 2.9%
5.) F-22 Raptor 5 Crash out of 195 (Production + Testbed), crash rate of 2.5%

How much have the other planes been used (flying hours) vis a vis the F22? The F22 probably has the least number of flying hours compared to others, that actually serve/served in the front lines and in those limited flying hours 5 have crashed. Thats why the F22 has the highest crash rate.

This is not a fact, it's an opinion........Fact is, this is not the MOST Costly project, F-22 cost a lot of money, but is it costly is not a fact, it's depend on people who use it, if they think the cost is justified by the performance, they will not think it's costly.

No its a fact, not an opinion.

I am talking about unit cost, and a 200 million dollar jet, in the air superiority class, is the costliest out there as far as I know. Correct me if I am wrong and point me to a costlier airsuperiority fighter jet. Now yes, whether that cost is justified or not is another thing. But if it is indeed justified why hasnt it been pressed into frontline service? Dont answer it yet, I will answer it in reply to your next line.

I don't know what you mean by front line service..Do you have to fire a missile in anger to be able to claim "In frontline service"?Because F-22 did deployed to Italy and Turkey and intent to deter Iran, does that count front line service? If you only count the Firing is a front line service then technically speaking i don't think many aircraft have beeninto front line service.....

I am talking about Combat experience. Just like the F16s, the F15s, the F18s. F22s dont have combat experience. Its a fact. Hence they might have been stationed in Turkey or wherever, they may have even escorted a few straying Russian planes near Alaska, but this is not what it was designed for. It was designed for air superiority. Not to intimidate or escort. Hence why I say, it has not been pressed into frontline service. Its not doing what it was designed to do! As simple as that. If at all there was an opportunity to press it into actual service, it was in Libya to establish air superiority, but then they didnt.
 
I know I can say whatever I want. And I am not asking people to not "debunk" my post. But fact is they cant, and they havent. Because I have only made a logical extrapolation. I have not claimed anything technical at all.

The problem is you are saying people without technical expertise cannot comment on reliablity issue and the technology
This is what you said......

Look the thing is there are a few people who really cannot comment on reliability, technology etc of the F22. Those people are:.

If you really believe what you just said, should you be shutting up too? As you also commenting on Reliability and technology isse and you have not any expertise....

I am just saying, everyone have their right to say whatever they want, believe it or not is up to the reader.

That does not mean anything. We are talking about the F22 specifically. What does it matter whether other aircraft have problems or not? The F22 has issues. Thats all am saying. The issues could be technical, logistical, cost factor - anything. But F22s have issues. The fact that others have similar issues do not make the F22 any better. .

F-22 have issue so what is the problem? Do you think you can make an aircraft into service without any problem? I don't think you can, This is how an aircraft technology become mature, you find the problem when you have your hour logged and you fix it, Same goes a lot of thing in this world. You cannot error proof something so sophicated like a stealth jet.

How much have the other planes been used (flying hours) vis a vis the F22? The F22 probably has the least number of flying hours compared to others, that actually serve/served in the front lines and in those limited flying hours 5 have crashed. Thats why the F22 has the highest crash rate.

I can tell you this, of the 5 aircraft i listed, B-2 and B-1 would have less hour than the F-22 as you train on a F-22 you don't train on a B1/B2. The thing is, you said probably and you bunch it to fact. You said probably mean you are not sure if F-22 have more or less hour than any other aircraft, you said fact to represent something you also think is uncertain, so where is that fact??

No its a fact, not an opinion.

I am talking about unit cost, and a 200 million dollar jet, in the air superiority class, is the costliest out there as far as I know. Correct me if I am wrong and point me to a costlier airsuperiority fighter jet. Now yes, whether that cost is justified or not is another thing. But if it is indeed justified why hasnt it been pressed into frontline service? Dont answer it yet, I will answer it in reply to your next line..

You cannot use fact on a adjective (Costly is an adjective) as adjective is unquantifiable. You can say it's a fact the F-22 cost 150 millions (not 200 millions) but you cannot say it's a fact that 150 million is costly, COSTLY IS AN OPINION. As it doesn't, it depend on how people use it, how long people are gonna use it, what the function that provided.

Look at it this way, if all you need is speed and you have money to spend would you think Ferrari is costly? Compare to average joe like me Ferrari is costly, but this is not a fact as people who can affort it will not think they are costly.

You can say it's costly in your opinion, but you cannot say those are a fact. There are somewhere someplace somepeople do not agree with you and if F-22 can last 60 year, was that less costly than the Whole F-15 program who only lasted 30 years? You just look at the pricetag and tell me it's a fact they are costly, well, you also need to consider other factor but not only just the pricetag. (Factor i listed in bolt)

Unless you talk to EVERYONE in the world and ask them how they feel if the F-22 are costly, and if they all say they are costly, then you can say IT'S A FACT THE F-22 ARE COSTLY. Again, you cannot use fact to represent something it may not be true.

I am talking about Combat experience. Just like the F16s, the F15s, the F18s. F22s dont have combat experience. Its a fact. Hence they might have been stationed in Turkey or wherever, they may have even escorted a few straying Russian planes near Alaska, but this is not what it was designed for. It was designed for air superiority. Not to intimidate or escort. Hence why I say, it has not been pressed into frontline service. Its not doing what it was designed to do! As simple as that. If at all there was an opportunity to press it into actual service, it was in Libya to establish air superiority, but then they didnt.

Well, if you only count combat experience is forward deployment, then you have to say there are no forward deployment with F-14 as they have no yet been into combat situation. (Well, not the Iranian F-14...) A deployment is a deployment, you need to fly the aircraft doesn;t matter if you are gonna fight other, the fact (THis is fact) is you get more chacne to get damage or shot down in a combat situation only, but does that mean a no-fly zone patrol or airspace patrol not forward deployment? I don't think so.

Personally i don't think F-22 is a good plane as i am a fan of boeing and my brother work for boeing as an engine technican. But you cannot denial the achievement of the F-22 regardless if you know anything in aviation. Military or Otherwise.
 
Why do people make fun of the F-22 after a crash?

Sheesh...:lol:

Don't really know, plane crash, people dies, this happen everyday and noone take a care about it, but when F-22 crash then everybody talking about it........
 
Is the pilot safe..???

Its a machine after all... A crash does not mean its not the best.
 
The black box and the pilot will be able to paint a better picture on why the crash happened until then nobody can say for sure what the reason is.
 
First 5th gen aircraft in world,and crashes are to be expected.
 
not offence. but probably this was happened due to iron man
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't really know, plane crash, people dies, this happen everyday and noone take a care about it, but when F-22 crash then everybody talking about it........

Well, you have admit that plane catches a lot of attention :lol:

If a MiG crashes, nobody cares...but a Raptor....WOOOSH...

It's a star plane. A superstar :smokin:

Pilot safe, thanks for caring :)

Glad to know :)
 
Back
Top Bottom