What's new

F-22 crashes in Florida

Must be a software issue. As always. :D

The F22 has been plagued by these kinds of reliability issues for quite sometime. I guess that maybe one reason why it hasn't been pressed into frontline service. Too cost, too unreliable probably.

Hence why I consider F22 to be more of a showpiece than anything else. Maybe that is an overstatement, but what would you call a 200 million USD jet that is never pressed into active duty only to crash every once in a while. I mean it has the highest accident rate of any USAF aircraft in service.


It looks like they still have not solved the Oxygen Problem.
 
.
It looks like they still have not solved the Oxygen Problem.
Nope, it wasn't the oxygen system that triggered this, I doubt he was a few thousand feet up in the air (of course that is when the problems starts). More likely pilot or mechanical error. Remember it was a approach landing.

2i7lchy.jpg


160ejpl.jpg
 
.
Yes I do have extensive experience in military aviation. Now you can piss off.

Sir,

You have been a member here for only a month----and already showing your colors---. People with your temperament are not needed here.

The reason you want to be here is that there are quite a few reasonable and professional posters on this forum and if this does not meet your standards you may chose to leave.

Gambit is the most respectable member on this board and he has great integrity in what he writes. He is truly an assets on this web-site and I for one do not want to lose him to you who is a nobody so far.

The most disappointment I have is not from you but from the MODERATORS of this board----your post should have been deleted and you should have been expelled.
 
. .
I have not been claiming anything as fact! I have only been doing an extrapolation based on what I see, logically, as much as possible,
Claim or extrapolation? I call it tap dancing.

What statistics have I been using to lie about stuff? You might need a book in reading comprehension. Search Amazon, you are good at it, I am sure you will find one.
Did not say you made up any statistics. Said you were fast and loose with your interpretations. Looks like you need that reading comprehension as well as basic statistics.

Good, so you can comment on FB 111A/D/E/F,F16 up to block 30 and other stuff that you have worked on.

You have however NOT worked on the F22. Hence your opinion on this one is at best as good as mine. Note: I am not talking about your experience with avionics and such, I am talking about the reliability or the issues of the F22 as a combat platform.
That is funny. Now you need to learn critical thinking skills as well.

If my background does not grant me the latitude to speak about the F-22, then what make you think your non-experience in aviation any more credible? None. No one take your arguments/criticisms seriously when you insist no experience is on the same level as those who do have experience. No one sane in business, engineering, or even the fast food industry will take you seriously. You are like someone who have ridden only bicycles demanding to be as credible as someone who drives race cars talking about designing cars.

I call it as I see it, and I believe results speak for themselves. The F22 has not delivered anything apart from being a nice showcase piece. Till Date.
Really? Are you willing to put the same conditions on just about 90% of the world's military aircrafts as well if combat is your criteria. You do not 'see' anything other than your own biases.

There are always foundational principles, structures, and sometimes even component commonalities in diverse designs. Most basic of all: They all need lifting surfaces that can exploit aerodynamic forces. But that does not mean you share the same level in credibility with a hydraulics engineer when talking about aerodynamics because even though he does not design the airfoil, he must still have some understanding of pressures and stresses upon a stabilator in order to design his hydraulics. If you have no experience in aviation at all, keep quiet and wisely do not even 'extrapolate' about aerodynamics.

If you have no experience in manufacturing, for example, or particularly in managing efficiency and waste, then you would not understand how statistics can be misinterpreted to mislead the readers. A good example is how the journalist Rachel Maddow misled her audience about maintenance statistics on the F-22, as in how much manpower is required.

Basic information for you, the clueless one...

To tow an aircraft, you need the crew chief, the driver, two wing walkers, one tail walker, and one brake rider...

Naval Aviation Aircraft Handling
1. Move Director

2. Brake Rider

3. Chock Walker

4. Safety Observer (Wing-Walker/Tail-Walker)

5. Tractor Driver
At the end of the day, ALL will be tabulated as necessary 'maintenance' personnel and actions, even though no real maintenance was performed as generally expected by repairing something that is broken or replacing something that is worn out.

F-22 critics usually howled/jeered about X manhours to perform 'maintenance' for each hour of flight without detailing to the readers on what those 'maintenance' hours contains. Six manhours to tow an aircraft is not the same thing as six manhours to change out an ejection seat. The former literally requires six persons to move an aircraft from the flightline to an engine run pad, for example, while the ejection seat removal may involve only two person but roughly 2-3 hrs for each to do his/her share to do it safely since there is literally a rocket in the job. F-22 critics made the maintenance hours to be as if the moment an F-22 touched down, parts starts falling off and the aircraft must be towed into a hangar with a small army of personnel readied to pounce. The reality is much more mundane: Surface integrity. Since radar detection is possible with contact and reflection off a surface, then for a low radar observable body, extraordinary care must be taken to ensure that if any access panel is opened, extra time is used to reduce any odds of damaging the panel's outer surface. That extra time will be tabulated into that final maintenance manhours critics conveniently used.

Did you know that it took six persons just to move an aircraft, from an F-16 to an F-22 to a B-52, from one place to another? Thanks to me, now you do. And now you also have a slightly better understanding of how much peripheral work is involved, the no repairing kind, before the real repair work is done.

Code One Magazine: F-22 Sustainment
A key performance milestone in the life of any aircraft, but particularly for a system as complex and advanced as the Raptor, is reaching 100,000 flight hours. The Raptor fleet will pass that total in the first quarter of 2011.
Never mind that 100,000 flight hours, which is a damn good milestone, but look at the magazine's title: CodeOne.

In aviation, a 'Code One' is when an aircraft returned from a sortie with literally no 'write-ups'. A 'Code Two' involve minor issues but does not affect flight and combat capability. A 'Code Three' is when an aircraft is grounded until the problem is resolved.

F-15 Eagle Specifications
Code One is mission capable. Code 2 is an aircraft with a problem but is still mission capable. Code 3 is an aircraft not mission capable until problem is fixed.
For the F-22, a surface nick from a dropped tool or uncovered boot that took the aircraft beyond a certain RCS check qualifies as a 'Code Three', even though flight controls, radar, communication, hydraulics, and engines works just fine -- or very much 'Code One' for those items.

Defense.gov: Contracts for Friday, November 19, 2010
...ruggedized repair verification radar (RVR) test set in support of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The RVR test set will support aircraft maintenance level for evaluation and verification of zonal radar cross section performance characteristics following aircraft repair of all three variants.
Basically, any disruption of surface continuity, from simple removal of a panel to inspect engine oil level to physical damage to the panel itself and replaced, an RVR check must be performed and that will take time and that time will be tabulated into that total manhours figure, even though no real repair work may have been performed.

So between you, who have no aviation experience whatsoever, and me who have nearly 19 yrs in and out of military service, if I debunk that manhours figure while you used it to criticize the aircraft, guess whose argument is the more credible?
 
.
Claim or extrapolation? I call it tap dancing.
Did not say you made up any statistics. Said you were fast and loose with your interpretations. Looks like you need that reading comprehension as well as basic statistics. That is funny. Now you need to learn critical thinking skills as well.

If my background does not grant me the latitude to speak about the F-22, then what make you think your non-experience in aviation any more credible? None. No one take your arguments/criticisms seriously when you insist no experience is on the same level as those who do have experience. No one sane in business, engineering, or even the fast food industry will take you seriously. You are like someone who have ridden only bicycles demanding to be as credible as someone who drives race cars talking about designing cars.

Gambit - bro - I've been dealing with the same frustration on MANY posts. It's the new aggressive superpower wana be Indian style. Whether a lot of these guys know what they are talking about or not....they have these silliest objections to everything and challenges that feel like high school drama. Until a while ago, it used to be against Pakistan and China. Now it's even against the US (I guess that's that wana be superpower status coming into verbal language). Anyway, this is what we'll be dealing with for many decades to come. Our exported jobs and money helping others become regional powers!!!
Anyway, I'd forget and ignore these silly posts by some of the Indian members. It is VERY frustrating to say the least when you have facts and the other just has challenging guess work and no facts! Add silly ego to it and the topic goes down the drain!!
 
.
Maybe you aren't allowed to say, but it's worth asking. Were you involved with the Red Eagles or Red Hats during your time with FTD?
No, never got involved with those guys, but I do know of them before they were declass-ed. Every branch of the military have its own version of 'foreign technology exploitation' office or division or whatever they want to call it.

United States Army Foreign Science and Technology Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States Army Foreign Science and Technology Center (FSTC) was an intelligence production agency located, for much of its existence, in Charlottesville, Virginia. FSTC produced technical intelligence concerning ground forces weapons, equipment, and technology of foreign armies. Most of the effort was on enemies and potential enemies of the United States. FSTC provided technical intelligence in support of military commanders, materiel developers, and of Department of the Army, Department of Defense, and National-level decisionmakers.
Each office/division often times 'outsource' how they acquire foreign technology equipment. For example...When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed, the former soviet states became owners of many high value hardware. So the CIA became the buyer and the USAF became the shopping cart via the C-5 Galaxy fleet. Many C-5s and C-141s were repainted to remove insignias and flown mostly at night to ferry every components of tanks, ships, aircrafts, and even ICBMs. Nuclear fission materials were purchased as well. Then those components were sent to the appropriate branch of service.

I was active duty when the USSR was still intact so a lot of Soviet Air Force parts were acquired through former Soviet customers such as Egypt. The Red Eagles were tasked primarily to operate and do some maintenance of Soviet gear to support their MIGs, but they were never tasked with the exploratory and exploitation mission, meaning how each component works; how to replicate its performance, meaning using US gear to replicate certain behaviors; and finally how to put an entire system together literally from a pallet full of 'stuff' and get it to work.

Adapting US gear to replicate Soviet hardware behaviors was my specialty. I worked in close relationships with many US company 'tech-reps', some of them recalled from retirement because many 'black boxes' were no longer in manufacture and the sub-contracting companies no longer exist, so we had to rely on these old guys to help us figure out how to modify their products. Most of the time, we had to use '50s and '60s technology because the '70s and later hardware were too finely manufactured and contained too much higher quality solid state components to allow modifications. Knowing how Soviet components behaves allowed US to reasonably accurately predict the limitations of their fighters under real world conditions. We could be wrong but back then, we were confident that if an air war were to break out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, we would win with a slaughter.
 
.
Sir,

You have been a member here for only a month----and already showing your colors---. People with your temperament are not needed here.

The reason you want to be here is that there are quite a few reasonable and professional posters on this forum and if this does not meet your standards you may chose to leave.

Gambit is the most respectable member on this board and he has great integrity in what he writes. He is truly an assets on this web-site and I for one do not want to lose him to you who is a nobody so far.

The most disappointment I have is not from you but from the MODERATORS of this board----your post should have been deleted and you should have been expelled.

Thanks for sucking upto Gambit. I have zero intentions of becoming some sort of a defence specialist on an internet forum. Nor am I looking for a promotion. I am here to voice my opinions that's all. If you dont like it, too bad.

Secondly, I WILL let my displeasure be known if I get pissed off at something. I could care less what you or anybody's fanboys think.

Lastly, this is the internet. I am not here to sugar coat and idolize somebody just because he/she is some sort of a "specialist" in something that I have zero interest in.

So you can take your self-righteousness and shove it. Dipshit.
 
.
Claim or extrapolation? I call it tap dancing.


Did not say you made up any statistics. Said you were fast and loose with your interpretations. Looks like you need that reading comprehension as well as basic statistics.


That is funny. Now you need to learn critical thinking skills as well.

If my background does not grant me the latitude to speak about the F-22, then what make you think your non-experience in aviation any more credible? None. No one take your arguments/criticisms seriously when you insist no experience is on the same level as those who do have experience. No one sane in business, engineering, or even the fast food industry will take you seriously. You are like someone who have ridden only bicycles demanding to be as credible as someone who drives race cars talking about designing cars.


Really? Are you willing to put the same conditions on just about 90% of the world's military aircrafts as well if combat is your criteria. You do not 'see' anything other than your own biases.

There are always foundational principles, structures, and sometimes even component commonalities in diverse designs. Most basic of all: They all need lifting surfaces that can exploit aerodynamic forces. But that does not mean you share the same level in credibility with a hydraulics engineer when talking about aerodynamics because even though he does not design the airfoil, he must still have some understanding of pressures and stresses upon a stabilator in order to design his hydraulics. If you have no experience in aviation at all, keep quiet and wisely do not even 'extrapolate' about aerodynamics.

If you have no experience in manufacturing, for example, or particularly in managing efficiency and waste, then you would not understand how statistics can be misinterpreted to mislead the readers. A good example is how the journalist Rachel Maddow misled her audience about maintenance statistics on the F-22, as in how much manpower is required.

Basic information for you, the clueless one...

To tow an aircraft, you need the crew chief, the driver, two wing walkers, one tail walker, and one brake rider...

Naval Aviation Aircraft Handling

At the end of the day, ALL will be tabulated as necessary 'maintenance' personnel and actions, even though no real maintenance was performed as generally expected by repairing something that is broken or replacing something that is worn out.

F-22 critics usually howled/jeered about X manhours to perform 'maintenance' for each hour of flight without detailing to the readers on what those 'maintenance' hours contains. Six manhours to tow an aircraft is not the same thing as six manhours to change out an ejection seat. The former literally requires six persons to move an aircraft from the flightline to an engine run pad, for example, while the ejection seat removal may involve only two person but roughly 2-3 hrs for each to do his/her share to do it safely since there is literally a rocket in the job. F-22 critics made the maintenance hours to be as if the moment an F-22 touched down, parts starts falling off and the aircraft must be towed into a hangar with a small army of personnel readied to pounce. The reality is much more mundane: Surface integrity. Since radar detection is possible with contact and reflection off a surface, then for a low radar observable body, extraordinary care must be taken to ensure that if any access panel is opened, extra time is used to reduce any odds of damaging the panel's outer surface. That extra time will be tabulated into that final maintenance manhours critics conveniently used.

Did you know that it took six persons just to move an aircraft, from an F-16 to an F-22 to a B-52, from one place to another? Thanks to me, now you do. And now you also have a slightly better understanding of how much peripheral work is involved, the no repairing kind, before the real repair work is done.

Code One Magazine: F-22 Sustainment

Never mind that 100,000 flight hours, which is a damn good milestone, but look at the magazine's title: CodeOne.

In aviation, a 'Code One' is when an aircraft returned from a sortie with literally no 'write-ups'. A 'Code Two' involve minor issues but does not affect flight and combat capability. A 'Code Three' is when an aircraft is grounded until the problem is resolved.

F-15 Eagle Specifications

For the F-22, a surface nick from a dropped tool or uncovered boot that took the aircraft beyond a certain RCS check qualifies as a 'Code Three', even though flight controls, radar, communication, hydraulics, and engines works just fine -- or very much 'Code One' for those items.

Defense.gov: Contracts for Friday, November 19, 2010

Basically, any disruption of surface continuity, from simple removal of a panel to inspect engine oil level to physical damage to the panel itself and replaced, an RVR check must be performed and that will take time and that time will be tabulated into that total manhours figure, even though no real repair work may have been performed.

So between you, who have no aviation experience whatsoever, and me who have nearly 19 yrs in and out of military service, if I debunk that manhours figure while you used it to criticize the aircraft, guess whose argument is the more credible?

Point taken. But my question/criticism still remains. There is probably a lot of tech stuff than even what you have written here. But why has it never been pressed into combat? Lets not compare other combat aircraft in other parts of the world. The US is the one country constantly in war. So why do they not use the F22 but other aircraft? Is it too costly? Does it take too much of time to maintain/hour of flight? Or is it not ready yet that it cannot be pressed into service as yet? There has to be some reason out there why this plane is all explanation and talk rather than action.

BTW I apologize for my earlier lack of reason, and my indignant remark. Guess I might have been a bit stressed out a couple of days and because of that got ticked off at the snide remark from you. ^^
 
.
Must be a software issue. As always. :D

The F22 has been plagued by these kinds of reliability issues for quite sometime. I guess that maybe one reason why it hasn't been pressed into frontline service. Too cost, too unreliable probably.

Hence why I consider F22 to be more of a showpiece than anything else. Maybe that is an overstatement, but what would you call a 200 million USD jet that is never pressed into active duty only to crash every once in a while. I mean it has the highest accident rate of any USAF aircraft in service.
When a Soviet model of aircraft crashes in India do they get rid of them all? If so...does India still have an air force?
 
. . .
You can only wish. Whatever the cause of the accident, it will be investigated and fixed. The F-22 will rule the skies for several decades.
Agreed! Such a complex system is bound to have several software / hardware mating glitches, nothing that can't be remedied!

It's a beautiful and lethal platform, if not the most lethal :D
 
.
Point taken. But my question/criticism still remains. There is probably a lot of tech stuff than even what you have written here.
There are...

But why has it never been pressed into combat? Lets not compare other combat aircraft in other parts of the world. The US is the one country constantly in war. So why do they not use the F22 but other aircraft? Is it too costly? Does it take too much of time to maintain/hour of flight? Or is it not ready yet that it cannot be pressed into service as yet? There has to be some reason out there why this plane is all explanation and talk rather than action.
You are assuming that all adversaries are the same in terms of technology, capability, and projection. Against the Taliban, the 'primitive' A-10 will do just fine and even though the A-10 is far less costly in terms of manufacture and maintenance, we still have only a limited quantity of it...

Proposed A-10 cuts total 29% of inventory - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times
The Air Force currently has 348 A-10s across the active component, Guard and Reserve, said Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. The proposed budget cuts would retire 102 aircraft, or about 29 percent of the current A-10 inventory, according to an Air Force white paper.
If an aircraft (or ship or tank) is deployed to a particular conflict, it is because that equipment have a unique contributorship that increases the odds of victory within the confines of that conflict. Therefore, every aircraft deployed to a particular TYPE of conflict is a valuable asset within the confines of that conflict, and everything outside those confines are essentially irrelevant. It means we are no less mindful about the A-10 compare to the F-22. If we lose an A-10 in Afghanistan or Iraq, it mean one less unique contributor to a potential conflict in Eastern Europe or Asia where the battlefield conditions are the same other than flora and fauna. Then if those battlefield conditions change/escalate to include more technologically savvy participants, then the F-15E or even F-22 will be deployed to maintain superiority.

BTW I apologize for my earlier lack of reason, and my indignant remark. Guess I might have been a bit stressed out a couple of days and because of that got ticked off at the snide remark from you. ^^
I have no problems with people asking questions or even making claims, but claims are not judgments and when anyone call the F-22 derogatory names/judgments, usually without supporting evidences, I will ask about their relevant experiences. Completely fair because judgments usually or at least should come from personal experience in that field. Calling a Ferrari 'junk' and insist on isolating it from the pack, meaning with nothing else with comparable capabilities, technology, and performance, is intellectually dishonest. Why not do the same for the Sopwith Camel?
 
.
JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM (HawaiiNewsNow) -
An F-22 Raptor was damaged while landing during memorial services Friday for the 71st anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The fighter jet, belonging to the 199th and 19th Fighters Squadrons, was damaged on both horizontal stabilizers, according to a release from the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam.

The pilot was not hurt. The cause is under investigation.

Officials estimate the cost for repairs is $1.8 million. According to the Air Force, each F-22 costs $143 million to manufacture.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/...tains-1m-damage-while-landing-at-pearl-harbor

HONOLULU (AP) - An F-22 fighter jet used in a flyover during a remembrance ceremony at Pearl Harbor scraped its tail on a runway as it landed, causing $1.8 million in damage.

A Hawaii National Guard spokesman says nobody was hurt in the incident Friday morning on the 71st anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Lt. Col. Charles Anthony says the jet was coming back to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam from a training exercise after taking part in the ceremony. He says the "mishap" happened roughly 90 minutes after the flyover.

In jet terms, the damage to the F-22's horizontal stabilizers may be little more than a pricey fender-bender.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom