Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 3
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 3:21:25 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Billions down the drain for a fighter that can't go above 10,000 feet. What a colossal waste of money. Money that could have been spent paying off the debt.


Don't type nonsense, you don't have even the slightest inkling of which you speak to the point that you're ridiculous.


Quoted:
From what I understand these things are a hazmat nightmare due to the composites and materials used in their construction.  What a mess.  


Once the fire is out, there's not much to worry over, it's no different than approaching the airplane before it burns.  Fumes while burning might be somewhat toxic, so everyone needs to stay upwind.



Admittedly this is a B2, but you don't regularly see guys dressed like the bottom pic when most planes crash.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 3:40:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty high loss rate for a modern aircraft that has yet to even see a hostile aircraft on radar.  


The F-22 protgram has lost 4 airframes since it began back in the late 1980s.  IIRC the F-14 lost 4 airframes in one month of prototype testing.  That program didn't get cancelled and a damn good aircraft with a long and good service record was the result.

Four aircraft out of 187 produced is not a high loss rate.  We have simply gotten used to having so very few non-combat losses that it seems high to some people.

Learn from the past and realize that we are light years ahead of the sorts of loss rates that plagued military aviation a few decades ago.  They didn't coin sayings like "One a day in Tampa Bay" for nothing.

The Air Force would lose close to one hundred planes per year back in my time.  And the Navy paid in blood to develop the technologies of jet aircraft operating on their carriers.  And now military aviation is approaching cilvil aviation levels of safety in what is really and apples and grapefruit comparison, given the different demands of the two.

It's a shame that the aircraft went down and it is a loss to national capabilities, as is every lost military aircraft.  But to try and come across like one airframe being lost equates to time to end the program is foolhardy.
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.

 


Hazardous to work on? Damn, we have a lot of maintainers on this board. Here's a hint: they're fucking ALL hazardous to work on.


Shit, deicing fluid is hazardous.  As well as hydraulic fluid, etc...

There's a reason why many closed Air Force Bases and airports take a lot of cleanup before they can use them for long term human habitation.

That beiong said, I suppose there are varying degrees of 'hazardous'.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 3:44:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:

...cut...
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.

 


In this thread and others, you keep making statements about the aircraft poisoning the pilots.  This does not appear to be the case.

I'll reiterate what I've said before.  There is no substantive evidence of any toxins in the pilots' breathing air.  There is no evidence of systemic undetected low O2 conditions with the OBOGS.  There is no evidence of systemic insufficient OBOGS pressure/flow.


The oxygen problem should be sorted out, from what I'm hearing from very reliable sources.  I guess we'll see.  It's probably an understatement that this O2 problems got a lot of Congressional attention.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 3:55:38 PM EDT
[#4]



Quoted:



Quoted:

Pretty high loss rate for a modern aircraft that has yet to even see a hostile aircraft on radar.  




Obviously you know nothing about the F22 do you? Let me make this simple I work on the 22, Im a crew chief up at Elmendorf and was down at Tyndall for 6 years before the 4 years up here. Anyhow the F22 is deployed all over the world as we speak it has seen more than one Hostile aircraft up here in Alaska much less in other parts of the world. If you dont know anything about these Aircraft stop posting all this stupid shit you know nothing about. Also you need to remember OPSEC if you guys are military and not be talking about shit thats not supposed to be mentioned on here. And one last thing is Tyndall is where we train new pilots on the F22 so dont blame the Jet human error could be a factor and we wont know until a proper investigation is completed.





thank you Bubba

 
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 5:50:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty high loss rate for a modern aircraft that has yet to even see a hostile aircraft on radar.  


The F-22 protgram has lost 4 airframes since it began back in the late 1980s.  IIRC the F-14 lost 4 airframes in one month of prototype testing.  That program didn't get cancelled and a damn good aircraft with a long and good service record was the result.

Four aircraft out of 187 produced is not a high loss rate.  We have simply gotten used to having so very few non-combat losses that it seems high to some people.

Learn from the past and realize that we are light years ahead of the sorts of loss rates that plagued military aviation a few decades ago.  They didn't coin sayings like "One a day in Tampa Bay" for nothing.

The Air Force would lose close to one hundred planes per year back in my time.  And the Navy paid in blood to develop the technologies of jet aircraft operating on their carriers.  And now military aviation is approaching cilvil aviation levels of safety in what is really and apples and grapefruit comparison, given the different demands of the two.

It's a shame that the aircraft went down and it is a loss to national capabilities, as is every lost military aircraft.  But to try and come across like one airframe being lost equates to time to end the program is foolhardy.
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.  


I recall seem to several F-15s, 3 or 4 to be more precise and all within a few months, breaking in two and crashing in recent years.  Still in service and obviously a worse record than the F-22's.



No, there was only 1 F-15 that broke in 2.

On 2 November 2007, a 27-year-old F-15C (s/n 80-0034 of the 131st Fighter Wing, Missouri Air National Guard) crashed during air combat maneuvering training near St. Louis, Missouri. The pilot, Major Stephen W. Stilwell, ejected but suffered serious injuries. The crash was the result of an in-flight breakup due to structural failure. On 3 November 2007, all non-mission critical models of the F-15 were grounded pending the outcome of the crash investigation,[83] and on the following day, grounded non-mission critical F-15s engaged in combat missions in the Middle East.[84] By 13 November 2007, over 1,100 were grounded worldwide after Israel, Japan and Saudi Arabia grounded their aircraft as well.[85] F-15Es were cleared on 15 November 2007 pending aircraft passing inspections.[86] On 8 January 2008, the USAF cleared 60 percent of the F-15A/B/C/D fleet for return to flight.[56] On 10 January 2008, the accident review board released its report stating the 2 November crash was related to the longeron not meeting drawing specifications.[57] The Air Force cleared all its grounded F-15A-D fighters for flight on 15 February 2008 pending inspections, reviews and any needed repairs.[59] In March 2008, Stilwell, the injured pilot, filed a lawsuit against Boeing, the F-15's manufacturer.[87]
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 5:52:16 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Billions down the drain for a fighter that can't go above 10,000 feet. What a colossal waste of money. Money that could have been spent paying off the debt.


Don't type nonsense, you don't have even the slightest inkling of which you speak to the point that you're ridiculous.


Quoted:
From what I understand these things are a hazmat nightmare due to the composites and materials used in their construction.  What a mess.  


Once the fire is out, there's not much to worry over, it's no different than approaching the airplane before it burns.  Fumes while burning might be somewhat toxic, so everyone needs to stay upwind.



Admittedly this is a B2, but you don't regularly see guys dressed like the bottom pic when most planes crash.


You forgot something.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 5:54:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Time for a red Bremont MBII watch for him!
 
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 6:01:08 PM EDT
[#8]
We lose F-18s all the time and I don't see anybody demanding we ground the fleet or calling it a waste of money.

#$%@ happens.

Grow up folks. We've got way too many idiots here just praying that we cut defense to the bone in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, our liberal friends will see the light and cut entitlement spending.  It's Ron Paul appease the enemy and hope they're reasonable bullshit that never works.

Link Posted: 11/16/2012 6:03:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We could have bought a shit ton of F-16's and F-15's for what this nightmare is going to and already has cost us.


And probably even more Sopwith Camels, too, and they would be equally useful in the 2020 battlespace.  What's your point?


Well propeller driven aircraft are basically useless nowadays right?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Super_Tucano_at_URUBRA_I_exercise.jpg


I think we all know where this thread is going, so I made Sylvan a meme to save him some time.

http://s17.postimage.org/rjzw6xy6l/Arfcom_CASThread.jpg

Teasing Sylvan aside, I'm glad the Pilot is okay and I'm glad it looks like the airframe won't be a total loss.

LOL

Link Posted: 11/16/2012 6:06:22 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Billions down the drain for a fighter that can't go above 10,000 feet. What a colossal waste of money. Money that could have been spent paying off the debt.


Don't type nonsense, you don't have even the slightest inkling of which you speak to the point that you're ridiculous.


Quoted:
From what I understand these things are a hazmat nightmare due to the composites and materials used in their construction.  What a mess.  


Once the fire is out, there's not much to worry over, it's no different than approaching the airplane before it burns.  Fumes while burning might be somewhat toxic, so everyone needs to stay upwind.



Exactly what was nonsense?

Program cost is 66.7 billion. Since 2010 it has been plagued with problems with its oxygen system. They MAY have fixed it.

Stop me when I'm wrong here ...

Link Posted: 11/16/2012 6:17:34 PM EDT
[#11]
Sorry to hear that, the F-22 is a beautiful and complex aircraft.

I'm glad the pilot ejected safely and is ok. Something obviously went wrong and I hope the cause is found quickly and corrected. Beit mechanical or pilot error, this is still a new aircraft and the training regiment must be a handful both for the pilots and those who maintain them.

I believe that more military aircraft are lost through training excercises than they are in combat. It's a risky business but it comes with the territory.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 6:29:20 PM EDT
[#12]
I'm thinking bird strike, the Raptor probably ate a flock of birds, sucked em down and at the lower RPMs of the engine on approach (I am assuming it was on approach seeing how it crashed on the base, I guess it could have been taking off as well)

Either way, eating a flock of birds that close to the ground could be the cause of the problem, too close to recover, possible too much damage to the engine to recover so the best thing to do is to get out, glad the pilot got out, after all, he is more important than the jet.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 6:29:22 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Billions down the drain for a fighter that can't go above 10,000 feet. What a colossal waste of money. Money that could have been spent paying off the debt.


Don't type nonsense, you don't have even the slightest inkling of which you speak to the point that you're ridiculous.


Quoted:
From what I understand these things are a hazmat nightmare due to the composites and materials used in their construction.  What a mess.  


Once the fire is out, there's not much to worry over, it's no different than approaching the airplane before it burns.  Fumes while burning might be somewhat toxic, so everyone needs to stay upwind.



Exactly what was nonsense?

Program cost is 66.7 billion. Since 2010 it has been plagued with problems with its oxygen system. They MAY have fixed it.

Stop me when I'm wrong here ...



Stop.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 7:05:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Billions down the drain for a fighter that can't go above 10,000 feet. What a colossal waste of money. Money that could have been spent paying off the debt.


Don't type nonsense, you don't have even the slightest inkling of which you speak to the point that you're ridiculous.


Quoted:
From what I understand these things are a hazmat nightmare due to the composites and materials used in their construction.  What a mess.  


Once the fire is out, there's not much to worry over, it's no different than approaching the airplane before it burns.  Fumes while burning might be somewhat toxic, so everyone needs to stay upwind.



Admittedly this is a B2, but you don't regularly see guys dressed like the bottom pic when most planes crash.


You forgot something.


[George Takei] Oh my. [/George Takei]
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 7:09:28 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:

...cut...
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.

 


In this thread and others, you keep making statements about the aircraft poisoning the pilots.  This does not appear to be the case.

I'll reiterate what I've said before.  There is no substantive evidence of any toxins in the pilots' breathing air.  There is no evidence of systemic undetected low O2 conditions with the OBOGS.  There is no evidence of systemic insufficient OBOGS pressure/flow.


However there is but one system the OBOGS designed and installed to prevent hypoxia, yet the pilots get hypoxia symptoms.

Weird that the problem can't possibly be in the OBOGS.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 8:45:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

...cut...
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.

 


In this thread and others, you keep making statements about the aircraft poisoning the pilots.  This does not appear to be the case.

I'll reiterate what I've said before.  There is no substantive evidence of any toxins in the pilots' breathing air.  There is no evidence of systemic undetected low O2 conditions with the OBOGS.  There is no evidence of systemic insufficient OBOGS pressure/flow.


However there is but one system the OBOGS designed and installed to prevent hypoxia, yet the pilots get hypoxia symptoms.

Weird that the problem can't possibly be in the OBOGS.


%O2, pressure, temperature, you name it, it's all being monitored.  When the interface conditions aren't being met for x amount of time, an OBOGS FAIL will assert.  To date, there isn't any correlation of OBOGS FAIL and the hypoxic symptoms.

One minute the pilot is at pressure conditions greater than sea level, the next minute, the cockpit pressure is indistinguishable from the Himalayas.  And add g-forces on top of that.  Now add the capacitance and lag factor of human physiology on top of that.  The normal operating parameter of a tactical fighter cockpit is not a benign environment.  When you get to the edges of the envelope a little bit faster than before, some other seemingly insignificant factors might begin to manifest.
Link Posted: 11/16/2012 9:48:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty high loss rate for a modern aircraft that has yet to even see a hostile aircraft on radar.  


The F-22 protgram has lost 4 airframes since it began back in the late 1980s.  IIRC the F-14 lost 4 airframes in one month of prototype testing.  That program didn't get cancelled and a damn good aircraft with a long and good service record was the result.

Four aircraft out of 187 produced is not a high loss rate.  We have simply gotten used to having so very few non-combat losses that it seems high to some people.

Learn from the past and realize that we are light years ahead of the sorts of loss rates that plagued military aviation a few decades ago.  They didn't coin sayings like "One a day in Tampa Bay" for nothing.

The Air Force would lose close to one hundred planes per year back in my time.  And the Navy paid in blood to develop the technologies of jet aircraft operating on their carriers.  And now military aviation is approaching cilvil aviation levels of safety in what is really and apples and grapefruit comparison, given the different demands of the two.

It's a shame that the aircraft went down and it is a loss to national capabilities, as is every lost military aircraft.  But to try and come across like one airframe being lost equates to time to end the program is foolhardy.
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.

 


Yeah, because JP8, hydraulic fluid, various cleaning and corrosion preventative compounds, and high-solids epoxy paints used on every other aircraft in the world aren't toxic or carcinogenic at all....
Link Posted: 11/17/2012 7:10:20 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

...cut...
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.

 


In this thread and others, you keep making statements about the aircraft poisoning the pilots.  This does not appear to be the case.

I'll reiterate what I've said before.  There is no substantive evidence of any toxins in the pilots' breathing air.  There is no evidence of systemic undetected low O2 conditions with the OBOGS.  There is no evidence of systemic insufficient OBOGS pressure/flow.


However there is but one system the OBOGS designed and installed to prevent hypoxia, yet the pilots get hypoxia symptoms.

Weird that the problem can't possibly be in the OBOGS.


%O2, pressure, temperature, you name it, it's all being monitored.  When the interface conditions aren't being met for x amount of time, an OBOGS FAIL will assert.  To date, there isn't any correlation of OBOGS FAIL and the hypoxic symptoms.

One minute the pilot is at pressure conditions greater than sea level, the next minute, the cockpit pressure is indistinguishable from the Himalayas.  And add g-forces on top of that.  Now add the capacitance and lag factor of human physiology on top of that.  The normal operating parameter of a tactical fighter cockpit is not a benign environment.  When you get to the edges of the envelope a little bit faster than before, some other seemingly insignificant factors might begin to manifest.


You are talking to someone that got hypoxic while flying an F15 because the outflow valve got stuck open and the 02 regulator malfunctioned. I was sitting in the cockpit doing math, then not recognizing anything I was looking at and had no idea where I was or what I was doing while I was hand flying. I came back from certain death when my hand gang loaded the regulator. I watched it like a video, completely detached from what was going on. Then spent 5.5 hours in a navy dive chamber getting re-compressed for the bends. I know what the physiological environment is.

I have been to 55,000 feet without a pressure suit. How fast you go from sea level to 50,000 feet doesn't really matter. I know the cockpit pressure is a differential. I know the F22 climbs faster than other fighters have. I flew with combat edge.  Whether it is hypoxia, toxic hypoxia ( which I also had due to a circuit board fire in the cockpit, or some other physiological problem that impairs the pilot's ability to function does not matter.

The OBOGS system  and the pressurization systems are  the sole life support systems on the jet to maintain life support. If something physiological is happening to pilots while in the jet that compromises their ability to operate the jet, ( assuming they are not in an environment that requires a pressure suit) then the life support symptoms are not working the way they needs to work. It really is that simple. Either the OBOGS is not working like it needs to work or there is some new unknown physiological problem that has never been seen before that has to do with reducing pressure to the body a bit faster then we have done in the past and increasing the partial pressure of 02 consistant with pressure in the cockpit doesn't prevent it. Given our experience in other fighters, the space program and high altitude operations I doubt there is some new unknown pressure effect on the body. Which leaves the OBOGS.

The fact that it appears to be intermittent and the problem can not be found does not mean there is not a problem.

Link Posted: 11/17/2012 9:54:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Mach, thank you.

Mike
Link Posted: 11/17/2012 10:34:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Well if it gets really bad you can always buy Eurofighter


Poop thread, IBTL.





Quoted:
Should have used an F-35.


Yep, now it's DEFINITELY a poop thread.











Glad we only lost an aircraft and not a pilot along with it.
Link Posted: 11/17/2012 10:43:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
$150,000,000 lawn dart!



Glad the pilot made it out.

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.3.2) (and the original thread).
Libertardians: maximizing libertarian losses since 2008.
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»
Link Posted: 11/18/2012 5:10:41 AM EDT
[#22]
Link Posted: 11/18/2012 6:19:12 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

...cut...
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.

 


In this thread and others, you keep making statements about the aircraft poisoning the pilots.  This does not appear to be the case.

I'll reiterate what I've said before.  There is no substantive evidence of any toxins in the pilots' breathing air.  There is no evidence of systemic undetected low O2 conditions with the OBOGS.  There is no evidence of systemic insufficient OBOGS pressure/flow.


However there is but one system the OBOGS designed and installed to prevent hypoxia, yet the pilots get hypoxia symptoms.

Weird that the problem can't possibly be in the OBOGS.


%O2, pressure, temperature, you name it, it's all being monitored.  When the interface conditions aren't being met for x amount of time, an OBOGS FAIL will assert.  To date, there isn't any correlation of OBOGS FAIL and the hypoxic symptoms.

One minute the pilot is at pressure conditions greater than sea level, the next minute, the cockpit pressure is indistinguishable from the Himalayas.  And add g-forces on top of that.  Now add the capacitance and lag factor of human physiology on top of that.  The normal operating parameter of a tactical fighter cockpit is not a benign environment.  When you get to the edges of the envelope a little bit faster than before, some other seemingly insignificant factors might begin to manifest.


You are talking to someone that got hypoxic while flying an F15 because the outflow valve got stuck open and the 02 regulator malfunctioned. I was sitting in the cockpit doing math, then not recognizing anything I was looking at and had no idea where I was or what I was doing while I was hand flying. I came back from certain death when my hand gang loaded the regulator. I watched it like a video, completely detached from what was going on. Then spent 5.5 hours in a navy dive chamber getting re-compressed for the bends. I know what the physiological environment is.

I have been to 55,000 feet without a pressure suit. How fast you go from sea level to 50,000 feet doesn't really matter. I know the cockpit pressure is a differential. I know the F22 climbs faster than other fighters have. I flew with combat edge.  Whether it is hypoxia, toxic hypoxia ( which I also had due to a circuit board fire in the cockpit, or some other physiological problem that impairs the pilot's ability to function does not matter.

The OBOGS system  and the pressurization systems are  the sole life support systems on the jet to maintain life support. If something physiological is happening to pilots while in the jet that compromises their ability to operate the jet, ( assuming they are not in an environment that requires a pressure suit) then the life support symptoms are not working the way they needs to work. It really is that simple. Either the OBOGS is not working like it needs to work or there is some new unknown physiological problem that has never been seen before that has to do with reducing pressure to the body a bit faster then we have done in the past and increasing the partial pressure of 02 consistant with pressure in the cockpit doesn't prevent it. Given our experience in other fighters, the space program and high altitude operations I doubt there is some new unknown pressure effect on the body. Which leaves the OBOGS.

The fact that it appears to be intermittent and the problem can not be found does not mean there is not a problem.



This pretty much sums up the
Person_1: "Fix the dang OBOGS"
Person_2: "But, I don't think the problem is OBOGS low flow/O2"
back and forth that's been going on for the past two years.

If this problem is being exacerbated by atelectasis, then I'm not sure increased O2 is going to help.

Regarding your hypoxia incident with the stuck cockpit pressure regulator valve (and O2 reg), did you not get some sort of cockpit pressure warning during the flight?  If you were flying with an under-pressurized cockpit and no warning of such, then you could have easily flown off into the sunset, even if the O2 regulator was functioning properly.
Link Posted: 11/18/2012 10:28:45 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So... How many Tyndall/Panama City members we got on this site?





I started this thread while stuck on the Dupont bridge.


That sucks buddy, we sent a couple deputies to help with traffic when the call came out, don't know why AF closed hwy 98, guys are saying the crash site is well of the Road into the woods by the drone runway


IIRC there is a 2000' withdraw distance from a burning F-22 due to the toxic fumes.


Ah, that would probably explain it, thanks for the info, the AF asked for help but didn't tell us shit


I believe the same rule applies to the B-2. The one that crashed was pretty much "hands-off".
Link Posted: 11/18/2012 10:41:28 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Billions down the drain for a fighter that can't go above 10,000 feet. What a colossal waste of money. Money that could have been spent paying off the debt.


Don't type nonsense, you don't have even the slightest inkling of which you speak to the point that you're ridiculous.


Quoted:
From what I understand these things are a hazmat nightmare due to the composites and materials used in their construction.  What a mess.  


Once the fire is out, there's not much to worry over, it's no different than approaching the airplane before it burns.  Fumes while burning might be somewhat toxic, so everyone needs to stay upwind.



Exactly what was nonsense?

Program cost is 66.7 billion. Since 2010 it has been plagued with problems with its oxygen system. They MAY have fixed it.

Stop me when I'm wrong here ...



Your 10000 foot ceiling claim is patent nonsense.

The oxygen system is a troubling problem, and I'm surprised it persists, however I have an opinion about the reason that I won't discusss here.  This isn't a technology that is a mystery.  The processes in place should have uncovered the exact reason or reasons by now and the persistence means that something in that process has broken down.





the F-22 was ordered to stay below 40,000 ( I think ) during the hypoxia investigation. That  was  simply a precaution, and the 10000 ft ceiling figure is flat out wrong. I'll be charitable and  assume the number was "mis-remebered" by the poster as 10K.
My Dad always said that a plane crash with no loss of life was a perfect landing.
Link Posted: 11/18/2012 4:12:04 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

...cut...
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.

 


In this thread and others, you keep making statements about the aircraft poisoning the pilots.  This does not appear to be the case.

I'll reiterate what I've said before.  There is no substantive evidence of any toxins in the pilots' breathing air.  There is no evidence of systemic undetected low O2 conditions with the OBOGS.  There is no evidence of systemic insufficient OBOGS pressure/flow.


However there is but one system the OBOGS designed and installed to prevent hypoxia, yet the pilots get hypoxia symptoms.

Weird that the problem can't possibly be in the OBOGS.


%O2, pressure, temperature, you name it, it's all being monitored.  When the interface conditions aren't being met for x amount of time, an OBOGS FAIL will assert.  To date, there isn't any correlation of OBOGS FAIL and the hypoxic symptoms.

One minute the pilot is at pressure conditions greater than sea level, the next minute, the cockpit pressure is indistinguishable from the Himalayas.  And add g-forces on top of that.  Now add the capacitance and lag factor of human physiology on top of that.  The normal operating parameter of a tactical fighter cockpit is not a benign environment.  When you get to the edges of the envelope a little bit faster than before, some other seemingly insignificant factors might begin to manifest.


You are talking to someone that got hypoxic while flying an F15 because the outflow valve got stuck open and the 02 regulator malfunctioned. I was sitting in the cockpit doing math, then not recognizing anything I was looking at and had no idea where I was or what I was doing while I was hand flying. I came back from certain death when my hand gang loaded the regulator. I watched it like a video, completely detached from what was going on. Then spent 5.5 hours in a navy dive chamber getting re-compressed for the bends. I know what the physiological environment is.

I have been to 55,000 feet without a pressure suit. How fast you go from sea level to 50,000 feet doesn't really matter. I know the cockpit pressure is a differential. I know the F22 climbs faster than other fighters have. I flew with combat edge.  Whether it is hypoxia, toxic hypoxia ( which I also had due to a circuit board fire in the cockpit, or some other physiological problem that impairs the pilot's ability to function does not matter.

The OBOGS system  and the pressurization systems are  the sole life support systems on the jet to maintain life support. If something physiological is happening to pilots while in the jet that compromises their ability to operate the jet, ( assuming they are not in an environment that requires a pressure suit) then the life support symptoms are not working the way they needs to work. It really is that simple. Either the OBOGS is not working like it needs to work or there is some new unknown physiological problem that has never been seen before that has to do with reducing pressure to the body a bit faster then we have done in the past and increasing the partial pressure of 02 consistant with pressure in the cockpit doesn't prevent it. Given our experience in other fighters, the space program and high altitude operations I doubt there is some new unknown pressure effect on the body. Which leaves the OBOGS.

The fact that it appears to be intermittent and the problem can not be found does not mean there is not a problem.



This pretty much sums up the
Person_1: "Fix the dang OBOGS"
Person_2: "But, I don't think the problem is OBOGS low flow/O2"
back and forth that's been going on for the past two years.

If this problem is being exacerbated by atelectasis, then I'm not sure increased O2 is going to help.

Regarding your hypoxia incident with the stuck cockpit pressure regulator valve (and O2 reg), did you not get some sort of cockpit pressure warning during the flight?  If you were flying with an under-pressurized cockpit and no warning of such, then you could have easily flown off into the sunset, even if the O2 regulator was functioning properly.


F15s ( at least the ones I flew) don't have any warning for a cockpit pressurization problem except the very tiny cockpit altimeter blocked from view by the pilots right knee. Lose ECS pressure sure. But not loss of pressurization with the ECS functioning normally.

If the regulator was functioning properly I would not have gotten hypoxic but I woud have gotten the bends, like I did.
I almost did fly off into the sunset. I was competely dysfunctional. My hand moved the switched, but I did not move my hand.

Atelectasis is outside pressure against the lungs. Are you saying combat edge could be causing this. We used combat edge for more than a decade before the F22 with no problems.

Maybe there is a combat edge replacement system that I am not aware of?
Link Posted: 11/18/2012 4:13:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Billions down the drain for a fighter that can't go above 10,000 feet. What a colossal waste of money. Money that could have been spent paying off the debt.


Don't type nonsense, you don't have even the slightest inkling of which you speak to the point that you're ridiculous.


Quoted:
From what I understand these things are a hazmat nightmare due to the composites and materials used in their construction.  What a mess.  


Once the fire is out, there's not much to worry over, it's no different than approaching the airplane before it burns.  Fumes while burning might be somewhat toxic, so everyone needs to stay upwind.



Exactly what was nonsense?

Program cost is 66.7 billion. Since 2010 it has been plagued with problems with its oxygen system. They MAY have fixed it.

Stop me when I'm wrong here ...



Your 10000 foot ceiling claim is patent nonsense.

The oxygen system is a troubling problem, and I'm surprised it persists, however I have an opinion about the reason that I won't discusss here.  This isn't a technology that is a mystery.  The processes in place should have uncovered the exact reason or reasons by now and the persistence means that something in that process has broken down.





the F-22 was ordered to stay below 40,000 ( I think ) during the hypoxia investigation. That  was  simply a precaution, and the 10000 ft ceiling figure is flat out wrong. I'll be charitable and  assume the number was "mis-remebered" by the poster as 10K.
My Dad always said that a plane crash with no loss of life was a perfect landing.


Tell that to the safety pukes
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 9:52:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty high loss rate for a modern aircraft that has yet to even see a hostile aircraft on radar.  


Obviously you know nothing about the F22 do you? Let me make this simple I work on the 22, Im a crew chief up at Elmendorf and was down at Tyndall for 6 years before the 4 years up here. Anyhow the F22 is deployed all over the world as we speak it has seen more than one Hostile aircraft up here in Alaska much less in other parts of the world. If you dont know anything about these Aircraft stop posting all this stupid shit you know nothing about. Also you need to remember OPSEC if you guys are military and not be talking about shit thats not supposed to be mentioned on here. And one last thing is Tyndall is where we train new pilots on the F22 so dont blame the Jet human error could be a factor and we wont know until a proper investigation is completed.


I'm pretty sure he meant hostile as in enemy that you shoot at....not hostile as in not an enemy that you wave to and ask to turn around.  And it is a high loss rate for something that the country invested so much in, something that is supposed to be around long enough for my grandkids to fly it...


The F-22 protgram has lost 4 airframes since it began back in the late 1980s.  IIRC the F-14 lost 4 airframes in one month of prototype testing.  That program didn't get cancelled and a damn good aircraft with a long and good service record was the result.

Four aircraft out of 187 produced is not a high loss rate.  We have simply gotten used to having so very few non-combat losses that it seems high to some people.

Learn from the past and realize that we are light years ahead of the sorts of loss rates that plagued military aviation a few decades ago.  They didn't coin sayings like "One a day in Tampa Bay" for nothing.

The Air Force would lose close to one hundred planes per year back in my time.  And the Navy paid in blood to develop the technologies of jet aircraft operating on their carriers.  And now military aviation is approaching cilvil aviation levels of safety in what is really and apples and grapefruit comparison, given the different demands of the two.

It's a shame that the aircraft went down and it is a loss to national capabilities, as is every lost military aircraft.  But to try and come across like one airframe being lost equates to time to end the program is foolhardy.


The F-22 has flown about 120,000 hours, and 4 have been lost.

From eyeball interpolation of data publicly available from the Air Force Safety Center, at 120,000 hrs:

8 F-15s had been lost

14 F-16s had been lost

44 F-100s had been lost

Since at least the 80s, every program has been "problem plagued" and "a huge waste of money".  

Link Posted: 11/19/2012 2:39:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty high loss rate for a modern aircraft that has yet to even see a hostile aircraft on radar.  


Obviously you know nothing about the F22 do you? Let me make this simple I work on the 22, Im a crew chief up at Elmendorf and was down at Tyndall for 6 years before the 4 years up here. Anyhow the F22 is deployed all over the world as we speak it has seen more than one Hostile aircraft up here in Alaska much less in other parts of the world. If you dont know anything about these Aircraft stop posting all this stupid shit you know nothing about. Also you need to remember OPSEC if you guys are military and not be talking about shit thats not supposed to be mentioned on here. And one last thing is Tyndall is where we train new pilots on the F22 so dont blame the Jet human error could be a factor and we wont know until a proper investigation is completed.


I'm pretty sure he meant hostile as in enemy that you shoot at....not hostile as in not an enemy that you wave to and ask to turn around.  And it is a high loss rate for something that the country invested so much in, something that is supposed to be around long enough for my grandkids to fly it...


The F-22 protgram has lost 4 airframes since it began back in the late 1980s.  IIRC the F-14 lost 4 airframes in one month of prototype testing.  That program didn't get cancelled and a damn good aircraft with a long and good service record was the result.

Four aircraft out of 187 produced is not a high loss rate.  We have simply gotten used to having so very few non-combat losses that it seems high to some people.

Learn from the past and realize that we are light years ahead of the sorts of loss rates that plagued military aviation a few decades ago.  They didn't coin sayings like "One a day in Tampa Bay" for nothing.

The Air Force would lose close to one hundred planes per year back in my time.  And the Navy paid in blood to develop the technologies of jet aircraft operating on their carriers.  And now military aviation is approaching cilvil aviation levels of safety in what is really and apples and grapefruit comparison, given the different demands of the two.

It's a shame that the aircraft went down and it is a loss to national capabilities, as is every lost military aircraft.  But to try and come across like one airframe being lost equates to time to end the program is foolhardy.


The F-22 has flown about 120,000 hours, and 4 have been lost.

From eyeball interpolation of data publicly available from the Air Force Safety Center, at 120,000 hrs:

8 F-15s had been lost

14 F-16s had been lost

44 F-100s had been lost

Since at least the 80s, every program has been "problem plagued" and "a huge waste of money".  



The F15 throughout it's career has had an average of 1 lost for every 33,000 hours of flying.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 2:44:16 PM EDT
[#30]
Crash site pics added to OP
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 2:50:48 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
The F-22 has flown about 120,000 hours, and 4 have been lost.

From eyeball interpolation of data publicly available from the Air Force Safety Center, at 120,000 hrs:

8 F-15s had been lost

14 F-16s had been lost

44 F-100s had been lost

Since at least the 80s, every program has been "problem plagued" and "a huge waste of money".  



Welcome to the site!

Link Posted: 11/19/2012 2:57:34 PM EDT
[#32]
All I have to say is that I'm surprised at how little debris is left when an F-22 burns to the ground.   All those composites mostly turn to smoke.



I guess that makes it easy to figure out how to deal with the airframes when they are finally so old and worn out that they're just junk to dispose of.

Douse them in avgas,  light it, and what's left can be swept into a dumpster.





CJ
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 2:57:38 PM EDT
[#33]



Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:

Pretty high loss rate for a modern aircraft that has yet to even see a hostile aircraft on radar.  




Obviously you know nothing about the F22 do you? Let me make this simple I work on the 22, Im a crew chief up at Elmendorf and was down at Tyndall for 6 years before the 4 years up here. Anyhow the F22 is deployed all over the world as we speak it has seen more than one Hostile aircraft up here in Alaska much less in other parts of the world. If you dont know anything about these Aircraft stop posting all this stupid shit you know nothing about. Also you need to remember OPSEC if you guys are military and not be talking about shit thats not supposed to be mentioned on here. And one last thing is Tyndall is where we train new pilots on the F22 so dont blame the Jet human error could be a factor and we wont know until a proper investigation is completed.





I'm pretty sure he meant hostile as in enemy that you shoot at....not hostile as in not an enemy that you wave to and ask to turn around.  And it is a high loss rate for something that the country invested so much in, something that is supposed to be around long enough for my grandkids to fly it...





The F-22 protgram has lost 4 airframes since it began back in the late 1980s.  IIRC the F-14 lost 4 airframes in one month of prototype testing.  That program didn't get cancelled and a damn good aircraft with a long and good service record was the result.



Four aircraft out of 187 produced is not a high loss rate.  We have simply gotten used to having so very few non-combat losses that it seems high to some people.



Learn from the past and realize that we are light years ahead of the sorts of loss rates that plagued military aviation a few decades ago.  They didn't coin sayings like "One a day in Tampa Bay" for nothing.



The Air Force would lose close to one hundred planes per year back in my time.  And the Navy paid in blood to develop the technologies of jet aircraft operating on their carriers.  And now military aviation is approaching cilvil aviation levels of safety in what is really and apples and grapefruit comparison, given the different demands of the two.



It's a shame that the aircraft went down and it is a loss to national capabilities, as is every lost military aircraft.  But to try and come across like one airframe being lost equates to time to end the program is foolhardy.




The F-22 has flown about 120,000 hours, and 4 have been lost.



From eyeball interpolation of data publicly available from the Air Force Safety Center, at 120,000 hrs:



8 F-15s had been lost



14 F-16s had been lost



44 F-100s had been lost



Since at least the 80s, every program has been "problem plagued" and "a huge waste of money".  



Compare the loss rate to modern (circa 200) aircraft like the Eurofighter.





 
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 3:03:49 PM EDT
[#34]
TAG to read the words of the informed.  Mach and AeroE do fine work.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 3:10:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty high loss rate for a modern aircraft that has yet to even see a hostile aircraft on radar.  


Obviously you know nothing about the F22 do you? Let me make this simple I work on the 22, Im a crew chief up at Elmendorf and was down at Tyndall for 6 years before the 4 years up here. Anyhow the F22 is deployed all over the world as we speak it has seen more than one Hostile aircraft up here in Alaska much less in other parts of the world. If you dont know anything about these Aircraft stop posting all this stupid shit you know nothing about. Also you need to remember OPSEC if you guys are military and not be talking about shit thats not supposed to be mentioned on here. And one last thing is Tyndall is where we train new pilots on the F22 so dont blame the Jet human error could be a factor and we wont know until a proper investigation is completed.


I'm pretty sure he meant hostile as in enemy that you shoot at....not hostile as in not an enemy that you wave to and ask to turn around.  And it is a high loss rate for something that the country invested so much in, something that is supposed to be around long enough for my grandkids to fly it...


The F-22 protgram has lost 4 airframes since it began back in the late 1980s.  IIRC the F-14 lost 4 airframes in one month of prototype testing.  That program didn't get cancelled and a damn good aircraft with a long and good service record was the result.

Four aircraft out of 187 produced is not a high loss rate.  We have simply gotten used to having so very few non-combat losses that it seems high to some people.

Learn from the past and realize that we are light years ahead of the sorts of loss rates that plagued military aviation a few decades ago.  They didn't coin sayings like "One a day in Tampa Bay" for nothing.

The Air Force would lose close to one hundred planes per year back in my time.  And the Navy paid in blood to develop the technologies of jet aircraft operating on their carriers.  And now military aviation is approaching cilvil aviation levels of safety in what is really and apples and grapefruit comparison, given the different demands of the two.

It's a shame that the aircraft went down and it is a loss to national capabilities, as is every lost military aircraft.  But to try and come across like one airframe being lost equates to time to end the program is foolhardy.


The F-22 has flown about 120,000 hours, and 4 have been lost.

From eyeball interpolation of data publicly available from the Air Force Safety Center, at 120,000 hrs:

8 F-15s had been lost

14 F-16s had been lost

44 F-100s had been lost

Since at least the 80s, every program has been "problem plagued" and "a huge waste of money".  



Back in the '80's, the TAF used to lose right at one squadron's worth (~24) of F-16's in any given year.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 3:21:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Think you had a bad day for the first day of a new job?

Home of Air Dominance welcomes new commander

325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

11/14/2012

TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. –– Col. David Graff, previous 325th Fighter Wing vice commander, took command of the 325th FW from Brig. Gen. John K. McMullen in a change of command ceremony today.

"I am so honored and humbled to be standing here and taking command," Colonel Graff said. "General McMullen you have put Tyndall on the right path. Providing air dominance for America is not negotiable and, as your vice, I feel you have prepared me to continue the mission."

Prior to arriving at Tyndall in July 2012, Colonel Graff attended the National War College, Ft. McNair, Washington, D.C. He received his Air Force commission through the Air Force Academy in 1993 and completed F-15C Eagle initial qualification training at Tyndall in 1995. The colonel returned to Tyndall in 1998 and served as an instructor pilot and weapons officer in the then-2nd Fighter Squadron until 1999.

Officiating today's ceremony was Maj. Gen. Lawrence Wells, Ninth Air Force commander, Shaw Air Force Base, S.C, which is comprised of eight active duty wings, including the 325th FW, and two direct reporting units, all located in the Southeastern U.S.

"'Sir, I assume command' are four of the sweetest words any officer will ever say and 'Sir, I relinquish command' are four of the most painful words an officer will ever say," said General Wells. "Colonel Graff, you are well prepared to lead the 325th FW. General, you and Mrs. McMullen will both be missed."

General McMullen and his family are headed to Ramstein Air Base, Germany. The general will fill the position of Deputy Chief of Staff Operations at North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Headquarters Allied Air Command.

"It seems like yesterday that I was standing on this stage getting ready to take command and assume the responsibility of guiding these Airmen," General McMullen said. "It has been an honor to lead these great Airmen standing before us. I can't thank you enough for this opportunity. Kim and I have absolutely loved every moment of this assignment. We love the mission, the area, and most importantly, we love the people. I wish you all the best."

The 325th FW, with the mission to train and project unrivaled combat power, consists of more than 4,000 personnel who train F-22 Raptor pilots, intelligence officers, maintainers, and other specialties. Tyndall is host to numerous tenant units and supports 23,000 Airmen, civilians, contractors, and their families. Additionally, Tyndall has more than $570 million in local economic impact.




Link Posted: 11/19/2012 3:32:41 PM EDT
[#37]
Have to also consider number of sorties flown, flight regiments followed, etc. We may be flying ours harder than they are. Or flying them in some different regiment.
Or, or, or...

sometimes hard to correlate different programs, when all they have in common is new aircraft. lots and lots of factors to consider. Is the Eurofighter considered same generation of technology?

Quoted:
Compare the loss rate to modern (circa 200) aircraft like the Eurofighter.

 

Link Posted: 11/19/2012 5:46:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

...cut...
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.

 


In this thread and others, you keep making statements about the aircraft poisoning the pilots.  This does not appear to be the case.

I'll reiterate what I've said before.  There is no substantive evidence of any toxins in the pilots' breathing air.  There is no evidence of systemic undetected low O2 conditions with the OBOGS.  There is no evidence of systemic insufficient OBOGS pressure/flow.


However there is but one system the OBOGS designed and installed to prevent hypoxia, yet the pilots get hypoxia symptoms.

Weird that the problem can't possibly be in the OBOGS.


%O2, pressure, temperature, you name it, it's all being monitored.  When the interface conditions aren't being met for x amount of time, an OBOGS FAIL will assert.  To date, there isn't any correlation of OBOGS FAIL and the hypoxic symptoms.

One minute the pilot is at pressure conditions greater than sea level, the next minute, the cockpit pressure is indistinguishable from the Himalayas.  And add g-forces on top of that.  Now add the capacitance and lag factor of human physiology on top of that.  The normal operating parameter of a tactical fighter cockpit is not a benign environment.  When you get to the edges of the envelope a little bit faster than before, some other seemingly insignificant factors might begin to manifest.


You are talking to someone that got hypoxic while flying an F15 because the outflow valve got stuck open and the 02 regulator malfunctioned. I was sitting in the cockpit doing math, then not recognizing anything I was looking at and had no idea where I was or what I was doing while I was hand flying. I came back from certain death when my hand gang loaded the regulator. I watched it like a video, completely detached from what was going on. Then spent 5.5 hours in a navy dive chamber getting re-compressed for the bends. I know what the physiological environment is.

I have been to 55,000 feet without a pressure suit. How fast you go from sea level to 50,000 feet doesn't really matter. I know the cockpit pressure is a differential. I know the F22 climbs faster than other fighters have. I flew with combat edge.  Whether it is hypoxia, toxic hypoxia ( which I also had due to a circuit board fire in the cockpit, or some other physiological problem that impairs the pilot's ability to function does not matter.

The OBOGS system  and the pressurization systems are  the sole life support systems on the jet to maintain life support. If something physiological is happening to pilots while in the jet that compromises their ability to operate the jet, ( assuming they are not in an environment that requires a pressure suit) then the life support symptoms are not working the way they needs to work. It really is that simple. Either the OBOGS is not working like it needs to work or there is some new unknown physiological problem that has never been seen before that has to do with reducing pressure to the body a bit faster then we have done in the past and increasing the partial pressure of 02 consistant with pressure in the cockpit doesn't prevent it. Given our experience in other fighters, the space program and high altitude operations I doubt there is some new unknown pressure effect on the body. Which leaves the OBOGS.

The fact that it appears to be intermittent and the problem can not be found does not mean there is not a problem.



Can't they just use existing OBOGS? from the Eagle or if new is required what does the Super Hornet or Euro fighter use?

Link Posted: 11/20/2012 3:35:34 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

...cut...
The Tomcat is a 1960s aircraft. I don't consider it modern. The F-22 poisons pilots, is hazardous to work on, and is no longer in production. It also has the highest accident rate of any aircraft in current service.

 


In this thread and others, you keep making statements about the aircraft poisoning the pilots.  This does not appear to be the case.



Can't they just use existing OBOGS? from the Eagle or if new is required what does the Super Hornet or Euro fighter use?



OBOGS isn't a box you just bolt in. It's an integral system involving the engine, filtration, thermal exchange, and a lot of routed hard lines.
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:32:44 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty high loss rate for a modern aircraft that has yet to even see a hostile aircraft on radar.  


Obviously you know nothing about the F22 do you? Let me make this simple I work on the 22, Im a crew chief up at Elmendorf and was down at Tyndall for 6 years before the 4 years up here. Anyhow the F22 is deployed all over the world as we speak it has seen more than one Hostile aircraft up here in Alaska much less in other parts of the world. If you dont know anything about these Aircraft stop posting all this stupid shit you know nothing about. Also you need to remember OPSEC if you guys are military and not be talking about shit thats not supposed to be mentioned on here. And one last thing is Tyndall is where we train new pilots on the F22 so dont blame the Jet human error could be a factor and we wont know until a proper investigation is completed.


I'm pretty sure he meant hostile as in enemy that you shoot at....not hostile as in not an enemy that you wave to and ask to turn around.  And it is a high loss rate for something that the country invested so much in, something that is supposed to be around long enough for my grandkids to fly it...


The F-22 protgram has lost 4 airframes since it began back in the late 1980s.  IIRC the F-14 lost 4 airframes in one month of prototype testing.  That program didn't get cancelled and a damn good aircraft with a long and good service record was the result.

Four aircraft out of 187 produced is not a high loss rate.  We have simply gotten used to having so very few non-combat losses that it seems high to some people.

Learn from the past and realize that we are light years ahead of the sorts of loss rates that plagued military aviation a few decades ago.  They didn't coin sayings like "One a day in Tampa Bay" for nothing.

The Air Force would lose close to one hundred planes per year back in my time.  And the Navy paid in blood to develop the technologies of jet aircraft operating on their carriers.  And now military aviation is approaching cilvil aviation levels of safety in what is really and apples and grapefruit comparison, given the different demands of the two.

It's a shame that the aircraft went down and it is a loss to national capabilities, as is every lost military aircraft.  But to try and come across like one airframe being lost equates to time to end the program is foolhardy.


The F-22 has flown about 120,000 hours, and 4 have been lost.

From eyeball interpolation of data publicly available from the Air Force Safety Center, at 120,000 hrs:

8 F-15s had been lost

14 F-16s had been lost

44 F-100s had been lost

Since at least the 80s, every program has been "problem plagued" and "a huge waste of money".  

Compare the loss rate to modern (circa 200) aircraft like the Eurofighter.

 


As near I can tell, 3 Eurofighters have been lost in about 140,000 hours.  So, yes, it has a slightly better record.  Both systems are still immature, and loss rates for both should decrease.



Link Posted: 11/20/2012 8:17:59 AM EDT
[#41]
Page / 3
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top