Jump to content

Raptors grounded once again


Recommended Posts

Getting back to the issue to hand...

:D, If there are continuing problems with the OBOGS systems in these jets couldn't they be at least replaced temporarily with good old fashioned LOX systems until the problems are sorted? Just a thought, maybe not a very good one but just an idea.

:cheers:,

Ross.

Doubtless physically impossible. LOX systems require the plane to carry around a fairly sizable high pressure tank of LOX. And the regulators to then bring that high-pressure gas down to a breathable level of pressure, and IIRC (I never worked on aircraft life support systems, the plane I mainly worked on used OBOGS, and I am trying to recall banter that occurred 20+ years ago with people who did work on those systems) filters and such to take the edge off breathing 100% pure oxygen.

Somehow I highly doubt they left enough space inside the Raptor to hold all of that. And even if they did, there's the little matter of accessing it to install all the hardware, brackets and fitting to hold that hardware, the space has to be easily accessible to allow maintenance and the installation and removal of the LOX tank between flights, etc. ad nauseum. And then the system has to be tested and certified.

Somehow, Ross, I suspect that suggesting "Why don't they just have the pilots carry a couple of scuba air cylinders along with them in the cockpit during flights?" would have been a more practical suggestion, and easier to implement.

Anyway, I am still tying to figure out how Lockheed-Martin and the Air Force managed to screw up the Raptor's OBOGS. OBOGS has been used in military aircraft for a good 30 years minimum (going off my experience with the AV-8B, which I was told was one of the first military aircraft to use it together with the F/A-18, please correct me if I am wrong), it is not some new, cutting-edge, untested in real-world conditions rocket science system. How on Earth do you screw it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, was it LockMart that made the thing or a sub-contractor? And when had Lockheed ever done a fighter prior to the F-22? Sure they own GD, which makes the F-16, but that is a different animal as the F-22 was in the design and early testing stage long before GD got bought out by LockMart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...I suspect that suggesting "Why don't they just have the pilots carry a couple of scuba air cylinders along with them in the cockpit during flights?" would have been a more practical suggestion, and easier to implement.

Please, don't give them any ideas... :woot.gif:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. The most expensive fighter program in history and the planes can't fly. The smart guys don't seem to have a clue what the cause of the issue is and pretty soon, we will be spending millions more to retrain the entire force of pilots when their currency expires. It's all good and we definitely wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings by holding someone accountable. Just throw more money at it and keep smiling.

I don't care about anyone's feelings my point was simply that there is probably plenty of blame to go around, and deciding to crucify just a few people, is a good way of insuring that the larger problems within the system never get solved. Im all for accountability, but there had better be a lot of people held accountable, if shouldn't all fall on just one group either. Most importantly though lets find the problem, fix it, and assess blame in that order.

If you are operating on a fixed budget, and they have already haven't been flying, does it technically cost more when you do start flying? how can they "spend millions more" when the budget was pre approved? :unsure:

I've been accused of being overly American-centric but there is no way I could ever make a statement like that with a straight face. Do you really think a 40 year old design like the F-15 is the ultimate fighter on the planet? Even with the latest upgrades, I think it would be hard pressed to compete with some of the newer designs coming from certain eastern manufacturers.

Agreed

adjusted for inflation, An f-86 cost 4 times more than a P-51; An F-15 8 times more than an F-86. But I would rather have one F-15 than 8 F-86s or 32 mustangs.

Of the 130 kills F-15s have achieved, only around 20 were on Mirage F-1EQs and MiG-29s. the Rest against fighters are Mig-21, 23, and 25. All built and designed in the 1950 and 60's. and a generation behind. Again The F-15 wracked up them up because it was the best-- not equal. You never want to fight fair, Bring a gun to a knife fight, and a tank to a gunfight:

orig.jpg

If some idiot wants to come at the latest and greatest with an old design from a generation ago, thats fine-- but I don't want him to be from my country!

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are operating on a fixed budget, and they have already haven't been flying, does it technically cost more when you do start flying? how can they "spend millions more" when the budget was pre approved? :unsure:

Wasn't talking about routine O&M costs. I am assuming that all the research and engineering going into

1) finding the cause of the problem and

2) implementing a fix

is not being done for free. My guess is that 20 minutes after the fleet was grounded, Lockheed had a nice fat change order in front of the AF asking for more money to address the above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And when had Lockheed ever done a fighter prior to the F-22? Sure they own GD, which makes the F-16, but that is a different animal as the F-22 was in the design and early testing stage long before GD got bought out by LockMart.

Don't start with that! The last all Boeing Fighter:

p26aa.jpg

:woot.gif:

Wasn't talking about routine O&M costs. I am assuming that all the research and engineering going into

1) finding the cause of the problem and

2) implementing a fix

is not being done for free. My guess is that 20 minutes after the fleet was grounded, Lockheed had a nice fat change order in front of the AF asking for more money to address the above.

Its a nice assumption, Good and cynical too. you may want to wait and see how it all shakes out before jumping to conclusions.

Good point. The most expensive fighter program in history and the planes can't fly. The smart guys don't seem to have a clue what the cause of the issue is and pretty soon, we will be spending millions more to retrain the entire force of pilots when their currency expires. It's all good and we definitely wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings by holding someone accountable. Just throw more money at it and keep smiling.

You also specified TRAINING not fixing-- so O&M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a nice assumption, Good and cynical too. you may want to wait and see how it all shakes out before jumping to conclusions.

You're right. Why would one be cynical when it comes to billions wasted on defense programs? Time and time again, the military industrial complex has shown that they have the best interests of the taxpayers as priority 1.

I'll stop being boisterous and return to my seat in the back of the classroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Why would one be cynical when it comes to billions wasted on defense programs? Time and time again, the military industrial complex has shown that they have the best interests of the taxpayers as priority 1.

I'll stop being boisterous and return to my seat in the back of the classroom.

You are basically implying that this was done on purpose. Beyond the grounding, this oxygen problem killed someone. Murder is serious you may want to wait until all the facts are in before jumping to conclusions. You also imply that the men and women who designed and built the things were more than happy to build them flawed so that others could make more money, again resulting in death. That is a pretty freaking serious accusation. I never cease to be amazed about how those "older, wiser, and more experienced" than me panic at the first excuse. Remember that lockmart isn't some faceless monolith, when you accuse them, you accuse everyone who had a hand in the F-22.

Its a lot easier to shout "military industrial complex!" than to actually look at things on a case by case basis. Its amazing that on a scale modeling website people have to be reminded that details matter. Remember its always important to cast a wide net, stereotypes are important. Looking at individual people and issues ruins things like that.

Some basic questions:

Is this a design flaw or manufacturing defect?

How many aircraft does this effect?

Is it a subcontractor?

Does it have to do with how the aircraft is used operationally?

Is it a defect of procedure?

Improper maintenance?

Before you take your seat at the back of the classroom, do some homework.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've lost count of the number of times I've read insults that are supposedly "just a joke" because the writer added a smiley.

Really? Cause that's the whole purpose of smilies, since sarcasm, tone of voice, and jokes translate horribly through written word.

Also interesting how it's considered an "insult" when I do it, yet when everyone else does it it's just a joke. Double standard, much?

Edited by Jinro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also interesting how it's considered an "insult" when I do it, yet when everyone else does it it's just a joke. Double standard, much?

What double standard? Until you made your post in this thread no one else had made a similar comment. Who else did it before you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And when had Lockheed ever done a fighter prior to the F-22?

F-117large.jpg

060731-F-1234S-016.jpg

NF104.JPG

060831-F-1234S-010.jpg

lockheed-p80-shootingstar.jpg

P38-joltin.jpg

Beyond the grounding, this oxygen problem killed someone.

I was not aware that the findings of the investigation have been released.

FWIW, a pair of Raptors out of Tyndall just did the flyover at the Talladega NASCAR race. Kinda surprised me :huh:.

Not much of a surprise really; problems with OBOGS have not been detected with Tyndall's Raptors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are basically implying that this was done on purpose. Beyond the grounding, this oxygen problem killed someone. Murder is serious you may want to wait until all the facts are in before jumping to conclusions. You also imply that the men and women who designed and built the things were more than happy to build them flawed so that others could make more money, again resulting in death. That is a pretty freaking serious accusation. I never cease to be amazed about how those "older, wiser, and more experienced" than me panic at the first excuse. Remember that lockmart isn't some faceless monolith, when you accuse them, you accuse everyone who had a hand in the F-22.

Wow.... Absolutely mind blowing that you came to that conclusion. Paste in any text from my posts that stated that LM or the AF deliberately caused this flaw. My biggest issue is that undoubtedly LM is profiting from the situation (unless you want to believe that they are committing all their resources to resolving this problem pro bono)? Do you think they donated those cute little carbon canisters to the AF free of charge?

We seem to have a failure to communicate. If I could, let me try to break this down into simpler terms:

What if someone saved up all his money and bought the best car they could afford (say a 2004 Hyundai). They bring it back to the trailer, looking forward to many pleasurable years of driving around town, in the absolutely sharpest ride on the block. All is right with the world until one day when they get a letter from Hyundai informing them that their cool set of wheels has a possibly fatal problem. What a dilemma - You spent all that money but you can't drive it because it could kill you. When you call Hyundai they tell you that the problem might be your fault. Or maybe there isn't really a problem at all. Or maybe it's the design of the car. No one is sure but they don't want you to drive it regardless. When you remind them that you gave them a bunch of your take home pay for this great set of wheels, you are met with silence. Later you read in the paper that they may require you to cut a check to find the problem (if there really is one). And after that, if they find that there really is a problem, you can cut another check for the fix. One month goes by... nothing. 6 months go by... nothing. You are watching your pride and joy rusting in the driveway. You call again and are told that they still don't have a solution but are probably close so please send another check ASAP.

Would you be happy with that state of affairs or just a bit irate?

Like I said, it's all good. That billions spent on a cutting edge fighter were well spent, LockMart gets a change order to figure out what the problem is, the pilots get to take some time off from flying and chill out. Why would anyone have an issue with current state of affairs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to figure out what the F-22 is designed to fight (if it ever gets off the ground again). It's nothing but a relic of the Cold War.

Um, so is the F-15C you want to "replace" the F-22 with.

We could buy 20 new build F-15Cs for every F-22, and still kick butt against any comer for the foreseeable future.

In 2011 dollars, an F-15C would run around $45 million (and that's with PW F100s and AN/APG-63(V)1). An F-22 would run around $145M. So that's roughly 3.5 F-15s for every F-22. And you won't get the survivability brought on by low observability or the ability to look first/shoot first.

As for them still kicking butt against any comer for the foreseeable future... I guess that's true as long as said butt isn't guarded by SAMs or Flankers* or anything designed later.

*Before the Russian Mafia gets wound up (Which would be really, really bad seeing how as I'm running low on vodka and may need some reference help with a model T-50 I've picked up recently); I'm not singling out either Russia or China as an adversary. I'm pointing out two things; One, the Flanker was designed to counter the F-15 and it along with the MiG-29 have been exported and continue to be marketed globally. The J-10 is another potential export candidate in the future. Which leads me to... Two, It's far likelier that any foreseeable threats that would call upon the need to establish control of the skies over a battlefield could include third-party nation-states that operate equipment from either of the two aforementioned suppliers and given the unpredictability of the ever-changing geo-political landscape, those threat systems could possibly even have their origins in western Europe or North America even.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of the facts:

  1. In war games that the USAF conducted, the F-22 has overwhelm advantage over the F-15C. The Raptor is designed to be the replacement of the Eagle as air superiority fighter.
  2. There is not enough F-22 to defend this country sufficiently. The F-15 will be flying along side the F-22 for many years to come.
  3. All the US F-15's are being retrofitted with the most powerful AESA radar.
  4. The F-15 are still in production for the Korean, Singaporean and, possibly, the Saudi Arabian Air Forces. Judging from their potential foes, you can guess their assessment of the F-15 against the latest fighters from China, Russian and Europe.

The United States has the biggest defense budget in the world. Some said that it is bigger than the next 10 countries combined. But it is not unlimited. I trust that the DoD war planner exercised good judgement in stopping the F-22 production and in putting AESA radar in the old F-15's. But I just don't see the possibility of building more F-15 for the USAF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I trust that the DoD war planner exercised good judgement in stopping the F-22 production and in putting AESA radar in the old F-15's.

How're those 27+ year old USAF F-15C/D airframes holding up?

BTW, F-15s are three times over on structural hours already.

Apart from the P-80 and P-38, all I see are interceptors.

If you want to split hairs, then you forgot to mention that the F-117 was a tactical strike aircraft (though I noticed that you caught your first error and corrected it before I posted). While you were distracted by nick-picking, you failed to notice that the YF-12/SR-71, F-104 (and previously unposted U-2) and F-117 are all either very high performance and/or pathfinders for new technology. Point being - Lockheed (like all the other contractors) has a history of building tactical aircraft for specific roles and the original question of their history and qualification to even build a tactical aircraft was misleading.

If the DoD listened to every Tom, Dick and Harry on the internet, we'd be flying B-52s powered by outboard motors.

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

<....>

If the DoD listened to every Tom, Dick and Harry on the internet, we'd be flying B-52s powered by outboard motors.

Think of the fuel savings though ... :thumbsup:

Gregg

PS, Wait, why are we still flying 45 year old B-52s ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
While you were distracted by nick-picking, you failed to notice that the YF-12/SR-71, F-104 (and previously unposted U-2) and F-117 are all either very high performance and/or pathfinders for new technology.

That wasn't a point I was getting at. You responded to a comment about how Lockheed had not produced a fighter prior to the F-22 by presenting a number of aircraft that were decidedly not fighters. I don't disagree that Lockheed shouldn't be discounted for producing fighters given their track record.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-80 and P-38 are the only fighters I see out of that line-up. The rest are interceptors and a light bomber.

Yes, the original F-104A Starfighter was designed as an interceptor. Ironically, it had neither the range nor the armament to play that role. It served in the ADC for only one year. The subsequently F-104C was a multi-role fighter-bomber design.

The Starfighter had an undistinguished service with the USAF, but set many world records and are popular with modelers. It also had a much larger number of export than internal use.

So, P-80 was not the last fighter Lockmart built before F-22.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What double standard? Until you made your post in this thread no one else had made a similar comment. Who else did it before you?

In this thread? Nowhere. In other threads, and elsewhere in the world, a whole hell of a lot. Either you've been living under a rock and never noticed how many times people joke about stuff made in China, or you take things way to damn seriously. This is the internet for god's sake. Which then leads me to ponder.....why am I even responding? :woot.gif:

SP4ph.jpg

Edited by Jinro
Link to post
Share on other sites

In this thread? Nowhere. In other threads, and elsewhere in the world, a whole hell of a lot. Either you've been living under a rock and never noticed how many times people joke about stuff made in China, or you take things way to damn seriously. This is the internet for god's sake. Which then leads me to ponder.....why am I even responding?

I'm asking the same thing in reverse. Thanks for the ad hominem.

<snip> So, P-80 was not the last fighter Lockmart built before F-22.

Fair point. At least you note that it started out as an interceptor, but I had forgotten about the fighter-bomber variants. Regardless, I doubt you could really call a YF-12 or F-94C a fighter, unless you consider interceptors as fighters.

Edited by MiG31
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...