Jump to content

Raptors grounded once again


Recommended Posts

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

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.

F-104 Starfighter... anyone... Bueller... Bueller....

Only the most sexy and beautiful jet fighter ever made. Thanks Kelly.:worship:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

Except I buy a car as a private citizen in the free market with my own money. The Government buys an airplane by contract with other peoples money. simple example is not equivalent to the situation. governments don't operate like private citizens. Weapons manufacturers don't act like car companies. and airplanes are not cars. so other than the buyer, the seller, the funds, the contract, the situation, and the product being completely different that is a superb analogy.

4-Ways-to-Spend-Money-from-Milton-Friedman%27s-Book-Free-to-Choose.jpg

Don't you realize that when Raptors are flying and burning through spares you make more money selling parts? A grounding is actually bad business, its bad for profit margins. If they don't fly nothing wears out and has to be replaced. Lockheed is mercenary, but not the way you are thinking. No one wins with a grounding.

If you want to stick to the car analogy, wouldn't this be like taking my car to the mechanic over and over again so he can tell me he can't find anything wrong and I'm free to drive? I also thought the grounding was originated with the USAF and not lockheed.

Again, we are not even sure if the its a design flaw there is a chance it could be the USAFs fault, or something else in the chain. How can you assess blame when the problem hasn't even been properly identified yet? Is there something you know that no one else does? :unsure:

Time for a "cool story bro"

Man in a harrier unit has to keep emergency blowing out his landing gear because they won't open on their own. Weird. Happens a few more times. Its getting serious, heads are going to roll, The Mechs can't figure it out, aviation admin is on the chopping block. Someone is messing up bad, having a very hard time figuring out why this keeps happening but it does. Then they interview the pilot, turns out the pilot "Didn't like the sound of the landing gear still rotating in the wells" so he applied breaks. this screwed up the entire undercarriage system Turns out this whole mess was because of one persons bizarre little quirk. everyone learns a valuable lesson. Boeing clearly to blame.

FTFA

The temporary halt to flying Alaska-based Raptors is a locally based decision, not like the four-month grounding of F-22 jets around the country that began in May, Coslett said.

"In a pause, they'll take a look at things, then will be allowed to fly," he said. It's not clear when the planes will begin flying out of JBER again.

The national grounding in May was imposed because of at least 12 cases over three years in which pilots reported they didn't get enough oxygen.

The Air Force never figured out the cause of the oxygen deficiency but decided to return the F-22s to flight as of Sept. 21, with increased training of air crews and inspections of the aircraft.

JBER's F-22s had been flying nonstop from September until Thursday, starting with the most experienced pilots, said Coslett. The Alaska fighter jets have had no oxygen-related problems since they resumed flying, he said.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/10/22/2133504/jber-pauses-f-22-flights-over.html#ixzz1bfb2szN6

I hate you lockheed! the USAF grounded your jets as a precaution! I am filled with rage that I don't have when Boeings F-15s are grounded when one comes apart in midair rawr! I don't care if they fall apart midair! the F-15s were the best ever! Put a new radar in it and watch all the cracks magically fix themselves! Its like they are brand new!

A new radar does not make a new jet. I don't care if you put an Aegis radar in there, its still an old airplane that is well past replacement dates.

I agree with the honorable Mr. Stark. Uganda has Flankers. Russia and china are capable of selling beyond their own borders. the idea that Russia and China won't sell their aircraft to nations that are, or could become hostile to the united states is not giving either country much marketing credit. And these are countries that are superb with exports of weaponry.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
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.

Only 178 F-15s will get the radar upgrade. The Dod "war planner" didn't make the decision. Civilian leadership did. Despite every trick in the book, the USAF only got 183 instead of the 381 they specified. If it was up the USAF The F-15 would be nearly extinct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid question... if there's a bug in the F-22's O2 system that needs to be worked out, why couldn't it be removed and replaced with proven systems removed from some of those old F-15A/B's waiting for their turn at the scrapper? We already paid for it and know it works, so it might be an expedient way to get 'em flying safely while we work out the longer-term problem...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 178 F-15s will get the radar upgrade. The Dod "war planner" didn't make the decision. Civilian leadership did. Despite every trick in the book, the USAF only got 183 instead of the 381 they specified. If it was up the USAF The F-15 would be nearly extinct.

That's if you don't count Strike Eagles ...

I believe the USAF had wanted approximately 700 F-22s originally ...

The 381 was, itself a cutback number ...

Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be enough finger pointing to last until the Raptor is reaching the end of it's service life; I'm more concerned with them finding the cause whether its faulty materials used in construction (bad hoses, fittings, or something allowing cross contamination of deadly fumes into the OBOGS,etc) or faulty design in the planning stages...somewhere in there is the cause. Let's hope they find it and as it's creator Lock-Mart should absorb the cost of the correction, unless someone in the USAF didn't read the Owners manual correctly and have been servicing them wrong, but I doubt that is the case. Whatever the cause it is fodder for the anti military sector to feed on, as not only is it one very expensive airframe, the need for it will once again be called into question. Those who have no concept of outdated technology or how machines such as this can wear out will be at the forefront calling for updating old airframes to fill the gap, When they do we should point out what the skin on B-52's look like, Wrinkled skin on a fighter is not good for superb aerodynamics. Ask any fighter pilot who has flown a fighter with a cracked wing that is not visible to the eye; how it performs. IIRC it flies slower on the cracked wing and YAW is a major concern.

Edited by #1 Greywolf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid question... if there's a bug in the F-22's O2 system that needs to be worked out, why couldn't it be removed and replaced with proven systems removed from some of those old F-15A/B's waiting for their turn at the scrapper? We already paid for it and know it works, so it might be an expedient way to get 'em flying safely while we work out the longer-term problem...

Because those O2 systems were not designed for the Raptor, so in order to shoehorn them in, you'd need an extensive redesign of both the O2 system and the Raptor's guts in order to make everything work - which translates to months of design work, testing, test-fitting, test flying, approval, retrofitting the entire F-22 fleet...

Millions of dollars later, rather than fixing the O2 system that was designed to work in the F-22 in the first place, you've waded into an expensive, time-consuming boondoggle to use a system that may or may not even be capable of being made compatible (one that was designed for a McDonnell-Douglas product, not a Lockheed product)...

Since car analogies are being used a lot here, let's rephrase your question. "Man, my brand new Roush Mustang's air conditioner isn't working. I'm gonna go to the junkyard and pull one off a '77 Camaro to replace it with."

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's if you don't count Strike Eagles ...

I believe the USAF had wanted approximately 700 F-22s originally ...

The 381 was, itself a cutback number ...

Gregg

True on both counts :thumbsup: I should have been more specific about F-15A/C variants.

It should also be noted that regarding F-15 air kills in US service, The majority of its kills took place in the first gulf war of 1991, 34 in total:

According to the USAF, its F-15Cs had 34 confirmed kills of Iraqi aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War, mostly by missile fire: five MiG-29 "Fulcrums", two MiG-25 "Foxbats", eight MiG-23 "Floggers", two MiG-21 "Fishbeds", two Su-25 "Frogfoots", four Su-22 "Fitters", one Su-7, six Mirage F1s, one Il-76 cargo plane, one Pilatus PC-9 trainer, and two Mi-8 helicopters. Air superiority was achieved in the first three days of the conflict; many of the later kills were reportedly of Iraqi aircraft fleeing to Iran, rather than trying to engage U.S. aircraft.

-wiki

After that it was 3 Mig-29s in one night over the former Yugoslavia. The Migs were shot down on the first night of the conflict.

So in 35 years of service, the American Eagles fought for four days total. The F-15A/C was designed for overkill, it was the best because it was purposely designed to kill things with wings. period. Expect the F-22s to have similar bunches of nothing to do for years, interrupted by brief moments of superior, fast violence. But, one nice thing about the F-22 is that it can carry bombs...

35 years for four days? Why did we ever replace the F-4? :rolleyes:

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

But, one nice thing about the F-22 is that it can carry bombs...

So can the Albino Eagle.

Development F-15s were fitted with bomb racks on the centerline pylon and each wing pylon, allowing carriage of, say, six 225 kilogram (500 pound) bombs on each pylon for a total warload of 18 bombs.

Just because it wasn't implemented operationally due to choices the AF brass made ("Not a pund for air-to-ground") is the airframe incapable of delivering bombs.

Cheers,

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites

So can the Albino Eagle.

Just because it wasn't implemented operationally due to choices the AF brass made ("Not a pund for air-to-ground") is the airframe incapable of delivering bombs.

Cheers,

Andre

Here is the whole quote from the above article. Emphasis mine

Early F-15s were delivered with the wiring to carry air-to-surface ordnance, apparently even free-fall nuclear weapons, but the F-15A/B and F-15C/D didn't have the software to support the mission, and the wiring was deleted in later production. Development F-15s were fitted with bomb racks on the centerline pylon and each wing pylon, allowing carriage of, say, six 225 kilogram (500 pound) bombs on each pylon for a total warload of 18 bombs, but such stores were not carried by operational Eagles.

as of right now the F-15s must be upgraded first, and only 18 F-15s have received the golden eagle treatment. plus you are now talking about carrying a bunch of nice heavy loads on an airframe that is triple the hours it was ever supposed to fly. That will end well seeing as one came apart midair without weapons loaded.

OTOH every F-22 can carry bombs

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

Apologies for overstepping. Its an assumption, and one I should not have made in a thread where I try emphasize facts over guess work.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

...unless you consider interceptors as fighters.

The F-14 (which was designed around a radar and a missile, the sole purpose of which was to intercept and protect the carrier battle group from Soviet bombers) was called a "fighter" for years.

Apologies for overstepping. Its an assumption, and one I should not have made in a thread where I try emphasize facts over guess work.

Wasn't meant to single you out as there's been an overwhelming rush to judgement regarding the cause(s) of the Alaska crash and I wanted to remind all of the thread's participants of this. At this point, saying "X caused the crash" is just speculation based on horrendous journalism and/or a pre-existing prejudice against the aircraft.

Call into question a Sukhoi or MiG design and you're a hater or its bias. Call into question the need for the F-22 and it's considered objective or "a healthy discussion."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-14 (which was designed around a radar and a missile, the sole purpose of which was to intercept and protect the carrier battle group from Soviet bombers) was called a "fighter" for years.

The F-14 could be called a fighter-interceptor, but there are often occasions where pure interceptors and attack aircraft get the fighter label. Have a look at the YF-12 and F-117, for a couple examples.

Edited by MiG31
Link to post
Share on other sites
Call into question a Sukhoi or MiG design and you're a hater or its bias. Call into question the need for the F-22 and it's considered objective or "a healthy discussion."

Which begs a question: why is it always so fashionable to hate on US hardware? I see it all the time in the naval wargaming community about "Germany shoulda won, it's bnot fair the KM got beat 'cuz their forces and hardware were so much better" or "waaaaaah Japanese air never gets past the Hellcat and Corsair swarms and what does can't one-shot an Iowa while Helldivers or Avengers go through our ships like hot knife through warm butter, US Bias, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!" What's up with that, anyway?

Not looking for a fight, but for a way to understand why this happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which begs a question: why is it always so fashionable to hate on US hardware? I see it all the time in the naval wargaming community about "Germany shoulda won, it's bnot fair the KM got beat 'cuz their forces and hardware were so much better" or "waaaaaah Japanese air never gets past the Hellcat and Corsair swarms and what does can't one-shot an Iowa while Helldivers or Avengers go through our ships like hot knife through warm butter, US Bias, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!" What's up with that, anyway?

Not looking for a fight, but for a way to understand why this happens.

I've never understood it either. I honestly believe most people don't have a clue about the military or their capability. It also doesn't help that the US has been an *** kicker since WWII. Then they'll whine about the mistakes the US has made in the past without realizing that one of the reasons why the US military is so kick *** is they focus on their mistakes, eliminate them, and drive on. We also have the best hardware, the best training, and the most heart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 178 F-15s will get the radar upgrade. The DoD "war planner" didn't make the decision. Civilian leadership did. Despite every trick in the book, the USAF only got 183 instead of the 381 they specified. If it was up the USAF The F-15 would be nearly extinct.

That's if you don't count Strike Eagles ...

Gregg

Yes, the first 178 are F-15C. Their AESA radar program started in 2007 and entered operational status last year.

The 224 F-15E Strike Eagle will also get the AESA rader too, but the production of the Strike Eagle upgrade was just anounced last month. It is not surprising that TT missed it.

The USAF would have gotten every Raptors they originally planned if it worked as advertised. Both the F-117 and the F-15E entered service in the mid 1980's. Did you ever wonder why the F-117 was retired and the F-15E keeps flying?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ever wonder why the F-117 was retired and the F-15E keeps flying?

Because the stealthy strike mission is supposed to be undertaken by the F-35 and to a lesser extent the F-22. The F-15E will continue the precision non-stealthy "bomb truck" mission as it always has. Next question?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the stealthy strike mission is supposed to be undertaken by the F-35 and to a lesser extent the F-22. The F-15E will continue the precision non-stealthy "bomb truck" mission as it always has. Next question?

Why did they retire the F-117 before the F-35 enters service?

The F-22 is a air superiority fighter, not a ground attack aircraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

F-22 can carry Small Diameter Bombs - it's had that capability for at least the last couple of years - and possibly other precision bombs. It's why the aircraft was briefly the F/A-22 - an effort to highlight this capability.

When the F-117 was retired, it was stated that the F-22 could perform the stealth strike mission while also fighting its way in and out of the target area. Add to this the mission overlap between F-117s and B-2's, plus the acquisition of the F-35, and you have what passes for justification in a Congressional decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which begs a question: why is it always so fashionable to hate on US hardware? I see it all the time in the naval wargaming community about "Germany shoulda won, it's bnot fair the KM got beat 'cuz their forces and hardware were so much better" or "waaaaaah Japanese air never gets past the Hellcat and Corsair swarms and what does can't one-shot an Iowa while Helldivers or Avengers go through our ships like hot knife through warm butter, US Bias, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!" What's up with that, anyway?

Not looking for a fight, but for a way to understand why this happens.

LOL good question. People just biases, leads to fanboyism

Its one of the things I run into with the F-35 vs F-18E/F and F-22 vs F-15. there are basically 4 strategies to argue against the newer planes:

1. EQUAL :Say they are both good, or very on par for performance, pretty much the same-- but one cost sooo much more money, so you should go with the cheaper option. (Of course they are not equal. However one bonus point should be awarded for every time the person uses the phrase "Just Upgrade ________")

2. BETTER: use the legacy aircraft's service record to back up statements about superiority while pointing out that the newer aircraft is having problems/running over budget. (remember the legacy aircraft has about a 30 year head start on the new one- history is your friend!)

3. WORSE: Make the legacy aircraft look better by outright trashing the new one. The new aircraft really is better so the only chance you have is to try and bring it down to the old plane's level. (That won't be easy, just remember in arguments like this, actual facts never helped the legacy fan)

4. I GIVE UP: If the new aircraft is just too good, just trash its mission as "unneeded." (This is tough because you have to make sure you aren't trashing the mission so much, that people wonder why they even need the legacy aircraft :wacko: )

Why did they retire the F-117 before the F-35 enters service?

The F-22 is a air superiority fighter, not a ground attack aircraft.

It can still carry two bombs, which is exactly what the F-117 could carry, but the F-22 offers much higher performance. In my little village, New Mexico, the F-117s were directly replaced by F-22s at Holloman AFB a few years ago. They are pretty sweet too

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
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...