Controversial F-22 Raptor Suffers ‘Class A’ Accident During Test Flight
- Posted on June 11, 2012 at 11:34am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
F-22 Raptor (Photo: Rob Shenk/Wikimedia)
An F-22 Raptor — an upwards of $150 million plane by Lockheed Martin that had many delays during production and since has been the center of a controversy involving pilot’s health — has been in a “Class A” accident.
During a training flight last Thursday, Dave Majumdar for Flight reports, the Raptor flown by a student pilot was in an accident that is worth more than $2 million in damage. The pilot was not injured.
According to the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, a Class A accident is one that results in a ”fatality or total permanent disability, loss of an aircraft, or property damage of $2 million or more.” Flight reports the Air Force saying they expect the damage caused in this accident will be repaired.
(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Tech Sgt. Ben Bloker)
The Air Force has not released details about the accident or the damage, but did note that the oxygen system, which has been accused of failing at times within the last few years causing some pilots to experience “hypoxia,” was not a factor in this accident.
According to Flight, this was only the pilot’s second time flying the plane after he had been trained first in an academic and simulator setting.
Recently, two Air Force pilots with whistleblower status speaking out against the oxygen system feared they could eventually lose their jobs for not flying in the planes. The two men felt they were being punished and even agreed to get back in the cockpit fearing further reprimand. The Air Force stated that these pilots were in fact protected under whistleblower status.
Last year, the Raptor was grounded for five months after the oxygen system malfunctioned. From 2008 through 2011, there were 12 reported cases of hypoxia conditions where the pilots experienced inattentiveness, blackouts and even seizures. The Air Force has the planes back in the air but as recently as the end of February, it said it hadn’t quite pinpointed the exact problem with the oxygen system.
And just last week, the Pentagon announced that it had awarded Lockheed Martin a $19 million contract to install an automatic backup oxygen system in the F-22 Raptors as a precaution. Reuters reports that 40 planes will be retrofitted with the additional system.
[H/T Business Insider]
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 676 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 527 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 409 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 372 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 328 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 267 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 278 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 151 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 267 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (138)
ReformSchool
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:25pm“Why isn’t the U. S. of A. developing drones?” you ask. Because (collectively) the U. S. of A. is too corrupt and too dumb, that’s why. The drones the U. S. of A. has been using lately were developed by Israel, just as the U. S. of A. was too dumb to develop the cellular telephone. So why not just keep using the Jews? Because nobody likes the Jews; haven’t for 5,000 years. Maybe because, were it not for the Jews, most people would never have learned to walk on their hind legs.
But President Obama is different. He LOATHES the Jews. Probably learned it in the Muslim madrasah he attended in his formative years. Too proud to accept d’himmitude, being under the foot of their Muslim masters, pesky Jews insist on controlling their destiny in their ancient homeland. And with that homeland, Israel, right smack-dab in the middle of intolerant Muslim Middle East, how long will the illiterate Muslim masses continue to accept the irrational, age-old Muslim excuse that the reason for Islam’s grinding poverty is “the Jews are to blame, the Zionist entity in their midst.
How long can they block the images of the successful Jews? Or successful Christians in Lebanon? How long can they explain away all the rich Muslims of Gaza? That’s how you know Barack Obama really is a Muslim: He blames everyone but himself for his failures.
As for the relative pros and cons of the F-22 and the F-23, everyone is debating the wrong question:
What SHOULD be asked is: How did
Report Post »kettererbg
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 5:12pmYou need to leave the hooka alone.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 5:57pm@REFORMSCHOOL
Sorry, which pair of legs are my hind legs?
I keep looking but, not being a jew, I can only find two legs.
Lucky for me, you must be one of those “jews” that can tell me the answer, cause you’re so smart.
Report Post »obrien871
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:19pmYeah right Tinking Woman and I’m a Chinese jet pilot. LOL
Report Post »Thinking Man
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:24pmI believe you.
Report Post »RinkyDink34
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:14pmThe Air Force should ck with the Chinese and see if they are having any problems with the Rapture they cloned from plans provided to them by the Obama Regime?
Report Post »blair152
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:06pmBack in the ’70s, there were two prototypes that went head to head in a fly off to see which one was better. One of them was the YF-16, which became the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the first fly-by-wire fighter
Report Post »plane. And the second? The YF-17, which with a few refinements, later went on to become the F/A-18
Hornet. As for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? It has problems of its own.
Thinking Man
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:15pmI fail to see the connection here.
Report Post »Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 5:39pmthink man think!
Report Post »teamarcheson
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 3:41pmHow Much Chinese Content Is In That Fighter? Did the Chinese finance 40 percent or more of the purchase?
Did the Chinese write the software?
Report Post »slvrserfr
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:46pmIt probably flew into one of the hundreds of drone spying on Americans and clogging up airspace.
Report Post »ICEDRAGONNITE
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:56pmNot so many lately!
Report Post »000degrees
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 3:00pmCould it be that they allowed someone to fly who was not really qualified to fly? I’m just asking…..you know affirmative action, everyone is equal, no one gets disqualified…….it is a possibility
Report Post »Gunnett
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:02pmYou would think that the H2O system would be a easy fix, one would assume that they simply could take the system from a F18 and get it to work with the F22. What is so special about this new system.
Report Post »wallyworld
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:26pmH2O? Really? If the pilots are trying to breathe water, no wonder they’re having problems.
I think you mean O2.
Report Post »obrien871
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:29pmFine Blackface41… Ur making my argument… It was politics yadda yadda not the fact F-22 was a better plane which at the time it was not. Don‘t know what to tell you other than you’re off your rocker I was there and deeply involved at the time so know first hand. Makes me truly sad this thing is still plagued by issues once again what a waste of time and effort and our fearless Marxist anti-American genius for a president cancelled it bragging it would save us $2 billion a year… When his wife is going to pss away three times that putting salad bars in grade schools and telling is all what ‘we’ should eat! That being said Relax and take a blood pressure pill. ;o)
Report Post »Cloth Stews
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:50pmActually Wallyworld, GUNNETT is an acronym for Gills Used Needs No Extra Thorough Testing.
Report Post »Richard_FL
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:13pmThis is a disgrace and outrage!! To think that the plane was developed and we the taxpayers are now spending more $$ to have the contractor figure out what the problem is………..is preposerous.
I know it isn’t the “way they do things”, but this is insanity and such a simple fix………..tell the Contractor they will not take delivery on any of these units nor pay for them until they are complete with a functional and non-problematic O2 system………..PERIOD!!
How basic does it get…………really the Air Force would provide Northrop, Boeing or any vendor a spec for a new plane that exluded the language requiring a functional life support system. Give me a break……..I certainly hope that some one or several lose their commissions over this one. Needs to be investigated and let the heads roll……..this is ABSURD and has been going on way to long.
GET IT FIXED.
Report Post »Thinking Man
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:26pmThere‘s nothing ’special’ about it. OBOGGS was a new development component and it needed to be refined.
Report Post »Capt. Ron
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 9:10pmI think you found the problem with the jet their breathing water instead of air..
Report Post »PonyCar67
Posted on June 12, 2012 at 2:57pmRichard_FL
You are very right. This should be viewed as a latent defect that the contractor should be required to fix.
Report Post »obrien871
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:40pmGovt shouldve bought McDonnell Douglas F-23 better plane from the beginning i worked on it as engineer by got shot down because if bs politics. Sam Nunn was from Georgia so Lockheed got it despite it being a p o s at the time.
Requirement if contract was super cruise (super sonic) without after burners and radar stealth including internal weapons carriage.
F-23 met all requirements… Every one… F-22 did NOT successfully super cruise, it did NOT meet stealth reqmts… And it flamed out engines when firing weapons from internal carriage. Yet it still got the contract because of b s politics.
Then tax payers paid for another ten years of fixing all the b s and it still has issues. F-23 was a delta wing that met all requirements at the time. Mcdonnell Douglas should’ve sued. What a crock.
Report Post »BlackAce41
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:45pmWhere do you get you history man? The F-23 was built and made by Northrop Grumman.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:56pmAnd if what your saying about the engines is true, it doesn’t matter. They took the motors out of the YF-23 and put them in the F-22….
Report Post »obrien871
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:00pmWow gee golly buddy I don’t know I only worked on te YF-23 the competitor to the F-22 for three years. Lol McDonnell Douglas and Northrop were partners on it. And once again it was. Far superior design. I was also involved with flight test and all pilots agreed. F-23 would’ve been online five to six years earlier and better plane. I was called up to try and ‘help’ them fix their radar signature and internal carriage failures five years after the contract was awarded they were still screwing around with it and the f-23 performed flawlessly half a decade earlier. As an engineer really passes me off how politicians screw with contracts… See solyndra for another example. :o)
Report Post »obrien871
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:05pmF-22 never successfully super cruised before contract awarded. It was a primary requirement and it failed and they still gave Lockheed contract because Sam Numm senator from Georgia was head of appropriations simple as that and never mind it disnt pass radar and flamed iut when i launched a aim-120 from internal carriage. That being said Aerodynamics and flow path have a lot to do with it. Put your corvette engine in a Volkswagen bus and see if it goes as fast.
Report Post »BlackAce41
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:16pmIt ****** you off…. Well you do know the they have been screwing as you say with contract for more that 100yrs now.. Since you worked on it you can also remember that the reason it was not awarded the contract was because Boeing wanted to purchase Mac Donald Douglas. It was all apart of the cards that the aviation plays the government has been doing this with defense contract for years now.
Report Post »obrien871
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:19pmPs. Spent three years of my life working on a plane that would’ve been better and wouldve come online five or six years earlier for production than the F-22 and saved tax payers tens of billions if politicians hadn’t gotten involved. Not only that but those tens of billions couldve been spent on actual aircraft instead of getting the F-22 to work. We’d probably have twice as many F-23s flying today as F-22s because they would’ve went into production years earlier. It is a beautiful plane but knowing what I know not surprised this crp is happening… Makes me sick… What a waste of time and tax payers money. So some senator could get a contract for his home state.
Report Post »johnVMFA122
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:27pmObrien, the YF-23 was not a delta design either, it had a trapezoidlial (almost square, when seen from above) wing shape and was missing a vertical stab and conventional horizontal stabilators. They instead went with a V-tail, which was felt to offer inferior survivability in combat, though in flight, the 23 was superior to the 22 in several areas within the flight envelope, including as you mentioned… super-cruise. Two of each prototype were built, one with a GE powerplant and the other got Pratt & Whitney’s The Raptor and the 23 BOTH had engine troubles with the GE powerplant, thus P&W got that contract. Both aircraft demonstrated super-cruise issues at first, and that was a powerplant issue taht was resolved on the ‘23 first, and it was a fix that would also work on the Raptor, but would not be completed until after the flight program was concluded.
Report Post »cop4hire
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:34pmObrien is correct. I also worked for McDonnell Douglas at the time. Big difference between our plane and the one chose. We were flabbergasted on that decision. The first thing that POS did on it’s first flight is pancake into the runway. Looks like someone read the wrong history books. We lived it. Sorry.
Report Post »obrien871
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:36pmDang yes you’re absolutely correct John… Misspoke on the terminology. I was a weapons carriage and test labs guy. Thanks for the correction. That was a cool wing and. Nice plane. Also worked on the A-12 wish that one would’ve got done as well although worked on f-18 E/f and love that plane too. Oh well makes me sad we wasted so much time and money F-22 is awesome and love it just feel like wasted so much time and money becaus of politics. That’s the world we live in though.
Report Post »gldnbadger
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 3:01pmAnd to ADD to the political BS regarding the contract going to Lockheed rather than Northrop the excuse given was that the Raptor “would use engines already in the Air Force inventory unlike the YF23.” We blew their doors off in all categories including STEALTH. One of the other areguments was that because Northrop had the b2 it shouldn’t get the additional work.
Report Post »This has been one of the problems for years with military funding. It does not go to the best it goes to who politicians and the military want it to. The “spread the wealth” concept. Then you add in the pipe-dreams of the blue suiters in charge of the project and you see what you end up with.
It was the same with the cmpetician between the YF17 and the now F16. After Nothrop lost the pentagon came to us and said “partner with MacDac and offer it to the Navy.” We did and got the F18. The YF17 had blown the doors off the F16 and was not a flying vacuum cleaner that FODS engines at the drop of a pin.
johnVMFA122
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 3:02pmI got to sit in the driver’s seat of the Black Widow variant of the YF-23 down in Torrance(she was painted two-tone grey by then) and it was a remarkable aircraft. I worked on Hornets in the Marine Corps and it is still a major thrill for me to watch them fly(as well as rub salt in the wounds of the Tomcat community when the “little Hornet” grew fangs and replaced the F-14!)
I was told by some programme types that it was hoped that the 23 would have been picked up by the Navy, as it was build from the start to be easier to convert for ship-board service, and the relationship that Northrop/Grumman had with the Navy was expected to help seal the deal. Lockheed Martin on the other hand, stayed focused soley on the Air Force contract, without much thought given to possible Navy requirements, and built the Raptor to a more clearly defined Air Force requirement.
The 23 was a great bird, no doubt, but I think it had less to do with politics(there was some, but mostly between the A/F and Navy) than it had to do with the aircraft themselves. The Navy did acknowlege that had the AF chosen the YF-23, they would have likely been on board as well, but they saw the F-22, like the Eagle before it, as to delicate and airframe and unsuitable in any way as a carrier-bourne aircraft. Thankfully, my beloved Hornet was more than up to the task.
Report Post »SageInWaiting
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 3:43pmYup. I REALLY liked that oscillation the F-22 showed on final approach; I was VERY impressed that the pilot had the orbs not to punch out. Both A/C were the result of Packard Commission guidelines – the companies needed to anti-up big bucks just to play. Unlike GM vs Ford, the contract loser had no “free market” to offer it’s wares, just as Northrup learned with the f-20 Tigershark. It was a competition that ensured the the loser would go out of business immediately and with winner 10-20 years later because there wouldn’t be a long enough production run to earn back the money THEY were forced to invest. I LIKED the 23; a gorgeous aircraft. With vectored thrust and fly-by-wire, the lack of true vertical stabilizers can be mitigated.
Meanwhile, the Eagle, designed in the 60‘s and built into the 90’s is STILL our front-line fighter. Do we even HAVE an active fighter production line up and running (IN PRODUCTION) or machinists and engineers who remember how to reestablish one? Do we have a supplier base that can supply the alloys and specialty materials? It’s taken years to achieve but the elites HAVE succeeding in destroying this once great country. All it takes now are the Islamic Huns to begin their ravaging within our borders; DC fiddles as the country burns….. sad. And the sheeple are engrossed in the coliseums, watching DWTS…
Report Post »paxnhymn
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:03pmYF 23 was a McDonell Northrup joint venture…and YES it was a MUCH better plane, but politics has always been a problem in AF procurement! A classic example of that was the F-16 xl experiment that preceded the yf22 &23…four times the payload at 1/10th the price….did they buy it? Nope….the list goes on for years….
Report Post »obrien871
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:12pmSageinwaiting… Live the F-18 to death but F-15 is still my favorite. I‘d check the flight test schedule and everytime one went out I’d be outside to watch the Viking take off… Something about f-15 jus makes the ground rumble sort of like a Harley. Lol. When I started at Mac in 1986 they said they were going to stop the line I was devestated. Thank god they kept I open and are still getting orders 25 years later. Korea and Saudis are picking them up now. Worked in F-15I’s for israel last time worked on it adding conformal fuel tanks. Awesome plane the guys thy designed I should be proud!
Report Post »GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:13pm@2715 You are such a prime example of “military intelligence”, an oxymoron in and of itself. Motors are hydraulic, pneumatic, or electric, and RECEIVE power from an outside source. Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) convert chemical energy into mechanical energy, in essence creating power.
Report Post »Then again you would probably believe a butter ball striking a carrier too low on approach, would penetrate the steel ship. YOU CERTAINLY BELIEVE A HOLLOW ALUMINUM PROJECTILE AT 500FPS CAN PENETRATE A STEEL SKYSCRAPER, TWICE IN ONE DAY NO LESS.!.
Thinking Man
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:14pmThe YF-23 got shot down because it did not meet the requirements.
Report Post »Thinking Man
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:18pmWow, so many false claims listed above. The reason people tell fibs, is because don’t believe the truth supports their position.
Report Post »Thinking Man
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:30pmI’ve heard the same complaints from the F-20 guys about the F-16. You lost, go learn from your mistakes, and stop trying to blame others. Otherwise, you’ll lose out again.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:41pm“Motors are hydraulic, pneumatic, or electric, and RECEIVE power from an outside source. Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) convert chemical energy into mechanical energy, in essence creating power.”
And your trolling posts looking for reasons to attack people in the military? Here ya go you egotistical *****. Quit trying to act smarter than everyone else, because your an idiot. Per Websters ( or are they just a conspiracy out to get you too?)
mo·tor/ˈmōtər/
Noun:
A machine, esp. one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device…
Now go back to Walmart and buy yourself some more tinfoil, I think your hat is getting a little thin…
Report Post »G-WHIZ
Posted on June 12, 2012 at 9:50amThat’w right…sue the govt…and your taxdollars will pay you back. The Govt has none of its own money….idiot!! It takes YOUR$$ ans pays Your lawsut back…they loose nothing…you also pay their sallaries…its a win–win for thegovt when you sue.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:36pmWhat a beautiful aircraft; I love to watch them fly. I hope they get the bugs worked out…
Report Post »justafollower
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:20pmyou know another way you could phrase that is the federal government could afford to crash 3600 F-22s a day with what they spend.
Report Post »Thinking Man
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:25pmNow we’re getting somewhere.
Report Post »justafollower
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:19pmAmount of money lost on the plane: $2,000,000
Amount of money wasted in DC today: $7,200,000,000
And that’s JUST TODAY!!! That seems like a bigger story to me. About 3600% bigger story, give or take.
Report Post »usmcavmech
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:59pmThe problem is more than likely rooted in what is call the obogs system. Newer planes concentrate oxygen from the air flowing through the aircraft as it flies. A lotplate of electrical stuff thatout likes to messthe up. Older jets didn’t have as many problems a s they carried bottled liquid oxygen. F-18s had some of the same issues. Ive worked on both types.
Report Post »PPMStudios
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:17pmBut, they say that the O2 system was not a factor in this accident.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:26pmNewer Military Aircraft us Liquid O2 systems…..They don’t use any air from outside…
Report Post »Thinking Man
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:32pmNow somebody I believe.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:44pmLemee be a bit more specific… Modern transports (C-130s C-17s etc) use outside air via the bleed air systems to pressurize the aircraft, but their internal O2 system (used for emergencies) uses liquid O2. Every fighter I was around (F-15, F-15, F-22, F-117) all have liquid O2 systems on board.
Report Post »Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 12, 2012 at 4:48pmEagle is correct.
Report Post »Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:39pmWhy in the world are we spending a nickel on the development of Fighter Planes that have seats in them for pilots at all? We should be spending the money on unmanned planes. No one would care if the Oxygen system worked as there would not be one. In general we spend a VERY large percentage of the plane’s budget, both financially and performance budgets,on keeping the pilot alive. Since these planes are all “fly by wire” all of the controls would operate identically. Fly by wire means that the pilot is only pushing buttons and moving leavers that cause some other electronic system to carry out the request. Only difference would be the location of the pilot who would push the buttons–either in the cockpit or on the ground somewhere in Middle America. Are there things that have to be worked out?–sure but this is all doable with today’s technology. The planes would be lighter, faster, more agile, generally higher performance and most of all MUCH cheaper.
Report Post »warhorse_03826
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:01pmbecause there are only so many radio and satellite channels for UAV’s..
and if all we build is UAV’s…what if the bad guys hack the controls? it can happen. and we’d really be up the creek without a paddle then.
Report Post »Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:21pmThere are ways around those concerns. Encryption and other secure network priciples can be employed to solve that problem. Even if we have 10,000 planes in the air at once it could be solved. The human data rate is pretty slow when compared to how fast data can be transferred Really when you get down to it, the biggest hurdle you have to overcome is the good ole’ boys club in the Air Force Brass. They will completely run out of war stories.
Report Post »steelpanther
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:25pmThe only diffrence? Not even. I’m in class for Computer networking, which on the broad scale is the internet. Every single one of my teachers have said that internet security isn’t to keep people out, it’s to slow them down so you can find them and stop them/track them. No matter what you do, if it’s on the network, if someone wants in bad enough and know what they are doing, they will get in. You can’t keep everyone out and still have access to the network, so there has to be a way in so you can communicate with the network. So if you have something that you don’t want out, don’t connected it to the network. Unfortuantly the upper managment types refuse to believe this. So yeah, lets put all our fighters on a wireless network that can be picked up by anyone listening and wait till someone takes over our fighters and bombs us with complete security.
Transmission is not instantanous and dogfights rely on seconds. Basicly, using your great idea, not encoding the transmission(open to hacking and spying, the enemy can see what you see and proably track it back.) your going to have depending on hard ware and distance and impossable to guess delay.
Even if it was one second one way these things would be getting shot down left and right compared to a plane with the person reacting in real time. The only way you’d get a unmanned craft with real time reactions is AI, I suggest playing some video games to see how far that’s came along……..
Report Post »steelpanther
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:26pmIt’s even worse if you decide to encode it, as then the sender had to code then send, then the other end has to decode it, then encode the directions to send back. And even then, as I said before, if they want in, they are going to find a way.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:29pmBecause there are things that only pilots can do. Last second course corrections, judgement calls, emergency procedures, combat… Computers and remote pilots can only do so much, and they work great when everything is running fine. Once **** starts breaking, your going to want someone in the seat controlling it….
And it’s not a good ole boys club everywhere. They still have to figure out how to get one to land on a carrier, how to refuel in mid air, and select targets of opportunity without human intervention…Thats all A LONG ways off… So take it easy on the ‘good ole boys’ club, they still serve a purpose…
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:47pmOn top of that, I know a lot of Marines that get nervous enough as it is when close air support is called in, and that is with a guy sitting in the seat.
They’d never trust a robot, or some dude sitting in a trailer on the ground to fly by them in an A-10 with the gun blazing away at coordinates and direction given by some LT who is on his first week in country….
Report Post »warhorse_03826
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:15pm@eagle2715
nothing is more dangerous to our side than a lieutenant with a compass…..
Report Post »Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:26pmI am not advocating that we throw out all of manned aircraft but since we only have a limited budget to spend on development, we should be spending it on unmanned vehicles. As far as secure networks, do perfectly secure networks exist; obviously not-nothing is perfect. However, all technical problems and difficulties are addressed as tradeoffs backed up with engineering research. There are ways to protect data transmission to the point where its reliability is far superior to a human’s reliability. Through redundancy of networks and other techniques it can be done.
Mankind has fought war with blood and treasure but when you get right down to it, they were are only concerned about the blood based on the treasure expended to train and prepare him. I find this reality as unacceptable. I don’t want to put any of our men in harm’s way ever. An impossible dream but I can always dream. Unmanned planes will be cheaper, higher reliability and will never put our soldiers in harm’s way. omments
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:53pm“Why in the world are we spending a nickel on the development of Fighter Planes that have seats in them for pilots at all?”
For one thing, because the technology has not proven itself in any form of operational testing. The X-45 is only beginning its’ operational and testing evaluation. Before we commit to new systems, it might be a good idea to find out if they actually work in the field. Case in point, the decision to take guns off of aircraft prior to the Vietnam conflict because it was thought missiles made the need for guns obsolete. Unfortunately practice showed that policy to have been ill founded.
You might want to look at a paper presented to the Air Command and Staff College titled “The Last Manned Fighter: Replacing Manned Fighters with UCAV’s” [which can be found here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA515443 In the paper, the author, who believes UCAV’s will inevitably be a fact of life, identifies several issues that need to be overcome BEFORE UCAV’s can be deployed wholesale. Bandwidth issues were one of those identified as there was some concern as to whether there would be enough available to control multiple UCAV’s in a dynamic environment.
(Continued)
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:54pm(Continued)
Report Post »Also of concern was the observation that there’s roughly a 2 second delay in feedback from the combat environment to remote controller and back to the aircraft. This is not that much of an issue for a static environment like stationary ground targets or even to some extent targets that are BVR, but it does present issues once combat distances have closed to WVR. While this can be overcome to some extent by allowing the aircraft to go autonomous, there is an issue of whether current AI systems are up to the job.
teddlybar
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:58pmBTW Athinker, by the time you add in all the AI electronics and their attendant support systems, the cost per aircraft may not be that much different from a manned aircraft. The cost advantage actually comes from the fact that training a pilot and maintaining his combat proficency is expensive. Presumably maintaining that with a UCAV would be less.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 3:08pmWARHORSE_03826
Haha, always great to see someone get the not so subtle humor…
Report Post »Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 3:25pm@ Teddly… At least we would not put any one in harm’s way. Additionally I never would advocate that this replace all manned aircraft. There is a place for the A-10, the Apache and the ground support aircraft. They will probably be always needed. Beside, when would the enemy get a chance to hear the mini gun and wet themselves? My position is that Fighter jets will eventually be unmanned and the sooner the better.
Report Post »ReformSchool
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:10pm“Why isn’t the U. S. of A. developing drones?” you ask. Because (collectively) the U. S. of A. is too corrupt and too dumb, that’s why. The drones the U. S. of A. has been using lately were developed by Israel, just as the U. S. of A. was too dumb to develop the cellular telephone. So why not just keep using the Jews? Because nobody likes the Jews; haven’t for 5,000 years. Maybe because, were it not for the Jews, most people would never have learned to walk on their hind legs.
But President Obama is different. He LOATHES the Jews. Probably learned it in the Muslim madrasah he attended in his formative years. Too proud to accept d’himmitude, being under the foot of their Muslim masters, pesky Jews insist on controlling their destiny in their ancient homeland. And with that homeland, Israel, right smack-dab in the middle of the intolerant Muslim Middle East, how long will the illiterate Muslim masses continue to accept the irrational, age-old Muslim excuse that the reason for Islam’s grinding poverty is “the Jews are to blame, the Zionist entity in their midst.
How long can they block the images of the successful Jews? Or successful Christians in Lebanon? How long can they explain away all the rich Muslims of Gaza? That’s how you know Barack Obama really IS Muslim: He blames everyone but himself for his failures.
As for the relative pros and cons of the F-22 and the F-23, everyone is debating the wrong question:
What SHOULD be asked is: Why not
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 5:24pm@ Athinker
I suspect though that until you are able to have UCAV’s show they have a clear war fighting edge, the air capable portions of the armed services are going to be reluctant to place serious funding dollars on the line to purchase UCAV’s. I’ve gotten the impression that the Air Force’s “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan, 2009-2047” position paper is focused primarily on reconnaissance and ground attack scenarios rather than air superiority. As I mentioned before, unless there is a clear advantage in prosecuting your combat operations, which at present seems like it would be problematic with UCAV’s (i.e. they can’t dogfight yet), you’re likely to have those whose job is to pull the trigger reluctant to recommend buying the systems to those responsible for paying for it.
Also, there’s a moral issue involved as well. During the first Gulf war, autonomous Aegis systems were responsible for shooting down allied aircraft that resulted in the loss of one US and two British airmen. There was also a widely publicized incident where the US downed an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf. If we’re going to have autonomous weapons operating in combat theaters, if only politically, we also want to make sure they’re a bit more foolproof. Adding a human operator into the mix at some distant site may partially alleviate that problem, but it introduces all kinds of control issues from the standpoint of real-time battlefield awareness.
Report Post »Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 11:52pmATHINKER, doesn’t. There are many who read about things, but only a limited number of us who have done it. R2D2 and C3PO won’t be piloting F-45′s or whatever, anytime soon. You cannot get the same situation awareness from a screen, that a Mark 1 eyeball and a brain on the scene can get.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on June 12, 2012 at 1:44amThank you Belchfire. That’s a far more succinct way of putting it than I did.
I think when people see Unmanned COMBAT Aerial Vehicle, they automatically think it’s made to go head to head with air superiority aircraft, not realizing that air to ground support is “combat” also. The X-45, 46 & 47 UCAV demonstrators are primarily geared for Air to Ground operations with limited air to air defensive capability. We’re a very long way from a UCAV that’s an air superiority weapon.
Report Post »BlackCrow
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:33pmWhen I was a pup in the Air Force the F-16 was known as the “Lawn Dart” and I was detailed to pick up after two of the things went nose first into the ground taking their pilots with them. This sort of thing happens especially with “new” aircraft. Tragic loss of a highly skilled pilot but he wasn‘t the first and as long as we put manned aircraft into the sky he won’t be the last.
Report Post »nocalifornia
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:52pmAgain, this is a system that has been around for over 20 years, the issues should have been worked out but the system has had problems since flight test days in the early 90′s at Edwards and have continued now for 20 years. This is a flawed system that the Air Force has thrown billions at and we are still reading about issues.
Report Post »Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 11:44pmAgain, NOCALIFORNIA, you are WRONG, the aircraft went into initial production in 1999, with the 1st birds delivered in 2002. Get it straight, I hate liberals who LIE REPEATEDLY thinking no one will call them on it.
Report Post »Donald727
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:33pmThe F22 and 35 are phenominal airplanes and all these problems are more or less normal in their development. I‘ve been associated with aircraft design and development and NO airplane has ever been produced that didn’t have some “problems”.
Report Post »nocalifornia
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:54pmYes that is true, but after 20+ years you would think they could at least figure out how to keep O2 in the pilot.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:38pm“Yes that is true, but after 20+ years you would think they could at least figure out how to keep O2 in the pilot.”
That’s not a little misleading, thats a lot misleading bud.
It’s existed on paper for 20 years, but it hasn’t been in full scale flight tests for much more than 10. And on top of that, everything on the aircraft is new tech or modified old tech. EVERYTHING.
While it seems silly that after 10 years of flight it still has issues, I dont‘ know enough about the inner workings of the aircraft of the troubleshooting that has gone on over the years to say its a waste or it’s just an airframe that’s going to go through perpetual growing pains. Remember, the C-130 and B-52 went through years and years of issues and modifications before they become the reliable work horses they are today.
Besides, we don’t even know if this mishap was pilot error or mechanical failure…
Report Post »Jeff Bassett
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:38pmWhile problems in the beginning are normal, how the Air Force is dealing with the F-22 is not. Instead of looking at identifying the core issue, they are treating the symptoms. When pilots run into the air system malfunctioning, they must now go to a portable limited supply of fresh air supplied on board. This is a critical SNAFU when the pilot must first identify the problem exist (do that in an air battle) and then manually switch over to such within one minute of the malfunction or possibly perish. The Alaskan crash was termed pilot error even though the pilot could not physically change over to the portable system due to the survival gear he was wearing. (it was a physical impossibility, emphasis).
Report Post »The expected fix is so expensive, the core repair cannot and will not be done on the fleet due to cost and PR concerns.
A great fighter but when you have issues of poisoning the blood stream of all the F-22 pilots on a long term and a short sighted fix tht is impractical in battle situations, you have to shake your head at the situation and wonder what could have been with the F-23.
The_Jerk
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:21pmWhy is this a story? Every new plane/system requires time to work out kinks.
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:34pmExactly, this is BS. If the problem was the O2 system, then it would be a story.
Report Post »nocalifornia
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:46pmThis isn’t a “new” plane, it has been in production since the early 90′s and has been in the air for over 20 years so the premise that this is a new plane with issues is BS, it is an old plane with old problems.
Report Post »Thinking Man
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:23pmExactly. 50% of all prototype airplanes in history, have crashed. These problems are minor technical problems, just big political problems.
Report Post »Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 5:38pmactually NOCALIFORNIA, it entered production in 1999, with the 1st deliveries in 2002.
Report Post »The_Almighty_Creestof
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:18pmAll this means is that they haven’t completely stuffed their pockets yet with the cost overruns. Once even the greediest of the greedy are finally satiated…they’ll find the problem and go into production full bore.
But let’s be realistic…the only reason they need it working right, is to sell it to our “friends” of the month. You know…our soon to be enemies.
Report Post »bankerpapaw
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:18pmThe pilots under whistleblower status may be protected, but you can bet your bottom dollar
Report Post »they will always be passed over for promotion.
AmericanStrega
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:30pmYep. The pilots would have been better off if they said the problem was in seeing a UFO.
Report Post »Sloburn
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:17pmWhy are they still putting pilots in these planes?
Time to get pilot ego out of the plane and into a air conditioned trailer near Las Vegas.
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:35pmThese planes are very very very expensive, they need to work.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:31pmDMERWIN, this doesn’t say what cause the mishap. It could have been pilot error, and had nothing to do with the aircraft’s performance.
Report Post »Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 5:29pmYeah, a drone that relies on complex external signals that can be jammed or compromised. That’s the ticket!
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 11:56amI gladly admit that I know next to nothing about the workings of a airplane. Seems to me that designing an air system should be simple since they have been in use since I was born in 1948.
Report Post »Retired1
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:30pmNot as easy as you think. Your dealing with exteremely cold temperatures at altiude which can cause flexible diaphragms that control (requlate oxygen flow) to change flexiblilty. Actrually the rubber can harden up enough to severly restrict movement that is responsible for oxygen flow. Unless the old engineers tell the new engineers about these quirks they have to learn the hard way. There are other things like saliva that can run down the pilots mask inside and freeze mechanism imobilizing them. So proper maintenance of mask is also a critical factor. I know this as I designed facepieces to work at -40 degrees F to + 160 degrees F. One other thought as I think about this you are experiencing up to 10 gs of force which if your parts are not designed properly could bind from bending under the g forces and stop working. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if fighter aircraft have heating systems for the cockpit or not I would hope they do and that could be another root problem to keep the regulator warm.
Report Post »kent grotz
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 11:54amI hope the F/A 18s continue to hold up. The F22s and F35s aren’t looking good.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:33pmHell of an Airframe. They’ve been able to manipulate it to fill the rolls of the F-14, Prowler, F-16, and maintain it’s 3 original missions…
Report Post »Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 5:27pmFA-18 is a mach 1.8 DOG. The F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-22 can exceed mach 2. The F-18 (1.8), and the F-35 (1.5), cannot. In a situation where you run into a large number of enemy aircraft, like China or North Korea, having the option to break and run comes in handy.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 5:36pmWhile you are correct, with the way our combat system is set up the F-18 generally won’t see combat rolls until air superiority is already reached or in the process of being reached…. That’s were the F-15 and F-22 come into play…
Report Post »Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 11:40pmTell that to the Navy pilots that will face the Chinese aerial horde.
Report Post »sooner12
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 11:51amJust keep working at it boys. You’ll resolve the problems and it will be the superior aircraft in the sky.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 11:43amSo, will they be backing up the failing oxygen delivery systems, with another of the same system? I would think that more research to replace the original system for one that works would make more sense. Then a redundant back up would not hurt.
Report Post »Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:25pmIt is common practice to have a backup system that is identical to the primary system once all the bugs and flaws are worked out in the design. These conditions are based on having a system that has sufficient reliability. There must be sufficient data to prove out the design and any fixes. This plane and the new systems do not have sufficient air time to prove that as yet.
Report Post »nocalifornia
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 11:43amJust goes to show that the Air Force picked the wrong plane. The F-22 has been plagued with problems going all the way back to the flight test program at Edwards. But Lockheed Martin had more military and political clout than Northrop so the defective (and ugly) YF-22 was chosen over the (futuristic and better looking) YF-23.
Report Post »okredstate
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 2:01pmIf looks are your determining factor, thank God they didn’t select the Boeing version of the JSF.
Report Post »Nightstalker
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 11:41amMaybe we can have China build them for us and fix the problem!
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 12:16pmOr maybe Barry can contact the Chinese and find out what the fix is?
Report Post »RightThinking1
Posted on June 12, 2012 at 5:47pmI suppose O might just amble down the hallway to the DOE and ask Stephen Chu for advice. I mean Chu IS a theoretical (emphasis on ‘theoretical’) physicist, and he HAS solved the solar energy problems…, right?…,uh, wait……
Report Post »Hey, it just came to me. These are the guys who came up with the idea of biofuels for military aircraft. Nice to know that ‘green’ defense is a priority for them.