Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F35 Might Explode Mid-air  
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6696 times:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f...ploding-lightning-fuel-tank-2013-1

Seriously?

Should we start a pool on how much money the DOD is going to throw at them this time?
Or what reduction in performance the DOD will say is fine?

Its so hard to know with Lock-Mart. Apparently only somewhat worse than Walmart at making planes.

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2413 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6665 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While I'm a critic of the F-35 program, this hardly seems like a huge problem. Either the OBIGGS is not generating enough inert gas in all situations, or as the article implies, the tank sensor isn't doing an adequate job reporting on the oxygen level in the tanks. Neither should be a big thing to fix.

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6648 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 1):
Neither should be a big thing to fix.

The problem has been known since 2009 from what I read.... So while I believe you, It doesn't appear that easy is something LM can do quickly.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6635 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 2):
The problem has been known since 2009 from what I read.... So while I believe you, It doesn't appear that easy is something LM can do quickly.

Or the DOD doesn't appear to care that it will be an issue... remember, the F-14 had severe problems with buffeting that was discovered during flight testing under certain flight regimes. The DOD elected to ignore the issue and never ordered a fix for it.

Ditto the F/A-18E/F's store separation issue; they never properly fixed the issue by redesigning the wing, they elected to cant the pylons, which caused acceleration problems when loaded (increased drag).

Also note that flying in a thunderstorm deliberately is never recommended although it may have to be done for operational reasons, otherwise they are avoided where possible even with today's fighters. Also note that the issue with lightning protection is an issue with certification:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...17/dod-quick-look-ahern-report.pdf

Lightning Protection: The F-35 employs an active lightning protection system, which presents challenges to certification compared to a more conventional passive system. A 25 nm lightning restriction and dive rate limitations are in place for all aircraft until partial certification is completed at the end of 2012, with full certification expected in the 2014-2016 timeframe." PAGE 8
________________________

"Lightning Protection: The F-35 employs an active lightning protection system, which presents challenges to certification compared to a more conventional passive system. The F-35 outer surfaces are safety compliant, but there are seven subsystems not yet meeting safety qualification standards..... In addition, there is no fuel tank inerting (and therefore no lightning protection) when aircraft are parked. Improved inerting is being addressed via a two-phase design effort. The first phase has completed a Preliminary Design Review and will focus on OBIGGS changes. The second phase will emphasies fuel vent valve redesign in order to allow full dive rate capability (however, this is not currently scheduled before 2014). The contractor is also investigating design options for lightning protection while aircraft are parked, such as pre-charging fuel tanks with nitrogen using an auxiliary cart and adding a dedicated service port to the aircraft.

In the interim, a 25 nm lightning restriction and dive rate limitations are in place for all aircraft until partial certification is completed at the end of 2012, with full certification expected in the 2014-2016 timeframe. As Eglin AFB is located in a significant lightning environment, the current 25 nm restriction could lead to cancelling an estimated 25-50 percent of planned training events due to typical proximity and frequency of thunderstorm activity.

Conclusion: Moderate Concurrency Risk - full certification is not expected until 2014-2016" PAGE 18


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6488 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 1):
While I'm a critic of the F-35 program, this hardly seems like a huge problem. Either the OBIGGS is not generating enough inert gas in all situations, or as the article implies, the tank sensor isn't doing an adequate job reporting on the oxygen level in the tanks. Neither should be a big thing to fix.

Agreed.

This is nothing more than sensationalistic tabloid journalism, the kooks in the anti-jsf crowd are really starting to get desperate now that F-35's are arriving into operational squadrons. Soon their voices will be shut for good.


User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6289 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 4):
This is nothing more than sensationalistic tabloid journalism, the kooks in the anti-jsf crowd are really starting to get desperate now that F-35's are arriving into operational squadrons. Soon their voices will be shut for good.

Uhm, okay.   

Marine Major Aric "Walleye" Liberman was uncharacteristically modest for a Navy SEAL turned fighter pilot. He had just landed an F-35--one of the 2,457 jets the Pentagon plans to buy for $400 billion, making it the costliest weapons program in human history--at its initial operational base late last year. Amid celebratory hoopla, he declined photographers' requests to give a thumbs-up for the cameras that sunny day in Yuma, Ariz. "No, no, no," he demurred with a smile.

Liberman's reticence was understandable. For while the Marines hailed his arrival as a sign that their initial F-35 squadron is now operational, there's one sticking point. "It's an operational squadron," a Marine spokesman said. "The aircraft is not operational."



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312-1,00.html

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6132 times:

lol another 'lets hate on the F-35' thread. Must be too many things going right for the F-35 this week.


This problem has probably been known for years, but there were bigger issues to be delt with, also because flying your untested fighter jet into a thunder store would probably be a bad idea to start with.

I would also like to add the titles of the last few F-35 articles BI has posted. Seems to be somewhat biased.

How The F-35 Turned Into Such A Disaster

The F-35 Could Explode In Midair If Struck By Lightning

There's No Way The F-35 Will Ever Match The Eurofighter In Aerial Combat

Completion Of The $382 Billion F-35 Fighter Project Is Nowhere In Sight

The F-35 Isn't Going Anywhere And The Pentagon Wants You To Know It

What It Really Means If Canada Ditches America's F-35

Marines Field First Operational Squadron Of F-35 Stealth Fighters

Canada's F-35s Are Now $37 Billion More Than Promised And It's Outraging The Whole Country

DEFECTIONS HAVE BEGUN: Canada Rejects The Pricey F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Pentagon Slams 'Worst Ever' Contractor Lockheed Over F-35 Problems

[Edited 2013-02-19 12:58:02]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6058 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 4):
This is nothing more than sensationalistic tabloid journalism, the kooks in the anti-jsf crowd are really starting to get desperate now that F-35's are arriving into operational squadrons.

Your opinion. And, since F-35 is still only part way through its' development phase, the term 'operational' is fantasy at best. More depot level work to be done with these 'operational' a/c (my opinion...).

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 4):
Soon their voices will be shut for good.

Sequestration is coming...Australia now seriously looking to bail (I am thinking another 24 SH order very likely), Harper and his gang now possibly looking at alternatives, particularly with the DND funding cutbacks. Netherlands parliament has voted to bail.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6054 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
I would also like to add the titles of the last few F-35 articles BI has posted. Seems to be somewhat biased.

A fine, unbiased source.   Numpties.

You never see anyone writing articles when the F-35 reaches milestones. Just shows you that only bad news sells. What's worse is, that people are naive enough to only look at one side of the picture. Pretty pathetic when you get monthly F-35 horror stories that end up in threads on this forum.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6049 times:

http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed+Ma...Lightning+Attacks/article29659.htm

Its all bias... right....


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6023 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Sequestration is coming...Australia now seriously looking to bail (I am thinking another 24 SH order very likely), Harper and his gang now possibly looking at alternatives, particularly with the DND funding cutbacks. Netherlands parliament has voted to bail.

Japan is widely expected to increase their order to 200 F-35's. Singapore is a likely customer as they are a Security Cooperative Participant. South Korea has also looked into F-35. Finland has expressed interest in F-35 with a decision in 2015. The UAE has asked for information on F-35's, possibly with an aim to purchase.

If there is further sequestration, foreign governments that have orders and would like F-35's earlier could be asked to see if they are interested in earlier slots (such as Israel and Japan). New export customers that sign on might also be interested in earlier slots.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9):
http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed+Ma...Lightning+Attacks/article29659.htm

Its all bias... right....

Dailytech is known for sensationalism, so read their articles with a grain of salt.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5982 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Australia now seriously looking to bail
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Harper and his gang now possibly looking at alternatives
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Netherlands parliament has voted to bail.

And 9/11 was a possible an inside job, and the US perhaps never landed on the moon, and....blah blah. All hearsay and rumours. There have been more countries added to the F35 purchase list than there have who have bailed. Everyone is "looking" at alternatives just to stall so the clueless opposition has something else to whine about.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5856 times:

And for brighter news; new capabilities of the F-35's AN/AAQ-37 DAS system is demonstrated; it can detect hostile tank fire:

http://news.morningstar.com/all/glob...ile-fire-detection-capability.aspx

Quote:
BALTIMORE, Feb. 11, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS), developed for the F-35 Lightning II, has added hostile ground fire detection to its capabilities by successfully detecting and locating tanks that were firing live rounds during preparations for a military exercise.

A video accompanying this release is available on YouTube at http://youtu.be/fHZO0T5mDYU.

While being flown on Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance. In addition to artillery, the system is able to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZO0T5mDYU&feature=youtu.be

Short video going over the system here: http://youtu.be/e1NrFZddihQ

This is a potential growth area for the F-35, and can change how close air support is provided to ground forces. Once you overlay the image with Blue Force Tracking information, and the JTAC you're talking to is asking for fire on some hostiles near some say, apartment buildings, I'd suggest the "talk down" phase could be speeded up considerably, less passes over the target, much faster and more positive hand-off to the aircraft because you can very quickly narrow down the sources of fire, and start talking back to the JTAC like you're on the same page.

If, while you're doing all of that some one chucks an MANPAD at you, you can be alerted not only of that fact, but where it came from, take evasive action, and respond to the threat without ever losing the picture of the ground elements.

That'd be pretty depressing for the bad guys - you get *one* free shot, maximum, then you get to meet your maker as a SDB or a JDAM comes down on you.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days ago) and read 5650 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 11):
And 9/11 was a possible an inside job, and the US perhaps never landed on the moon, and....blah blah. All hearsay and rumours. There have been more countries added to the F35 purchase list than there have who have bailed. Everyone is "looking" at alternatives just to stall so the clueless opposition has something else to whine about.

And blah blah blah from your p.o.v. to justify an unjustifiable purchase (for Canada). As for the other unrelated topics you brought in, I guess there must be some bud in your living room. Every military will look at possible F-35 capabilities and say "geez, I wish we had some of those" and then the politicians (reality) will remind them of what they can actually afford.

Sequestration is coming...and a good thing, too. In the longer run. The change itself will be a bit bumpy.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5536 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13):
And blah blah blah from your p.o.v. to justify an unjustifiable purchase (for Canada).

Speaking of bud in the living room.....


User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5523 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
While being flown on Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance.

Neat. Why don't we buy some used BAC 1-11's and save ourselves a ton of cash.... 

F-35 A/B/C = Colossal Waste of Taxpayer Money.

My opinion.

There is something wrong with a weapons procurement program when you start planning cuts to your military manning just to pay for it.

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5359 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
That'd be pretty depressing for the bad guys - you get *one* free shot, maximum, then you get to meet your maker as a SDB or a JDAM comes down on you.

Assuming your perfect F-35, your scenario is only possible if the F-35 has any bombs left, since it only carries 2,000lbs of bombs for the Marines and 4,000lbs for the others into stealth combat - and only if they go in without any A2A missiles, which would also mean the F-35 is defenseless against any aircraft if it is discovered. And we know it can't outrun anything, so the F-35 without A2A would be basically dead if it meets any fighters at any range. The Marine Version would basically always operate without any A2A defenses, because otherwise it would carry no bombs at all into battle.

Any pilot flying against the F-35 Marine version over enemy territory, can bet it is probably not carrying any A2A missiles and no canon either. And since it can't outrun or out maneuver anything, the F-35 can be picked off by just about any old enemy fighter - even a MIG-21. That's right, it would not be able to outrun or outflank even an old MACH 2, 8.5 G, MIG-21, much less anything else.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days ago) and read 5314 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9):

http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed Ma...Lightning Attacks/article29659.htm

Its all bias... right....

Biased, not liars. There is a stark difference. They just choose to leave out nearly everything positive that goes on with the F-35.



And Canada will get the F-35. Harper wants it, the DND wants it. Yes, there should have been a proper tender... but end of the day, the RCAF will get it.

If we get F/A-18E/F... it is going to be an end of life product in 10 years. Every update to keep it flying will have to come out of our pocket in development costs. Hate to see another Kosovo for our fighters.

Dont get me wrong, I love the F/A-18E/F (and would love to see it in RCAF markings), but the F-35, even if it does cost more, will be more bang for the buck down the line. Rolling operational costs into the purchase price is bull shit. How much would the CF-18s have cost of you pulled that math wizardry back in the late 70s. If you rolled every simulator, upgrade, flight hour, facility built/upgrade, every ml of fuel... the price would be staggering.

[Edited 2013-02-21 10:33:37]

[Edited 2013-02-21 10:34:19]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5277 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16):

Assuming your perfect F-35, your scenario is only possible if the F-35 has any bombs left, since it only carries 2,000lbs of bombs for the Marines and 4,000lbs for the others into stealth combat - and only if they go in without any A2A missiles, which would also mean the F-35 is defenseless against any aircraft if it is discovered.

That is right Tommy because none of the F-35 versions have two dedicated internal A2A stations...  
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16):
The Marine Version would basically always operate without any A2A defenses, because otherwise it would carry no bombs at all into battle.

Indeed, without those two dedicated internal A2A stations and without the stealthed external cannon pod on station 6 the F-35B will be a sitting duck!


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5201 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16):
Assuming your perfect F-35, your scenario is only possible if the F-35 has any bombs left, since it only carries 2,000lbs of bombs for the Marines and 4,000lbs for the others into stealth combat

Assuming in your perfect scenario there is only one F-35 flying around. I know you hate the F-35 because you don't understand it but holy crap.....   


User currently offlinegipsy From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5007 times:

So you know in advance which threat will be coming to you? WVR or BVR? That's a nice feature.  

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4961 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 18):

Indeed, without those two dedicated internal A2A stations and without the stealthed external cannon pod on station 6 the F-35B will be a sitting duck!

That's true. There could be some F-35's carrying only A2A missiles into battle to escort the bombers. That means - at best - a 2 for 1 kill ratio, Assuming for every F-35 carrying only a bomb load, there is one escorting, carrying 4 A2A missiles. But if even one enemy fighter survives, it'll pick off a bunch of F-35s with short range IR missiles and it's gun, even if it's a MIG-21.

In general, using the F-35 as an air superiority fighter is not a good idea. However, it is replacing a bunch of fighters and that is how it'll be used as well.

The Achilles Heal of the F-35 is it can't carrying much into battle using stealth and has poor airframe performance, while the enemy carries a boat load into battle and can always catch or outmaneuver the F-35- though yes, not radar stealthy.

But radar stealth matters less these days because of passive sensors. To remain stealthy, attacking F-35s would not use their radars in a sweeping manner, as doing so would reveal their presence - especially in A2A roles. The Rafale and Typhoon already display the passive sensors on the pilot's visors and can shoot using voice commands. This is not new.

The strong point is the data link with other radars and planes. However, even today this is not unique to the F-35.

Overall, for A2A, it's not the strong point of the F-35 and it is vulnerable in my opinion if not escorted by better A2A aircraft. Even the F-18s would do, carrying a boat load of A2A missiles and their canon, scanning with their radar, sharing the image with everyone. This goes double if it is the F-35B doing the bombing.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
If, while you're doing all of that some one chucks an MANPAD at you, you can be alerted not only of that fact, but where it came from, take evasive action, and respond to the threat without ever losing the picture of the ground elements.

Using one of the very few bombs the F-35 does carry would be wasted on a MANPAD, assuming the missile misses the F-35 - some are IR guided. The F-35 is so expensive and asset and carries so few bombs in stealth, that it would be foolish to used it to take out one MANPAD that has already fired and which it has have already evaded.

The only unique new thing the F-35 does offers is radar stealth, mostly from the front aspect, at the expense of fewer bombs or missiles carried into battle to accomplish it. However, also with much poorer airframe performance at a much higher per frame acquisition cost and operating cost. A much poorer bang for the buck than what it is replacing.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4934 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
while the enemy carries a boat load into battle and can always catch or outmaneuver the F-35-

What enemy carries more and is smart enough to get WVR to somehow out-maneuver a coalition of F-35s? Fantasy.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4917 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 22):
What enemy carries more and is smart enough to get WVR to somehow out-maneuver a coalition of F-35s?

Any other fighter carries more than 4 A2A missiles than a stealth F-35 carries and they all carry a canon to boot. Being WVR is not even necessary to shoot down an F-35 without radar. If the passive sensors detect the F-35, against which it is not any more stealthy than any other fighter, it's in a bad spot right away. The F-35 is probably less stealthy than existing fighters there, since it emits a round, large and hot exhaust plume. So hot in fact, that it burns itself up right now, which is why it is speed limited for now till that is addressed.

To think that by 2020 there won't be a hole row of IR guided long range missiles, with datalink mid course guidance, is fantasy. The french MICA already has this BVR IR capability today. The F-35s might see them coming after they're fired, but good luck outmaneuvering one. The F-35 is stealthy only to active radar from certain angles and that's it.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4907 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
Any other fighter carries more than 4 A2A missiles than a stealth F-35 carries and they all carry a canon to boot.

What "any other fighter"? Which country, that is an enemy of NATO or the US for that matter, has enough fighters, weapons and proficient pilots to go against a squadron of F-35's that would be flown by the best aircrews in the world?


25 Post contains images kiwirob : The British are only getting 48 of them
26 tommytoyz : You name it, and it carries more There are none. We are not at war with anyone, nor is any NATO country. The larger, more capable countries like Russ
27 Ozair : Let me make this very clear. EVERY F-35 has TWO dedicated A2A internal weapons stations. These weapon stations do not carry bombs, they only carry A2
28 ThePointblank : Essentially correct. With F-35, there is absolutely no way for a enemy to try to sneak up, take a shot at it, and NOT be detected and tracked immedia
29 Powerslide : So nothing. Got it. I don't recall B-2's doing daily CAS over Afghanistan or participating EVERY DAY in Libya. Whether the F35 is needed or not is no
30 tommytoyz : I see this question is being avoided. Um, no, the Rafale and Typhoon can do what I said they can, that much is not classified. You might be surprised
31 Post contains links and images Ozair : Some of us actually know what we are talking about........ It can carry the same AIM-120 on the dedicated A2A weapon station but is limited to a 1,50
32 jetblueguy22 : The discussion has gone off topic. It will be archived. All posts after the lock will be removed for housekeeping purposes only. Thanks Pat
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hellenic F-16 Mid Air Collision posted Thu Aug 26 2010 09:19:44 by SandroMag
Mid Air Collision Uscg C130 And Usmc Cobra posted Fri Oct 30 2009 00:26:25 by Mascmo
2 Russian Knights Su-27's Mid-air Collision posted Sun Aug 16 2009 08:10:10 by NCB
Last Time Airforce 1 Mid Air Refueled? posted Thu Apr 23 2009 16:53:39 by Runga08
Can A Tanker Be Refuled In Mid-air? posted Tue May 8 2007 23:56:05 by Pizzaandplanes
Red Arrows In Mid - Air Collision posted Fri Jan 12 2007 17:31:12 by EZYAirbus
RAF Shawbury Mid-air Crash posted Wed Jan 10 2007 19:13:12 by BmiBaby737
T-38 Near Mid-air Collision Video posted Mon Dec 18 2006 07:12:40 by OPNLguy
B-2 Near Mid Air Collision. posted Fri Aug 11 2006 03:28:06 by Bwood
Raaf Roulettes Mid-air Collision posted Fri Jan 21 2005 03:27:22 by VH-KCT*