j.mo
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:29 am

F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:02 pm

Looks like we will see these guys flying again soon.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-for-flight-after-inspections.html

JM
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:09 am

They didn't fix or change anything. Just because nothing was found does not mean it's OK. Either the 12 incidents over 3 years were imagined or they were real. If they were real, something is wrong which has not yet been corrected.
 
Cadet985
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:01 am

I have friends who are pilots in the Air Force who do not trust the F-22, and do not want to fly in it. Consider just how long the F-22 spent in design and testing compared to other aircraft like the F-15 and F-16, and you don't hear about all these issues with those. I stated something in an earlier thread on this issue, and I'll say it again. Close down the F-22 line, order more F-16's and the upgraded F-15's. In addition to being proven aircraft, doing that would create thousands of jobs.

Marc
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2104
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:57 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):
Close down the F-22 line, o

The worlds finest aircraft, unmatched in performance, should hardly be 'shut down' because of a faulty or troublesome oxygen generating system. That would a ridiculous waste of money, technology, time and resources to throw away all that progress just because of a glitch in one system. You fix that problem, and you're back to having the best fighter in the world.
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:40 pm

Last I looked...the line is being shut down.
 
j.mo
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:29 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:35 pm

I think the last F-22 started production in April of this year.

I disagree with shutting it down. I think shutting down the worthless F-35 and using that money to fund upgraded F-16's, F-15's and F-18's is a better option. Then build more F-22's. I read Russia plans on building nearly 1,000 T-50 type aircraft. China is also building the J-20. And here we sit with less than 185 F-22's and a aless capable F-35.

Good job America...

JM
 
Cadet985
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:21 pm

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 3):
The worlds finest aircraft

...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

Marc
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:59 pm

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 3):
The worlds finest aircraft, unmatched in performance, should hardly be 'shut down' because of a faulty or troublesome oxygen generating system.

Finest based on..............
As for the onboad oxygen system, they have found nothing wrong with it, so unless you are privy to something the designers and US Air Force don't know...............

Hopefully in putting the a/c back into service thay are also putting in some type of warning system / monitor since at this stage they have no clue what affected the pilots leading to the crashes.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:22 pm

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
I think shutting down the worthless F-35 and using that money to fund upgraded F-16's, F-15's and F-18's is a better option.


America has boxed herself in by going down the path of no return and betting all on the F-35. That was risky and foolish as we are now seeing more and more.

A money pit now trying to get it all to work. In any case, how will all this stealth airframe technology work, when the ground and air based radars improve and are able to detect them? Recent air campaigns have taken out the radars as your first targets - after that, stealth doesn't matter much. Even if the radars see the incoming missiles aimed at them, it doesn't matter.

Wild Weasel missions are critical and the answer to blinding the enemy - not "stealth" airframes. Perhaps we can add quick response anti radar capabilities to existing frames.

But all in all, this blundering is not disastrous, because there is no great external threat of war to the USA anyway. Neither Russian or China are about to attack us - or even capable of it. It is disastrous to our efficient use of resources and adding capability, but not to our security in the short to medium term.

It is making contractors and lobbyists rich though. The wasted money is going somewhere - guess where.
 
FoxTwo
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:49 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:43 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
But all in all, this blundering is not disastrous, because there is no great external threat of war to the USA anyway

I bet our grandparents said the same thing prior to WW2 .

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
Neither Russian or China are about to attack us

History sir - has a history of repeating itself. We live in the generation of entitlement. We inherited the freedom, we did not fight for it. It is foolish to not remain with the times.

People must realize that even if the F22 is the worlds best fighter - most people (especially those in other countries) , will never say so ! That's just the way it is. Imagine of Russia's head poncho came out and said "DAMN OUR T50 IS GOOD!!!! BUT STILL NOT AS GOOD AS THE F-22 !!!"

The US is still home to the worlds most sophisticated and well equipped Air Force.

Also, people forget what we do not know. This can be said for other countries as well, but do you really think every system in the F22 is declassified? How about the F35?
F2
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:46 pm

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

The day the Raptor is tested in a combat environment in an A/A engagement is the day WWIII starts. I think the Raptor can handle any junk coming from Russia or China.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
Recent air campaigns have taken out the radars as your first targets - after that, stealth doesn't matter much. Even if the radars see the incoming missiles aimed at them, it doesn't matter.

The F-35 isn't all about stealth as it is about its advanced avionics that none of the legacy fighters will ever get. Plus I suggest you talk to a real fighter pilot and ask him/her about flying over enemy airspace, every one of them will say they'd rather be "undetectable" by missiles.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:25 pm

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

lol, really?

It can readily wipe the floor with the F-15, who HAS been tested in a combat environment. Then there is redflag and other war games, not to mention training, where these jets are pushed just as hard as if it was real combat. Must be a lemon cause it has yet flown around daring someone to shoot at it.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:25 am

Quoting powerslide (Reply 10):
every one of them will say they'd rather be "undetectable" by missiles.


If I had a magic wand, I too would rather have.....fill in the blank. But that's not reality. And no aircraft is entirely undetectable, not even the F-22. Secondly if enemy radars are destroyed or suppressed, you are invisible. That's the only 100% way to ensure it.

So long as enemy radars can operate and get better at detecting our stealth aircraft - and they will - Stealth will not offer such a big advantage in the future.

Quoting FoxTwo (Reply 9):
History sir - has a history of repeating itself.

Sir, are you saying that Russia or China are actually intending to attack the USA? Or that there is real possibility of that happening? If yes, why would they? What would they gain?

The lessons of far flung wars by Super Powers with small countries like Vietnam and Iraq should surely have been learnt - even by a historian like yourself. IF the USA couldn't hold Vietnam or Afghanistan, how on earth would any power hold or conquer the USA? Even if we were all on horseback that wouldn't happen. Germany could not hold Russia either - too big - and they were close by geographically.

What you fear sir, has never in fact occurred om recent times. And I think of all people the Russians know this and I'm sure, so do the Chinese who can barely control Tibet and can't even bring Taiwan back to the motherland.

The F-22 and F-35s are too expensive and benefit the contractors more than anything. With a cost + contract, the more expensive and complex, the better - but not necessarily more capable, as we can now see with the Oxygen system on the F-22. A bottle would have done just as well and been cheaper and more reliable.

[Edited 2011-09-21 21:36:03]
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:02 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
cheaper and more reliable.

An old Honda civic is cheap and reliable, fighter jets aren't either of those things.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
The F-22 and F-35s are too expensive and benefit the contractors more than anything.

Opinion. Let the Air Force make that call.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:49 pm

Quoting powerslide (Reply 13):
An old Honda civic is cheap and reliable

"Cheaper and more reliable" is not the same as "cheap and reliable". And are you saying that an regular pressurized Oxygen bottle system as used on most other fighters would not have worked better or that is would not have been cheaper?

Quoting powerslide (Reply 13):
Let the Air Force make that call.


As one who pays taxes and helps pay the Air Force's bills, I think I am entitled to an opinion. The US Air Force relies on taxpayers, and they have every right to say no, we're not paying for that. With your logic the US Air Force would be flying inferior leased 767 tankers by now, costing tens of billions of Dollars more than the deal finally got - with a better tanker to boot.

When it comes to money, the DoD is almost irresponsible. They can not even produce an audited budget and haven't for many years.

[Edited 2011-09-22 07:59:00]
 
j.mo
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:29 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:30 pm

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

Marc

At my job I talk with military pilots on a fairly regualr basis. Recently I was talking with a Navy aggressor pilot who flies out at Navy Fallon (Top Gun). He said, while he had not flown against the F-22 personally, he has plenty of friends that had and it wasn't fun. He said the F-22 guys fly high and shoot far. You never see them and the only way you know they are around is, one minute you're flying and the next minute you're called "dead."

So maybe the F-22's are not "combat tested" as critics like to point out. But those pilots of F-16's, F-15's and F,18's are combat tested and they are getting beat by an airplane they never saw.

Take that for what it's worth.

JM
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:13 pm

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
I read Russia plans on building nearly 1,000 T-50 type aircraft. China is also building the J-20. And here we sit with less than 185 F-22's and a aless capable F-35.

I think that 1000 production figure is fairly outrageous by any standard. The Russians haven't built 1000 SU-27s (or its variants) and that is far cheaper and less complex, I think.

They'll see that they don't need as many as that and that number will be cut dramatically.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:04 pm

Quoting j.mo (Reply 15):
He said the F-22 guys fly high and shoot far. You never see them and the only way you know they are around is, one minute you're flying and the next minute you're called "dead."

That's great! Sounds like they don't have to maneuver much at all to be effective.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:27 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 14):
And are you saying that an regular pressurized Oxygen bottle system as used on most other fighters would not have worked better or that is would not have been cheaper?



Your regular 10L LOX bottle would run out quickly on long flights. Along with that, its just another thing to worry about when deploying to an area that doesn't have lox compounds. A self-generating system is far more convenient in this sense. This system has been around for decades and only now are we seeing any serious issues. AFAIK, none of the Raptors that start outdoors have been affected by this issue.
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:27 pm

Let's be realistic, Russia will not attack the US. It has never happened, and if ever there was a time it could happen (Cold War), it is now over. Russia has downsized drastically although it was obviously because they simply couldn't afford to keep such a large air force. But also, when you look at things, they are doing fine whilst directly surrounded by many more "hostile" nations. You have China in the East, NATO in the west, and the various former Soviet republics, some of which have real problems with Russia. Yet, even with their downsized air force, Russia has managed to keep their ground. So tell me again why USA needs so many forces? Even if the USA cuts everything in half, they will still have the most powerful air force in the world by far. There is absolutely no need to have all the carriers they have either.

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
I read Russia plans on building nearly 1,000 T-50

Where did you read this? because it is absolutely inaccurate and untrue. Even if they DID want to, they simply can't afford it. But realistically they are looking to purchase about 200-250. Which is not far off the number of F-22s due to fly in the USAF.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 10):
I think the Raptor can handle any junk coming from Russia or China.

You don't even know everything about the F-22 (because a lot is classified). Are you telling me you somehow know enough about the T-50 or J-20 to already call them junk?!? What exactly are you basing this on exactly? The few photos that have popped up on the internet? I bet the designers themselves don't even know everything, because the test program isn't finished. Let the planes go through their tests, let them prove themselves, then make judgements. I sure hope that the USAF top brass doesn't think as ignorantly as you.
 
FoxTwo
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:49 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:59 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Sir, are you saying that Russia or China are actually intending to attack the USA? Or that there is real possibility of that happening? If yes, why would they? What would they gain?

Nowhere was it stated or implied that Russian or China will be attacking the United States. This is very black and white - it's text. I did not say that, so please do assume or make an argument off information which was not submitted. Why would a country want to attack another? I am not quite sure where to begin . Pick a decade in the 20th century , we can start there. Why did Germany invade Poland? Why Did Russia invade Afghanistan? Why did the USA invade Vietnam? Why did Russia invade Georgia (21st century - just putting it forth for the sake of a recent example) , Why did Japan invade China? There are not definitive answers to these questions. Conquer and control to build that enormous empire oh so many have dreamed about. There is no real way to explain why a country wants to invade another. There are a variety of direct and indirect factors relating to this question - bottom line, it has happened, and it can happen. I bring forth the example of our grandparents because in all honesty, if you tried to convince them in 1938, that the next 7 years would send 70,000,000 to their deaths, I bet they would turn a blind eye and laugh. We do not like thinking about what we have to lose.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
What you fear sir, has never in fact occurred om recent times. And I think of all people the Russians know this and I'm sure, so do the Chinese who can barely control Tibet and can't even bring Taiwan back to the motherland.

Why does it need to happen in recent times? Recent times just makes the situation THAT MUCH MORE complicated given technology, and how globalized our world is.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
The F-22 and F-35s are too expensive and benefit the contractors more than anything. With a cost + contract, the more expensive and complex, the better - but not necessarily more capable, as we can now see with the Oxygen system on the F-22. A bottle would have done just as well and been cheaper and more reliable.

They are too expensive? Define expensive? A state of the art aircraft is generally a lot of money. Without this "state of the art" equipment, our civilization tends to ... "fall short". To be quite frank with you , I would rather live beside the United States and their F-22s, than oh lets say another "Canada" with a few f18s. Now mix in a nice big super power named "Russia" with a sophisticated air force. Let's say oh , screw the F-22 and other western front line equipment. Do you really think we would have as much of a say on the world scale? Of course not. I am not saying the F-22 Raptor is the deciding factor in all of our lives, but it is true that military equipment allows us to retain our world class lifestyles , etc.
F2
 
j.mo
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:29 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:48 pm

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 19):
Where did you read this? because it is absolutely inaccurate and untrue.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ssia%20Sees%201,000%20T-50%20Sales

And for the record, I very much respect Russian military fighters. I love the SU-30 class and I am sure the T-50 will be a remarkable airplane.

I think our F-35 is a complete waste of money. Well, put forth as a fighter/light bomber/FAC/ELINT/STOVL/VTOL aircraft it is. As a technology demonstrator/Lockheed Martin cash machine it serves it's purpose, just not it's price tag.

JM
 
BMI727
Posts: 11089
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:37 am

Quoting powerslide (Reply 10):
I think the Raptor can handle any junk coming from Russia or China.

They can now, but what about in 20 years?

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
I think the last F-22 started production in April of this year.

It's sad to think of how many more capable F-22s could be built for the money being thrown at the F-35.

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
China is also building the J-20.

To be fair the J-20 is at least 6-7 years from being a real fighter plane. That puts them roughly where the US was in the early/mid 1990s with the ATF.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
America has boxed herself in by going down the path of no return and betting all on the F-35. That was risky and foolish as we are now seeing more and more.

The F-35 is based on a fantasy that we are only now finding to be untrue after spending billions. This is why you shouldn't let politicians and bureaucrats design planes.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

It has gotten as close as possible without shooting and has acquitted itself well, to say the least.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
With a cost + contract, the more expensive and complex, the better - but not necessarily more capable, as we can now see with the Oxygen system on the F-22.

Cost plus contracts do have their place.

Quoting j.mo (Reply 21):
I think our F-35 is a complete waste of money. Well, put forth as a fighter/light bomber/FAC/ELINT/STOVL/VTOL aircraft it is. As a technology demonstrator/Lockheed Martin cash machine it serves it's purpose, just not it's price tag

I don't put much, if any, of the F-35's problems on Lockheed. They were dealt a tough hand and asked to do the impossible, and frankly it could have been way worse. The F-35 could have been a good, smaller stablemate to the F-22 if they had reigned in the requirements and capabilities. For that matter, we could have built a bunch more F-22s for the JSF money, and probably developed an attack version as well. And then use the change to develop a modernized A-10 and possibly restart production.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:16 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

Marc

That you know of  
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 14):
The US Air Force relies on taxpayers, and they have every right to say no, we're not paying for that.

No, the tax payer has NO right to say they're not paying for that. Thats left up to the DoD and the GAO. The tax payer is left to create mis-informed/un-informed threads about their concerns.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 17):
That's great! Sounds like they don't have to maneuver much at all to be effective.

Exactly what we want...why fight fair?
 
j.mo
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:29 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:06 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
To be fair the J-20 is at least 6-7 years from being a real fighter plane...

So is the F-35....

JM
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:21 pm

Quoting FoxTwo (Reply 20):
it is true that military equipment allows us to retain our world class lifestyles , etc.

Within limits, beyond which spending more on military creates diminishing returns with a reduction in security and standard of living. The Soviet Union is a great recent example of that. Since you mention Canada, did any terrorists attack Canada? Do any other nations feel threatened by Canada? Does Canada by and large mind it's own business, rather than stationing their guns in a long list of countries abroad?

Quoting checksixx (Reply 23):
No, the tax payer has NO right to say they're not paying for that

Really? The military is governed by elected leaders, who are um, well, elected. And the money is appropriated to the Pentagon by elected members of Congress. Why do you think F-22 line was shut? Hint: Congress who didn't want to pay for it.
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:57 am

HaveBlue, you did it again ! You have articulated in very few words precisely what I have been thinking of HOW to say !

I completely agree with you.

I have heard that the USAF is going to lift the grounding order, and limit the Raptor to 10,000 ft; I have no idea how accurate this is, but if true, it does sound rather ridiculous to me. What would it accomplish ?
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:06 am

Quoting checksixx (Reply 4):
Last I looked...the line is being shut down.

Let's not get two completely different things mixed up here; Yes, the decision has been made to cease production f the Raptor with the completion of the 189 th unit; that has nothing to do with the present grounding order, or the lifting of that order.
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2104
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:30 am

Quoting Geezer (Reply 26):
HaveBlue, you did it again !

Thanks Geezer! Glad to be of service  


Quoting par13del (Reply 7):
As for the onboad oxygen system, they have found nothing wrong with it, so unless you are privy to something the designers and US Air Force don't know...............

You are completely and patently wrong here. There is a problem with the OBOGS system, that was the reason for the grounding in the first place. They just haven't been able to pinpoint exactly what the problem is with the system, but there is no disputing that there is a problem. They are cleared to fly but not up to their 60,000' normal ceiling. Each crewmember will be provided with "certain protective equipment and data gathering equipment". The reason for this is they are still trying to determine exactly what the problem with the OBOGS system is and how to mitigate those problems. The aircraft will no longer be started inside the hangar, which seems to have either been the sole or primary culprit in causing problems with OBOGS.

Also there are external and internal pressures which have played into the decision to have the Raptor flying again. One is that the crews skills are atrophying with months spent out of the F-22. There is also the potentially more pressing need to do some 'damage control', in that the media has been more and more reporting on the $100+ million dollar static displays and getting them flying again will get that fact out of the spotlight.

So I am privy to the same info that anyone with an interest is privy too, which is that there were 14 hypoxia incidents with the F-22, there's at least some reports of toxic chemicals in the Raptors pilots blood, and there was not any other single possible problem mentioned as a reason for the grounding of the F-22 in the first place.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7552602

http://defense.aol.com/2011/09/20/ai...gain-imposes-extra-safety-measure/

[Edited 2011-09-24 00:31:41]
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:31 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
But all in all, this blundering is not disastrous, because there is no great external threat of war to the USA anyway. Neither Russian or China are about to attack us - or even capable of it. It is disastrous to our efficient use of resources and adding capability, but not to our security in the short to medium term.


So you say there is "no great external threat of war to the U.S. anyway"................here's what that sounds like to me;

Medium size town has a great fire department, bunch of very latest fire trucks, but haven't had a big fire for six months; city council meets ( poiticians ) someone says, hey, we need a new swimming pool, ski jump, horse track, incinerator, whatever, but it all costs a lot of $$$$$ Miss Ethel says (in her snarly little voice ) "Huh....we spent all that $$$ on all those big red fire trucks, havent had a fire "forever:, so let's sell them trucks, get this other "stuff"; so... big auction, sell the fire trucks, get all the other "stuff"......and .......you guessed it ! Big fire, whole damn town burns down, etc.

That's exactly why the US needs the world's best Air Force folks ! Not because we want to go invade other countries, but because history has taught us ( for those paying attention) that the best way to get "invaded" is to look WEAK !
We look kinda weak right now; because we have a so called "C in C" who has run around the world for 3 years with a sign on his back saying, "ATTACK US...WE'RE WEAK" !

So far, there were 25 replies to the OP's post before I came along; about 12 of them make a hell of a lot of sense; a few make no sense.

I'm not a pilot; I'm not a defense "expert"; so for those things, I need to listen to people who are "experts"; people who really know what they are talking about; fortunately, I don't have to look too far.......there are a few people who fit that criteria very close at hand; in addition to them, I just happen to have a family member who flies the F-22A Like all F-22 pilots, he isn't "at liberty" to discuss "all that much" with me, or his Dad, or anyone else; but he has told me a couple of things, some of which have already been mentioned on this thread, had you paid attention, ( which obviously a few have not ) My "friend" flew the F-15 for 5 or 6 years prior to transitioning to the Raptor; he assures me the Eagle is a fabulous weapon; until it goes "up against the Raptor"; then it become yet another piece of technology whose time has come and gone. Nothing last forever it seems.

Does anyone here really think you are going to "solve" all of the USAF's many problems on this forum ?
Does anyone think we should "scrap" all of our "frightfully expensive" F-22's and buy a "whole bunch" of "updated F-15's F-16's and F-18's , and possibly go back to Viet Nam era "tactics" to defend the country ? To "save some money" ?
I'll tell you what's "expensive"; getting caught "with your pants down" is VERY expensive ! I know ; I remember : I was 9 years old on December 7, 1941 when the USA really did get caught with our pants down; I also know some folks whose sons went to the south Pacific, never to return. That's VERY EXPENSIVE ! I sincerely hope I will never have to see that happen again; I probably won't; But some of you may. Some of you easily could.

Let's assume for a moment that we can save a few billion or three on defense spending; how long do you suppose it would take for our present CinC to find a "use" for all that "savings" ? Maybe we could provide "free health care" for everyone too lazy to work, plus a few million illegal aliens, for a year or two ? See where I'm going with this ?

I gotta go to bed now!

Charley


It is making contractors and lobbyists rich though. The wasted money is going somewhere - guess where.

( Looks like another "bean counter" )
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:39 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
Quoting checksixx (Reply 23):
No, the tax payer has NO right to say they're not paying for that

Really? The military is governed by elected leaders, who are um, well, elected. And the money is appropriated to the Pentagon by elected members of Congress. Why do you think F-22 line was shut? Hint: Congress who didn't want to pay for it.

I'm well aware of how it works...Hint: I never said the system doesn't work that way. My opinion is that the tax payer has no right to dictate what is and isn't purchased, for example F-22's, because they have no idea about the needs of the Air Force. They also know almost nothing about warfighting. Someone who wants to see the program terminated quotes the R&D cost into each airframe and it goes down in flames there...even though we all should know better.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 27):
Quoting checksixx (Reply 4):
Last I looked...the line is being shut down.


Let's not get two completely different things mixed up here; Yes, the decision has been made to cease production f the Raptor with the completion of the 189 th unit; that has nothing to do with the present grounding order, or the lifting of that order.

Go re-read my post that you quoted...I was replying to someone else...I'm not the one mixing anything up.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11089
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:59 pm

Quoting checksixx (Reply 30):
My opinion is that the tax payer has no right to dictate what is and isn't purchased,

Letting the taxpayer, and people elected by taxpayers, dictate purchases is how we end up with ideas like "Let's build one, cheap airframe that can do everything."
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:33 pm

[quote=checksixx,reply=30]Go re-read my post that you quoted...I was replying to someone else...I'm not the one mixing anything up here

I just re-read it; please accept my apologies, checksixx

[quote=BMI727,reply=31]Quoting checksixx (Reply 30):
My opinion is that the tax payer has no right to dictate what is and isn't purchased,

Letting the taxpayer, and people elected by taxpayers, dictate purchases is how we end up with ideas like "Let's build one, cheap airframe that can do everything."


BMI727.....

I have been thinking and saying the exact same thing for many years now; I'll give you a classic example;

Remember when the F-111 was in development ? Robert McNamara was SecDef at the time; McNamara was one of the original so-called "whizz-kids" hired by Ford Motor Co. Very bright guy in college, made a very big "impact" at Ford,
( don't recall all the details just now ) Anyway, because he was such a "big deal" at Ford, our former "worst POTUS of all time" assumed he would be a "great" Sec Def; problem being though, he knew SQUAT about airplanes, and also had NO CLUE what the military needed, what the "threat" was, or anything else having to do with defense requirements;

But he's the SEC Def regardless ! The guy was a "bean counter" ! maybe a pretty good bean counter, but a bean counter never the less; IMHO, bean counters have no damned business being the Sec Def !

So......Mc Namara says, "we're gonna build ONE airplane"; that one airplane is gonna do "EVERYTHING"; ( and that's how the good old "Ardvaark" started out.......a "do everything" airplane. By some combination of sheer good luck and "fate", it finally did develop into a pretty good fighter-bomber; ( no thanks to whiz-kid McNamara ) ( who also thought the place to run a war from was in Washington DC, by a whole committee "bean counters" ! )

Back to Sept, 2011...........Can't you just see Leon Paneta telling us what to do about the F-35 ? ( no doubt he would have excellent "advice" from such world famous defense "experts" as Nancy Pelosi, Sheila Jackson Lee, and probably even the grand "Poobah" of all defense experts, the GREAT Barry, er..Barrack Obama himself !

And that dear fellow members is why defense decisions should be left to REAL defense "experts" ( if you can any )

Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:00 am

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 28):
There is a problem with the OBOGS system, that was the reason for the grounding in the first place.

They didn't know in the first place that it was the OBOGS system. They know now that the system isn't at fault.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 28):
They just haven't been able to pinpoint exactly what the problem is with the system, but there is no disputing that there is a problem.

They have. It's procedural. It's no coincidence that all of the hypoxia incidents happened at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. They have identified that starting aircraft while in the hangars causes the OBOGS system to suck in the exhaust fumes from the engines, which causes the hypoxia issues.

And it is not just the F-22 that has issues with hypoxia; the F/A-18 has also affected as well, though it uses a totally different system. The Navy's response for most of the past decade was to upgrade hypoxia-awareness training. Finally, however, two corrective steps are being undertaken on the Hornet and Super Hornet fleet: the oxygen concentrator is being upgraded with the addition of a catalyst that converts carbon monoxide to benign carbon dioxide. In the future, the USN will install a solid-state oxygen-monitoring system on all in-service F/A-18s that tracks both oxygen concentration and pressure rather than O2 concentration alone. Incidentally, the Eurofighter fleet is also equipped with a OBOGS system as well, though the system that it has already has the oxygen monitoring system and the carbon monoxide catalyst, and thus no problems have been reported.
 
LongbowPilot
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:16 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:21 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
the Eurofighter fleet is also equipped with a OBOGS system as well, though the system that it has already has the oxygen monitoring system and the carbon monoxide catalyst, and thus no problems have been reported.

Great Post Point. I like the last part of what you wrote. It reminds me that anything we operate in the U.S. DOD is made by the lowest bidder. So go figure we do not have the simple whistle installed.

-Attack
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:17 pm

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
I think shutting down the worthless F-35 and using that money to fund upgraded F-16's, F-15's and F-18's is a better option.

Problem is that several countries, not only the USA, has invested alot of money in the F35 program, money that is lost to us . What are you gonna offer us insted of the F35 ?

Uppgraded F-16's, F-15's or F-18's will proabably not be acceptable.


The US has made it clear that it is not prepared to offer the F22 to any of it's allies ...

[Edited 2011-10-02 09:19:50]
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:39 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):

I don't put much, if any, of the F-35's problems on Lockheed. They were dealt a tough hand and asked to do the impossible, and frankly it could have been way worse.

Lockheed took the contract. They said they could build all 3 versions of the plane. They didn't have to take the contract, but they did. So, I do put most of the F-35 problems on Lockheed. They weren't dealt the cards...they were playing solitaire.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 32):

Back to Sept, 2011...........Can't you just see Leon Paneta telling us what to do about the F-35 ? ( no doubt he would have excellent "advice" from such world famous defense "experts" as Nancy Pelosi, Sheila Jackson Lee, and probably even the grand "Poobah" of all defense experts, the GREAT Barry, er..Barrack Obama himself !

Except, as I mentioned above, Lochheed said they could build the f-35, regardless of who came up with the concept and requirements. So if they couldn't build it, why bid? They designed the planes and are building the planes, and they ARE supposed to be defense experts.

All the politicians did was lay out the requirements of the plane. Lockheed said they could meet those requirements for a certain price and at a certain time. So far, it seems they are having problems living up to their own promises and commitments.
What the...?
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:01 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 36):
Lockheed took the contract. They said they could build all 3 versions of the plane. They didn't have to take the contract, but they did. So, I do put most of the F-35 problems on Lockheed. They weren't dealt the cards...they were playing solitaire.

They were awarded the contract...they didn't take anything. They have built all 3 versions of the plane. Saying that you put all the F-35 problems on Lockheed is like saying you put all the problems of your new model car on the manufacturer....OF course you would! But like with anything new and complex, if you don't expect problems with that new wonder toy...then honestly, you're living in a fantasy world.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 36):
Except, as I mentioned above, Lochheed said they could build the f-35, regardless of who came up with the concept and requirements. So if they couldn't build it, why bid? They designed the planes and are building the planes, and they ARE supposed to be defense experts.

All the politicians did was lay out the requirements of the plane. Lockheed said they could meet those requirements for a certain price and at a certain time. So far, it seems they are having problems living up to their own promises and commitments.

No...flat out wrong...they ARE supposed to be a defense contractor. A defense experts work at places like the Pentagon and out in the field (our military). No politician ever laid out requirements needed of the F-35...The military leadership of those branches did. Lockheed agreed to a budget for research and development of the winning prototype...not a price per aircraft...EVER. They've attempted to fix the price per aircraft, but due to minor problems in the program, I'm sure thats out the window. Again...if anyone here thinks that building something technically complex is easy, cheap and quick...You live in a dream world.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:55 am

You just can't stuff three radically different requirements into one Aircraft. That lesson should have been learned a long time ago when Mcnamara tried to force the Navy to use the F111 as a Fighter.




The F35 is best suited as a Harrier replacement, in this role it is very impressive. The other two versions are compromised
designs suffering from the unnecessary design constraints of VSTOL.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7425
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:49 am

I am frankly surprised that members from a democratic country seem to be saying that the taxpayers and their representatives should have no role in defence, (apart from paying the bills).

I think the phrase was "no taxation without representation".

IMO, accepting the idea that the DOD, (Military) and Defence Contractors make the decision and simply present Congress/Tax Payers with the bill is somewhat dangerous. Besides, surely Barack Obama is also the Commander in Chief, and out ranks the Generals
 
j.mo
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:29 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:02 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 35):
Problem is that several countries, not only the USA, has invested alot of money in the F35 program, money that is lost to us . What are you gonna offer us insted of the F35 ?

Uppgraded F-16's, F-15's or F-18's will proabably not be acceptable.

I don't pretend to know the nuances of that contract. As an American I am embarrassed by contractors such as Lockheed Martin.

I'm pretty sure the price Norway is paying for 56 F-35's would buy a lot more Super Hornets, Silent Eagles, Rafales or Eurofighters. Unfortunately, politics play a pretty big role in these decisions and I understand a cancellation is not realistic.

I just get tired of feeding endless money to "the machine".

JM
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:57 pm

Quoting checksixx (Reply 37):

They were awarded the contract because they bid for the contract. They said they could build the planes for a certain price, with certain specs by a certain time. Have they done any of these things? Were they somehow forced to bid on the contract?

No they weren't. The fact is, they couldn't do what they said they could do.

There was a budget for the program and Lockheed said they could do the job within the budget parameters...but leaving money aside, there sure as hell was a time frame they claimed they could adhere to...and yet they couldn't manage it.

Trying to cast Lockheed somehow as an injured party in this is a laugh. They screwed the pooch...and while they may have had help, they certainly did the majority of the screwing.

If you can't do the job, don't take the contract.
What the...?
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:45 pm

Quoting checksixx (Reply 37):
No politician ever laid out requirements needed of the F-35


Partially correct, however Congress meddles in these contracts through earmarks that dictate systems be added, specific vendors be used many time to the determent of the original design specifications.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 41):
If you can't do the job, don't take the contract.


There are days where I'm glad Boeing lost the competition... easier to watch a competitor screw themselves into the mud.

That said, we're way off subject... has anyone noticed an F-22 in the air?

[Edited 2011-10-03 13:46:46]
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:31 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
That said, we're way off subject... has anyone noticed an F-22 in the air?

None yet on USAFA football flyovers. Just B-1s and F-15s so far this year, we usually get a few F-22s though, will keep an eye out on Saturdays.

Who am I kidding, I'm always in the back yard staring at the sky while pretending to do yardwork when the flyovers start.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:02 am

Quoting FoxTwo (Reply 9):
Also, people forget what we do not know.

Thank you for that illumination Mr Rumsfeld. I now fully understand.

PS. I am not really sure I forgot what I did not know?????
 
lorm
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:31 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:26 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
That said, we're way off subject... has anyone noticed an F-22 in the air?

Heard from a few people that live on and near Hickam/PHNL that they've seen them in air the within the past week.
Brick Windows
 
ha763
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:12 am

Quoting lorm (Reply 45):
Heard from a few people that live on and near Hickam/PHNL that they've seen them in air the within the past week.

Correct. The HIANG's F-22s are flying. They make their left turn over my work place at the airport during landing.
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 1755
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:52 pm

Quoting Oroka (Reply 11):
Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

Considering I was at the Red Flag in 2009 where it was first introduced into a "combat" environment (and those of you who know anything about RF's know that they are as close to real as you can get), I don't have any doubts of the fact it can wipe the floor with just about any fighter sent against it.
I think that fear alone (from our potential adversaries) might be enough to keep it out of combat for awhile...and that's how I prefer it.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F-22's Back In The Air Soon

Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:42 pm

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 47):
I think that fear alone (from our potential adversaries) might be enough to keep it out of combat for awhile...and that's how I prefer it.

Best kind of weapon is the one you never have to use.  

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 7BOEING7, Florianopolis and 20 guests