MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aviation News => Topic started by: shawn a on May 06, 2011, 08:50:20 AM
-
F-22s are grounded now, because of what I heard was a "problem delivering oxygen to the pilot"
This fuels my personal apprehension over our future "one plane air force"--OK, OK "two plane air force"
I wonder if conclusions from the investigation into the Alaska crash is the reason for the grounding.
-
I wonder, since a lot of evidence in that crash points to CFIT which could have been due to an oxygen delivery problem I guess. Another 'pro' for pilotless vehicles perhaps?
-
Sure, among the many other benefits of not having to accomodate people onboard and not having to deal with other "human factors".
But after all these decades of making sure pilots can breath, you would think oxygen delivery wouldn't be a problem. If they are all grounded, then there's reason to think the problem occured because of a design/manufacturing/maintenance/procedural fault. And those things may just as well occur with hmm, the flight guidance system of a UAV or how about targeting system. They are built/maintained/flown by humans just as well.
So alone, being able to get rid of this system or risk, not a pro for unmanned imho!
Yes, Shawn, there's that risk, especially with today's "commonality" requirements, striving for an ideal standard on every aircraft fleet-wide. Standards and architecture commonalities are great, but it should mean that if you opt for one aircraft, that you don't need to restrict yourself to one option and have alternates. (ahum, F136!)
Maintaining a mixed fleet of aircraft, even mixed inventory of their systems, is expensive and troublesome, which comes risk as well, and I guess it's opting for the lesser of two evils. Uhm, mostly that means the less expensive one in post-Cold War days. But you can also use the economies of scale to have a better support infrastructure, monitoring/diagnostics, etc. So it doesn't take an accident before the problem is found.
-
Evidently, it's not a "grounding", but a "stand-down", which, according to milspeak, are two different things.
A grounding seems to be mandatory, while the stand-down is more lenient in its restrictions.
Don't you guys read science fiction, haven't you seen Terminator? Unmanned systems are coming to get us!!
An interesting story on "unmanned systems" is "Second Variety" by Philip K. Dick. Oddly enough, written in 1953.
-
Ok, makes sense.
You mean sigh-fi?
-
...sigh...
-
Do you know if this has any implications for the Raptor Demo schedule?
-
Grounding IS directly related to the Alaska crash. Excerpt from a Military.com article:
"An investigation into the Raptors’ performance was launched in the wake of a November crash in Alaska. Since January, the jets have been restricted to altitudes of 25,000 feet because of concerns pilots might black out from a lack of oxygen, officials said."
-
Shouldn't be a problem for the demo then.
-
Well, it could be a problem for any combat use of the -22, since the altitude capabilities of the Raptor were supposed to impart an extra kinetic range to the "medium" range AMRAAM.
I'd like to see Meteors adapted to the -22 and the -35.
Hell, they buy ours, why can't we buy theirs?
-
"MBDA continues to lobby to also have the design integrated as a core weapon for the Lockheed Martin F-35."
Hell, they buy ours, why can't we buy theirs?
You can.
Could have had ASRAAM as well.
So I guess, it's like those Airbus tankers you can't buy...?
-
Can't afford 'em, It'd be like buying a Porsche SUV when a simple Humvee would do. ;)
If Meteors will be used on Euro-35s, why wouldn't the software simply be THERE on ALL -35s? :-[ I assume they will fit in the weapons bays. Or am I assuming too much? The Israelis will not want Sidewinders instead of Pythons, will they?
Oops--we're talking about Raptors here, right?
I just hope the Raptor will be cleared for airshows even if we can't use them for combat! ::) (I notice there's no smiley icon for "sarcastic")
-
Airshows are the only thing the F-22 has been used for anyway! (insert sarcasm icon here). :laugh:
-
Well, that's a good thing (insert hippy smiley here).
-
Can't afford 'em, It'd be like buying a Porsche SUV when a simple Humvee would do. ;)
If Meteors will be used on Euro-35s, why wouldn't the software simply be THERE on ALL -35s? :-[ I assume they will fit in the weapons bays. Or am I assuming too much? The Israelis will not want Sidewinders instead of Pythons, will they?
Well, if I understand correctly, when the US says no, there will be no Meteors on it until much much later. It has to do with the "classified" software, with buyers not being allowed to modify it. The reasons are often quoted as protection of sensitive tech, or even protectionism of industry, but I think largely it's about the support contracts (liability, responsibility, blabla).
UK analysts have expressed concerns about this, basically only JSF industry can do upgrades and only with LM, I guess that means US approval. MBDA proposed a weapon layout with four missiles, the UK could push it in as Level 2 partner, but as you say, it's all about the money and I'm not sure they will. If the UK doesn't demand it, then I don't see how it will.
Israel has also expressed its concerns about the conditions. Israel has a "tradition" of ripping out half the systems and putting their own industries' tech in. This is not allowed on the JSF, or at least they don't get any cooperation from the OEM. Imho it's why they have only committed to ordering 19 aircraft so far.
I don't see how adding the Python would be a problem though, as it largely relies on its own IIR, the rest is just Sidewinder X-like, they may need to make some changes to the Python though. The active Derby though, that may be tricky if you can't modify the software. I don't know how similar it is to the AMRAAM, may be compatible.
It's more about the indigenous ECM/EW, Satcom/Datalinking, and sensors, and all that stuff which makes Israeli jets different, than just the missiles.
Could definately use some information on these things. But as with most things JSF, information is lacking. But as I understood it, there's basically no garantee that you will be able to make your own changes to any software and thus most hardware. And as it has been brought up so often, I suspect that means it is more the case with the JSF than any previous aircraft.
Oops--we're talking about Raptors here, right?
RIGHT, sorry, we could continue the JSF weapon discussions in a new topic.
About the F-22,
Where are we now? It's been some weeks, any news on a cause, solution, schedule?
-
Raptors still "grounded" to the point of no new deliveries to the Air Force.
(A serendipitous opportunity to delay the production line shutdown?)
Restart the line?
More than 187 aircraft?
Take a new look at the F-22B?
F-22C?=Carrier capable?
Oh-sorry-I've been dreaming!
-
They will figure out what is wrong with the OBOGS soon enough, and then the line should be restarted with whatever fixes are needed.
I always did like the idea of the F-22B. However I feel very certain that you will never, ever see an F-22 carrier capable for a lot of reasons.
As for the F-35 I hope it doesn't get axed, it is a superb airframe and lots of successful planes had teething problems but turned out to be great assets. The F-35 will do so likewise.
-
Indeed, although I would like to think otherwise, the F-35 will be turned into the new F-16. Nowadays a lot of teething problems get resolved on the drawing board and during testing, then the manufacturing process has to be adjusted. That's expensive, and different than crashing a couple in service a few years later and make changes only with the new block then. Dropping it now would just be plain stupid. Start over and expect it to be cheaper ánd better... not gonna happen. The price tag issue just means there will be fewer, just like what happened to the F-22.
AIM-120D for F-22 in 2016/2017? Funny how the best fighter gets the best missile last... ::)
-
Uhhh, I was thinking about the previous generation, not the F-22 when I said that about crashing. Wasn't trying to say that they didn't use computers in the "old days of F-22 development". ;)
F-22 has/had a lot of flaws which one could say are teething issues... but I didn't regard them as teething issues. This one however clearly is. Unexpected one I bet, so no hard words on the F-22 now.
FB-22 would be ridiculous expensive too. They would probably have decided to make it optionally unmanned too by now if it was put into development then :P Or already have been dropped.
Carrier... I don't see that happening either.
Oh-sorry-I've been dreaming!
Hehe, funny, yeah, thing is I don't dream about ugly stealth planes.