Is anyone else concerend about the F22 ? / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Is anyone else concerend about the F22 ?

1 2 3 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Patrick

Thu Sept 20 2012, 01:43AM

Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639

ive been following the development of the f-22 since about 1990, when the fly-off stuff was going on. But as i was once a huge supporter of the f-22, since about 1998ish i started worrying about cost versus need versus real capability.

Now that we mere civillians can follow that oxgen generation issue (or lack there of, in flight) is anyone worried about collusion between the USAF and Lockheed martin?

i quote from :

" A fighter pilot who crashed and died after an engine malfunction left him with no oxygen is to blame for the accident, a military inquiry has decided.

U.S. Air Force Captain Jeff 'Bong' Haney was flying at Mach 1.1 over the Alaskan wilderness last year when his F-22 fighter jet flipped and slammed into the ground.

Crash investigators found a malfunction had cut of Captain Haney's air supply but blamed the crash on his lack of attention, saying he was too distracted by his inability to breathe.

Since their roll-out F-22 Raptors - the most advanced and pricey fighter jets used by the U.S. military - have been plagued with oxygen system problems, and have never been flown in combat.

Captain Haney had been returning to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, west of Anchorage, after a training flight on November 16 last year when the accident happened.

According to a report by the Air Force's accident investigation board, the plane suffered 'an engine bleed air leak malfunction', cutting off the air supply Captain Haney's oxygen mask.

To save himself and the plane, the pilot should have engaged an 'emergency oxygen system' by pulling a green ring beneath his left thigh, the report said.

Instead, unable to breathe, Captain Haney appeared to remain in control for a few seconds, taking the plane to a lower altitude in an attempt to get himself some air.

But his jet, still moving at more than the speed of sound, somehow lurched into a steep roll and plummeted towards the ground in a dive he was too slow to pull out of, the report said.

Three seconds later, Captain Haney, a veteran and award-winning airman, crashed into a valley in the snow-covered Talkeetna Mountains. The jet was obliterated and he was killed instantly. "

Here is another persons analsys that sums up how i feeel : "So the oxygen system problem continues. Did anybody else laughed at the genius who said the pilot was too distracted trying to breath? "

i realize design flaws and developmental problems go along with flight testing and weapons developement, and the risk of death and injury is a real posibility. (I am certainly no safety pansy) but is it to much to expect Lockeed to build a machine that wont suffocate the user at Mach 1.1? if i couldnt do that, I wouldnt make weapons or aircraft at all, in fact i wouldnt trust Lockeed to make vacuum cleaners or toasters.

I do realize and have studied human life support and instrumentation failures in the Teen aircraft (like the F16 and similar, killing of pilot issues in the 70's) yet the F16 went on to become a world influencing aircraft... so i dont mean to be to harsh or unrealistic, but jesus LM needs to build machines right or fix the matter at their expense.

Or am i crazy?

it is interesting to look at the graphics in the PDF, it shows orientation and 51,000+ feet alt.
F_22 AIB crash investigation...Nov 2010
]air-force-f22-report-121411.pdf[/file]

In lockheeds defense, it is interesting that the pilots are seeming to have only 600-800 flight hours.
303hrs in the F22, 812 Hrs in fighter total, for Captain Haney. F-117 pilots were required to have 1000hrs min and many had 1500 and 2000 hr flight patches (in fighters).

Pinky's Brain

Thu Sept 20 2012, 03:16PM

Registered Member #2901 Joined: Thu Jun 03 2010, 01:25PM
Location:
Posts: 837

Maybe the pilots who have flown too much are either too smart or too valuable to put in a F22.

Patrick

Thu Sept 20 2012, 06:13PM

Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639

Pinky's Brain wrote ...

Maybe the pilots who have flown too much are either too smart or too valuable to put in a F22.

Thats a scary thought...

I know theyve done everything possible to sort out the honeywell-made air supply device, but maybe they need to mod it back to the proven system of the F15/F16, i realize the F22's enviromental systems are significantly different, from other aircraft. but its clearly not working, and worse the the machine as it stands now, is more dangerous to its own pilot then the enemy.

HV Enthusiast

Fri Sept 21 2012, 12:48PM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

You're a little young still . . .

But this has nothing to do with technical capabilities of the engineering teams at Lockheed and EVERYTHING to do with POLITICS.

The engineers and technical design teams have ZERO say in what happens in the development decisions of the F22 and they receive their guidance from the bureacratics in Washington, the AIR FORCE, and the upper echelons of senior leadership at Lockheed Martin.

This issue, as simple as it seems to you, is a political nightmare and i'm sure its a blame game going all through washington and the AIR FORCE.

Sure, its easy to say there is a problem, press a button, and have the engineers evaluate / solve the issue, but it have to go through hundreds of political channels in washington, the AIR FORCE, and with Senior Management in Lockheed Martin (as well as the subcontractors to Lockheed) before an Engineer can even touch the problem.

Its not like the pilot says "Oops - i have a problem" and the engineers tackle and fix it. Nope - those days are long gone, especially when the F-22 is one of the most overrun programs in defense industry history.

Steve Conner

Fri Sept 21 2012, 01:36PM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

YOU're concerned?! I ordered my F22 14 years ago and it still hasn't arrived. :-<

If Lockheed Martin made toasters, they would cost $125k each, every now and again they would explode and level your kitchen, requiring a US Navy investigation and cover-up. "We concluded it was the owner's fault for not topping up the dry ice under the nitroglycerin tray."

HV Enthusiast

Fri Sept 21 2012, 05:40PM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

Steve Conner wrote ...

YOU're concerned?! I ordered my F22 14 years ago and it still hasn't arrived. :-<

If Lockheed Martin made toasters, they would cost $125k each, every now and again they would explode and level your kitchen, requiring a US Navy investigation and cover-up. "We concluded it was the owner's fault for not topping up the dry ice under the nitroglycerin tray."

Actually, the Captain of that ship during that incident used to be in the same building of me (he has sinced retired), and his Executive Officer (during the same incidident) literally sits in an office about 20 feet from my desk.

But seriously, i can't even get a replacement stapler without having twenty managers sign off on it!!!!!

Patrick

Fri Sept 21 2012, 05:56PM

Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639

EasternVoltageResearch wrote ...

Its not like the pilot says "Oops - i have a problem" and the engineers tackle and fix it. Nope - those days are long gone, especially when the F-22 is one of the most overrun programs in defense industry history.

I totally believe this, but is it just me or do corporate highers ups, admirals and generals, along with polititcians TRY to make the MOST complicated and expensive equipment, even if it isnt neccassary? just becuase LM needs multi-decade, multi-billion dollar contracts - - just to stay afloat?

And ill give you this chilling quote:
"On May 12, 2006, The Washington Post reported that when Robert Stevens took control of Lockheed Martin in 2004, he faced the dilemma that within 10 years 100,000 of the about 130,000 Lockheed Martin employees â€“ more than three-quarters â€“ would be retiring."

We as americans will bleed our finances white and destroy our own nation, without the chinese or russians firing a single rifle shot.

HV Enthusiast

Fri Sept 21 2012, 06:21PM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

Actually, those expensive government contracts keep people employed. Although, it doesn't have to be defense oriented. I would rather see a lot of the money go towards alternative energy and other similar technologies.

And when i say keep employees employed, i don't mean Lockheed employees. Lockheed employs tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of private contractors and small companies which design and manufacturer components for use in their projects. If we eliminated a good portion of defense spending (such as the potential sequestration which is due in January which will cut 500-1000 billion in defense spending in the next 10 years), it could have a crippling effect on the economy as well as defense in general as all the small suppliers government projects rely on would simply go out of business. And not just the US economy - the world economy as well. Lockheed itself relies on suppliers across the globe for components.

Yeah, its crazy i know.

Patrick

Fri Sept 21 2012, 11:33PM

Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639

i guess 187 aircraft at 300-400 million USD each, is the real cost of the "new service" based economy. id much rather have the old manufacturing economy, at least high school grads could start at a wage which could put food on a single mans table...

[ The airforce likes to claim 145 million per f-22 aircraft, (which is bogus) as opposed to 75 million for full featured f-15's. But really if your accounting is honest, youd amoritze the debt from the 20+ year project span, include the 62.5 billion, and divide 187 planes, and youd reach about 300-400 million per F-22. Congress under the bush and obama admins has forbid the production of f-22's so even complete "fatal hull losses" wont be replaced. everytime an f22 is lost thats one less f-22 the enemy has to worry about.]

EDIT: were employing 10,000 at LM by unemploying 40,000 others in every other industry around america, its nice if your in the defense industry, it sucks if your anyone else.

Hazmatt_(The Underdog)

Sat Sept 22 2012, 04:42AM

Registered Member #135 Joined: Sat Feb 11 2006, 12:06AM
Location: Anywhere is fine
Posts: 1735

Okay wait a minute, I just want to say that:

1. Originally the F-22 was a Northrop Grumman product
2. The contract gets split once the Air Force agrees to a quantity to be built
Northrop does the center body
Boeing I think does the wings, or control surfaces, I forget the exacts
Lockheed does a lot of the main integration, then takes all the credit on the commercials.
3. The order, or "bulk" of the planes is supplanted by F-18's anyway, which are mostly Northrop
4. If you don't work for one of these companies, why are you worried?
5. I'm not worried because I work on the ... well... *cough cough* Dark Side of the Moon, so to speak... a different division.

6. Adding 6 because ..well... when there is an Ooops on the line, it costs a lot of money to have QA sign off and fix, that's where a lot of cost can go.
nothing is perfect off the line, but it's all documented and does cost.

1 2 3 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob