 |
reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 08:38 AM by kilcoo316
|
 Originally posted by skippytjc
Mmm...It’s worse than I ever anticipated. The jealousy of the F-22 is staggering. I knew it was a factor on these boards, but I had no idea it
was so rampant.
And thank you ch1466 for mentioning other planes and programs that had similar issue's, as I am sure there are many many more. Again proving this is
not news worthy and a common occurance with new programs, regardless of expense.
What are you on about man? I think your paranoid in the extreme. What post in the thread can be construed as a "bash" on the F-22?
Yeah, was (another) good post by ch1466, he (?) does know his stuff.
But who are you to decide what is news worthy and what is not? The people that commented in the thread (apart from yourself) deemed it interesting
enough to enter the thread, read it, and respond.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 08:56 AM by WestPoint23
|
Originally posted by kilcoo316
The report only seems to talk about the wing and horizontal stabiliser, and it is a design problem, again, not mentioned in the report.
Maybe not, as its been indicated that its a manageable problem, so to minimise costs they'll leave it alone and fix on an as-needs
basis...
No, it’s not a design problem; it’s a manufacturing one. And they don’t have to fix it right away because the problem only manifests itself
after a certain point of the Raptor estimated service life.
 The structural flaws were identified after officials discovered cracks during fatigue testing, according to Raptor program office officials. Air
Force officials have identified structural problems in two areas of the plane.
Initial evaluations have shown that this is not a safety-of-flight issue and has not caused any flight restrictions,” Karas said. “At this time,
we do not anticipate a need for retrofit or redesign.”
Karas stressed that the aircraft’s design is not flawed, but rather the problem lies with one supplier’s manufacturing process. He did not name
the supplier in the statement.
Scheirmann said it’s common for engineers to find issues in new aircraft that require adjustments.
“As the aircraft come down the production line, they continue to test the fleet,” Scheirmann said. “Sometimes, we find areas where we want to go
back and enhance the capability or upgrade the aircraft.”
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 08:58 AM by kilcoo316
|
Originally posted by WestPoint23
No, it’s not a design problem; it’s a manufacturing one. And they don’t have to fix it right away because the problem only manifests itself
after a certain point of the Raptor estimated service life.
No, this is a different problem I'm talking about. I don't even know if its in the public domain to be honest.
The "vertical" fins experienced some flutter associated problems at high alpha.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 09:52 AM by Canada_EH
|
new news to me about the virtical fin flutter. Can any one confirm this? It does make sence that it could be a problem as I think that a number of
other twin virtical stablizer planes have had the same problem.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 10:00 AM by JIMC5499
|
$1 Billion dollars to fix 60-90 airframes and to incorporate the change into the production line? Sounds to me like it was one hell of a problem.
With total production to be 183 airframes this is about $5.5 million per airframe. If it was substandard components then the supplier of those
components should eat the cost of the change. This sounds more like a design flaw to me. As to whose fault it is I don't think that you can blame
anyone. The F-22 project has been jerked around so much by Congress and the Air Force that there is no way to tell. One thing that seems to have
been forgotten here is that in business all costs are passed on to the consumer. The F-22 program is over 10 years old and just now are we getting
operational aircraft. If you add up all of the costs and divide by the final number of airframes produced, just what is the actual cost of the F-22?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 10:50 AM by longbow
|
I see no problem with aditional 1 billion $. Unexpected problems happen sometimes. However I'm strongly AGAINST the proposal that this 1 billion
should be payed by Congress/govt. It's Lockheeds fault - THEY should pay it from their profits.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 12:58 PM by WheelsRCool
|
Aircraft get unexpected problems occurring. The original Huey had a problem of the main rotor detaching in mid-flight in its initial days, that killed
lots of pilots. The Apache originally had a major problem with the tailrotor acting up, which made people question the aircraft. The F-15 and F-16
both had their own share of problems. The V-22 Osprey had its problems, which have now been fixed.
They'll do with the F/A-22 the same as they've done with the previous aircraft: fix the problem.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 01:36 PM by Tha Troubleshoota
|
Originally posted by skippytjc
#1 OK, par for your course Zion, and ill leave it at that.
#2 So? You mean the brand new prototype, 5th gen fighter never ever before produced prior to now needs some modifications? OMG!
Man you guys make me laugh in regards to the F-22.
Look, we get it: It’s expensive!
But to introduce things like this like it’s telling about the program or unique is nothing but plain silliness. Nearly every plane produced known
to man has undergone changes and modifications at one time or another, some a great deal more significant than this. There have been commercial
planes that flew for DECADES with flaws that weren’t detected.
Bottom line is there is nothing to see here, barely news worthy. Same as that locked cockpit. The only reason this is news is because you guys have
an agenda against the plane and the program is expensive.
I hate to say this, but I have too: Its jealousy. The plane is better than whatever plane you chose as your favorite prior to this one. Here is
this great plane, made by the *gasp!* Americans heavens forbid, that’s supposed to dominate the skies. And it mostly looks like it meets the
hype.
Im sorry guys, once and awhile American arrogance is founded in reality. The F-22 is the real deal, just accept it and find something else to hate us
for…There is plenty to choose from, but this isn’t one of them.
This was well-said enough to quote. Thanks, Darth Maul.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 01:44 PM by Tha Troubleshoota
|
Point Taken
I see that the main point is that these are extinct and a relic of the Cold War. That may all be true, but China is stepping up to the plate and not
to be trifled with. Let them develop some real air capability and all of the "woulda coulda shoulda" types will come crawling out of the
woodwork.
I've also questioned the cost, but when you think of spanning 4 decades with this latest iteration of the fighter then...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 01:46 PM by Tha Troubleshoota
|
Originally posted by Canada_EH
new news to me about the virtical fin flutter. Can any one confirm this? It does make sence that it could be a problem as I think that a number of
other twin virtical stablizer planes have had the same problem.
I cannot confirm this. Frankly am taken quite by suprise. This seems to be a release to the public domain.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-5-2006 @ 12:21 AM by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
|
They've been testing/flying the Raptor for almost 20 years now and they are just discovering the problem now? I don't know about you but who here
thinks it's just a money grab. 2-3 trillion has already disappeared in the Pentagon why not another billion here or there.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-5-2006 @ 03:18 AM by waynos
|
Originally posted by Tha Troubleshoota
I see that the main point is that these are extinct and a relic of the Cold War.
Where do you see that as being the main point? The main point is only that there is a problem, that it will be fixed and how much it will cost, thats
all the thread is about.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 01:53 AM by chinawhite
|
Lots of F-22 threads popping up
The Self-Locking F-22
Last week, Lockheed Martin announced that its profits were up a hefty 60 percent in the first quarter. The company earned $591 million in profit
on revenues of $9.2 billion. Now, if the company could just figure out how to put a door handle on its new $361 million F-22 fighter, its prospects
would really soar.
On April 10, at Langley Air Force Base, an F-22 pilot, Capt. Brad Spears, was locked inside the cockpit of his aircraft for five hours. No one in the
U.S. Air Force or from Lockheed Martin could figure out how to open the aircraft's canopy. At about 1:15 pm, chainsaw-wielding firefighters from the
1st Fighter Wing finally extracted Spears after they cut through the F-22's three-quarter inch-thick polycarbonate canopy.
Total damage to the airplane, according to sources inside the Pentagon: $1.28 million. Not only did the firefighters ruin the canopy, which cost
$286,000, they also scuffed the coating on the airplane's skin which will cost about $1 million to replace.
Some people might not like this source but ifs for price reference instead of opinoin, One million to recoat the exterior and fix the canopy
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-5-2006 @ 12:18 PM by JIMC5499
|
In all fairness they are saying that the fix will only cost $100 million now. It was something to do with a titanium component that wasn't properly
heat treated.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-5-2006 @ 12:57 PM by Zion Mainframe
|
Originally posted by JIMC5499
In all fairness they are saying that the fix will only cost $100 million now. It was something to do with a titanium component that wasn't properly
heat treated.
Yeah we know, I've reported that in a new thread, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-5-2006 @ 09:51 AM by Darkpr0
|
Sweet. I like to see the big man on campus find that his favorite weapon has a fairly large flaw. Berkut>Raptor
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-5-2006 @ 10:03 AM by Seekerof
|
Originally posted by Darkpr0
Berkut>Raptor
Here's the obvious flaw in your above equation that you have yet to have realized or accepted: The Raptor is built, in serial production, and in
active service, whereas your alleged Berkut is simply a trophy and technology demonstrator, that has NOT been built beyond 2 working prototypes--which
are currently in a hanger at the end of a obscure Russian runway, collecting dust and rusting away--is not in serial production, lacks any type
sufficient funding, nor is it in active service. Have a nice day.
seekerof
[edit on 6-5-2006 by Seekerof]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
