Originally posted by WestPoint23
However since civilians run the DoD, White House and Congress logical and rational decisions are, naturally, not forthcoming. And there is only a finite amount of funs allocated per year, unless that also increases significantly the ideal and logical option will continue to be ignored.

Personally thats one of the reasons I care less and less especially since its not like ti my military and I need to spend enough time thinking about that.

The AIB report is out on the HiANG crash in February. "No clear cut and convincing evidence of failure" however there is evidence that both rudders failed to the mid left position. Most likely due to the failure of the Aileron-Rudder Interconnect. The findings were based on interviews with the pilot, and telemetry data automatically transmitted back to Oahu.

[edit on 5/7/2008 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 5/7/2008 by Zaphod58]

I am concerned about the fact defense contractors and the Joe the Plumbers of America will use this incident as a way to justify the wasteful spending on more F-22A Raptors. There is simply no need for more F-22s. I am sorry that people's jobs are at risk, but its wrong for them to falsely claim that America's national security is threatened in order to justify their continued employment.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I am concerned about the fact defense contractors and the Joe the Plumbers of America will use this incident as a way to justify the wasteful spending on more F-22A Raptors. There is simply no need for more F-22s. I am sorry that people's jobs are at risk, but its wrong for them to falsely claim that America's national security is threatened in order to justify their continued employment.

If it were structural failure then it certainly is a reason for more F-22's. If there was no need for more F-22's, I wonder why the USAF considers 183 of them 'high risk' - and the USAF are not Joe Plumbers.

[edit on 19/7/2009 by C0bzz]

if the numbers for hours flown are true then the F-15 lfeet esoecially the A`s and C`s (but some E`s as well) are time expired but due to lack of a replacement are still being used.

Originally posted by C0bzz

If it were structural failure then it certainly is a reason for more F-22's. If there was no need for more F-22's, I wonder why the USAF considers 183 of them 'high risk' - and the USAF are not Joe Plumbers.

[edit on 19/7/2009 by C0bzz]

If it were structural failure, then it would be a reason to do *something*, but not necessarily overreact and spend $100m plus on a new fighter when its been proven time and again that that fighters capabilities are overkill for 99% of missions carried out today.

If something needed to be done, then chances are each and every airframe in the USAF inventory (active and stored) would undergo a deep inspection to determine level of airframe condition, rotated out of service as necessary (or pulled from storage if a stored airframe is in a better condition than a current service airframe), put through a significant check by Boeing and reentered into service.

That, or new build F-15s for significantly less than a new build F-22.

And pray tell, when you buy jets with the intention of keeping them twenty, thirty, fifty (B-52) years, who does or should care about the problems of "today"? The problems of today should have been factored in the design philosophy of the jets we bought decades ago.

The jets being made today should be able to fulfill the problems of tomorrow. Which I hope for not too much longer will be having to eradicate the Afghanistan government's problem-children.