F22 still grounded will it ever fly?

just went and checked here www.dodbuzz.com... it is still grounded no date as to when it will fly. was it just not to be? was it a "see if you can build it, will they, not come?" or just money down the drain? from the link

By Philip Ewing Monday, July 11th, 2011 7:37 am
Posted in Air

The Air Force’s fleet of F-22 super-jets has been grounded for more than two months now, but service officials had no details Friday about when the F-22s may fly again or even when engineers could finish the investigation into the fighters’ onboard oxygen systems.

“The safety of our airmen is paramount and we will take the necessary time to ensure we perform a thorough investigation,” said Master Sgt. Pamela Anderson, a spokeswoman for Air Combat Command.

Read more: www.dodbuzz.com...
DoDBuzz.com

if the link was not from the official site one might think this is a made for TV thing just look at this name

said Master Sgt. Pamela Anderson, a spokeswoman for Air Combat Command.

or did she join up? What about the rest of the F22's any more being delivered? No defensetech.org...
say it is not so? What does the makers say www.f22-raptor.com... it is all true, do not fear if need be they will still fly.

So its a problem with the O2 systems? Anyone have info on these systems? are they specifically designed for the F-22? whats wrong with taking an existing system from a F-15 or 16 and modifying it to go into the F-22?
Hey, maybe if they didnt build most of the parts in China there wouldn`t be this problem.
Well now we got some really expensive static displays for entrance gates at AFBs,
F-15 Eagle still reighns supreme!

reply to post by bekod


According to that article, even the buiilding of the ordered F-22s has bee halted. That move is telling. We can suspect something far more drastically wrong with the plane than a mere oxygen system. Perhaps, it is not a severe problem with the plane itself but the entire program is being more or less cancelled (if seemingly, only on hold).

Why would that be? We could suggest a cut in military budgets (which includes black budgets), a worsening world situation, the whole US economy collapsing or something else.

Perhaps the triangles are now fully operational and the whole facade of a seeming endless array of jet fighters will cease and these new non-jet powered craft that, incidently, also will replace items such as the shuttles and mose unmanned space rockets will be revealed by our sinking President in an effort to put a happy face on his whole four-year rule. It is about the only ace-in-the-hole he can accomplish even though little credit would be due him except for causing an early release of the inevitable.

I doubt it's the porn actress Pamula Anderson. Canada wouldn't allow her two assets to fall into the hands of the US military

they're modifying the whole F-22 lineup to serve as an ABM platform, thus i'd imagine that they'd have to make changes to a lot of stuff (O2 system, software, etc). sorry, no links as this is pure speculation on my part. imho, it makes sense to have the F-22 protecting the carriers against the threat of carrier-killer ballistic missiles like the Dong Feng 21A.

reply to post by toreishi
that is the roll of the F18 hornet, the F22 is not an carrier based plane, it was rumored that it has the tail hook for this but the reason is on the net, the thought of one was planed, but just that, a plan.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by toreishi

 

that is the roll of the F18 hornet, the F22 is not an carrier based plane, it was rumored that it has the tail hook for this but the reason is on the net, the thought of one was planed, but just that, a plan.

It doesn't need to be launched from carriers though since the US already operates airbases in the region, specifically Guam. If they're going to be intercepting Chinese anti-carrier cruise missiles (which I find unlikely in all practicallity), then they'll probably be intercepting them in between the distance of the mainland launch sites and the carrier battle group.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by toreishi

 

that is the roll of the F18 hornet, the F22 is not an carrier based plane, it was rumored that it has the tail hook for this but the reason is on the net, the thought of one was planed, but just that, a plan.

It doesn't need to be launched from carriers though since the US already operates airbases in the region, specifically Guam. If they're going to be intercepting Chinese anti-carrier cruise missiles (which I find unlikely in all practicallity), then they'll probably be intercepting them in between the distance of the mainland launch sites and the carrier battle group.

Then whats the point in having the carriers there?

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by toreishi

 

that is the roll of the F18 hornet, the F22 is not an carrier based plane, it was rumored that it has the tail hook for this but the reason is on the net, the thought of one was planed, but just that, a plan.

If you look closely, practically all of the USAF aircraft have the tail hook, F-22 included - its part of the emergency braking system fitted at nearly all US military airfields.

If an aircraft has to land with a hydraulics or brake failure, the runway deploys the same arrestor system as on a carrier, but near the end of the runway. The plane lands, and coasts to the end of the runway, catching the wire and coming to a stop without running off the end of the runway.

Its designed to be used once or twice per airframe, not the continuous use a carrier borne aircraft would - the airframes undergo a maintenance check after using it, and are returned to service after several days.

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by bekod

 

According to that article, even the buiilding of the ordered F-22s has bee halted. That move is telling.

Read the article more carefully - production has not been halted, acceptance and testing flights have been however, as they are covered under the flight restriction currently in place. Production continues to happen, and a backlog of airframes that have yet to fly are building up.

Lockheed simply cannot do the check flights that they need to do to sign the aircraft off.

Nothing more than that I am afraid.

Originally posted by StratosFear
So its a problem with the O2 systems? Anyone have info on these systems? are they specifically designed for the F-22? whats wrong with taking an existing system from a F-15 or 16 and modifying it to go into the F-22?
Hey, maybe if they didnt build most of the parts in China there wouldn`t be this problem.
Well now we got some really expensive static displays for entrance gates at AFBs,
F-15 Eagle still reighns supreme!

An F-22 crashed while on a training flight, with the cause being traced back to oxygen deprivation of the pilot - the F-22 was immediately placed on a restricted flight regime, because the oxygen system did not show any obvious issues.

These systems are highly complex beasts, with many many potential problem areas - the real problem is is that an issue can be very subtle, only show itself under certain circumstances and not get in the way the rest of the time.

There is no point in risking another airmans life when they know there is a problem but have yet to find it.

The oxygen system is probably already adapted from other airframes, but that adds to the problem - its adapted, its not the same. It needs to be a different shape, take power from a different source, be routed through the aircraft in different ways, deal with differing pressures off the engines etc etc etc. They can't just take an F-15s system and throw it into the F-22, it has to be customised for that airframe.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

An F-22 crashed while on a training flight, with the cause being traced back to oxygen deprivation of the pilot - the F-22 was immediately placed on a restricted flight regime, because the oxygen system did not show any obvious issues.

this is the part that seemed fishy to me, incidents of pilots blacking out due to oxygen deprivation are often encountered in high-speed, zoom climbs and what does the F-22 need to do a zoom climb for anyway. except perhaps to deploy something similar to this, only this time they were probably testing an advanced version of this. probably one that can handle a high-acceleration target like a ballistic missile in its boost phase (thus the reason for the zoom climb) or perhaps even capable of hitting a maneuvering warhead upon reentry.

tip: read the stuff under performance, use google earth to measure the distance between Kadena AFB and Andersen AFB. consider that having fired off the missile to intercept the carrier-killer, the F-22 will still be able to achieve air dominance afterwards.

reply to post by bekod


the F-22 can be a lot of things but a bomb-truck isn't one of them. F-18s from the carriers will be the ones bombing the hostiles out of the water.

what if it not the O2 system but the bird it self so agile and fast that a human pilot can not with stand the moves, "G forces" ROC and dive makes the pilot black out, the G suite might not be good enough, no will any O2 system keep the blood flowing, lake of O2 might be a part of it but not the hole. What if the F22 is being made a non pilot platform and they are using this as an excuse.

Originally posted by toreishi

Originally posted by RichardPrice

An F-22 crashed while on a training flight, with the cause being traced back to oxygen deprivation of the pilot - the F-22 was immediately placed on a restricted flight regime, because the oxygen system did not show any obvious issues.

this is the part that seemed fishy to me, incidents of pilots blacking out due to oxygen deprivation are often encountered in high-speed, zoom climbs and what does the F-22 need to do a zoom climb for anyway. except perhaps to deploy something similar to this, only this time they were probably testing an advanced version of this. probably one that can handle a high-acceleration target like a ballistic missile in its boost phase (thus the reason for the zoom climb) or perhaps even capable of hitting a maneuvering warhead upon reentry.

Its only fishy if you are trying really really really hard to find something fishy, so you can act all suspicious about this incident.

Pilots black out from oxygen deprivation when they are deprived of oxygen - and the F-22 can cruise well above the altitude where hypoxia becomes a concern.

If the oxygen supply system in the F-22 failed, and the pilot was above 25,000 ft, he has seconds to both identify the fact that something is wrong, and switch to the alternate backup supply. The problem is, its incredibly hard to identify hypoxia in yourself, so chances are you are already incapacitated by the time you have both identified its onset, and determined a plan of action.

Oxygen deprivation is a huge issue in anything flying over 15,000 ft. Its only fishy if you really work hard at wanting it to be.

tip: read the stuff under performance, use google earth to measure the distance between Kadena AFB and Andersen AFB. consider that having fired off the missile to intercept the carrier-killer, the F-22 will still be able to achieve air dominance afterwards.

Not sure what this 'tip' was in reply to.

the F-22 can be a lot of things but a bomb-truck isn't one of them. F-18s from the carriers will be the ones bombing the hostiles out of the water.

edit on 7.19.11 by toreishi because: (no reason given)

The USAF must be making a mistake by certifying the F-22 for the Small Diameter Bomb and the JDAM then, if the F-22 isn't a "bomb truck".

reply to post by RichardPrice


while i do definitely agree with you on all the points you've stated, the fact remains that the F-22 is certified to cruise at 65,000 ft (with the pilot all safe and snug inside). so why did this one pilot black-out and crash, leading to the grounding of the entire fleet of F-22s -- up to and including those which haven't been certified for deployment yet? would it be too far-fetched to say that the F-22 is being tasked with yet another job to perform? taking into account that in the current battlefield, the F-22 seems redundant as the job that it performs so well (air dominance) can be done in a more cost-efficient manner using 4th generation platforms, how would you justify the existence (and funding) for the F-22? wouldn't it make sense to find a niche where it can perform better compared to other aircraft in your inventory? thus, my contention for the role of the F-22 as an ABM platform and the possible bearing this has to the topic being discussed.

it has been proven that the F-15, while configured for air-dominance, can perform the ASAT role. but the threat facing US forces today isn't just represented by a couple of satellites in predictable orbits. i cite the Dong Feng 21A and various other missiles (some supersonic) in various stages of development as examples of this. while the fact remains that the F-22 can be configured as a bomb-truck, it would be redundant and complacent to do so, especially when the enemy starts deploying LO platforms like the J-20 as delivery boys. why would you use F-22s to tackle ships loaded with tanks and soldiers when they can be better deployed as snipers against airborne threats and mini-awacs for your groundbusters at the same time? by doing so you'd be depriving your side with one of its most efficienct force multipliers and giving the enemy an easy time to threaten your forces.

as to that "tip" part, that was for general consumption for those people who are more likely to view and read threads rather than participate in them. according to the link i provided the F-22 has a combat radius of 410 nm and a range of 1,600 nm, putting it within the area where it can effectively protect carriers deployed in or around Taiwan, South Korea as well as the current area of contention in the vicinity of the Spratly Islands if deployed from Kadena AFB. this is in a clean configuration of 1 ASAT + the usual stealth loadout of 2 AIM-9M/X & 6 AIM-120Cs. deploying from Andersen would even be better in a perfect scenario though.

reply to post by RichardPrice


Why wouldn't they use a parachute system similar to what is used on all Canadian fighters incase of iced up runways?

Just curious

Originally posted by toreishi
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

while i do definitely agree with you on all the points you've stated, the fact remains that the F-22 is certified to cruise at 65,000 ft (with the pilot all safe and snug inside). so why did this one pilot black-out and crash, leading to the grounding of the entire fleet of F-22s -- up to and including those which haven't been certified for deployment yet?

Because that is how things are done in aviation - although it is a lot easier to do it with a smallish fleet of AS fighters that aren't actually doing anything useful ATM as opposed to, say, a fleet of airliners - but it does get done for airliners too - although very occasionally and usually at national levels ratehr than worldwide.

the idea is that if you have an unknown problem that is serious enough then you ground the fleet that might share the problem.

would it be too far-fetched to say that the F-22 is being tasked with yet another job to perform?

Would it be too far fetched to ask for any evidence for such a suggestion?

taking into account that in the current battlefield, the F-22 seems redundant as the job that it performs so well (air dominance) can be done in a more cost-efficient manner using 4th generation platforms

A point that has been made often in the past in reference to the sorts of airforces it might come up against in the Mid East .......but which is perhaps not quite so true anymore now that china and russia are moving forward with 5th gen a/c.

, how would you justify the existence (and funding) for the F-22? wouldn't it make sense to find a niche where it can perform better compared to other aircraft in your inventory? thus, my contention for the role of the F-22 as an ABM platform and the possible bearing this has to the topic being discussed.

Why would it be a good ABM platform?

it has been proven that the F-15, while configured for air-dominance, can perform the ASAT role.

they still had to be modified to carry the missile & with software to operate it.

but the threat facing US forces today isn't just represented by a couple of satellites in predictable orbits. i cite the Dong Feng 21A and various other missiles (some supersonic) in various stages of development as examples of this. while the fact remains that the F-22 can be configured as a bomb-truck, it would be redundant and complacent to do so, especially when the enemy starts deploying LO platforms like the J-20 as delivery boys. why would you use F-22s to tackle ships loaded with tanks and soldiers when they can be better deployed as snipers against airborne threats and mini-awacs for your groundbusters at the same time? by doing so you'd be depriving your side with one of its most efficienct force multipliers and giving the enemy an easy time to threaten your forces.

that depends, as you say above, on what the threat is.

If your expensive F-22 has no air-air opponents, and bombing is the only game in town, then you'd want any f-22's in theatre to be able to help share the love around too.

If there is a missile threat then ther will be ABM counters - perhaps the F-22 wil be part of a counter - but it won't be on its own & ther are already a lot of powerful systems deployed in that role, & it sems unlikely that the US would need to fake up any sort of cover for modifying them, or modify them all without having done sort of fairly well known testing before hand.

Well once the shape of the F-22 was released everything that could be learned from it is now being incoorperated into fighters around the world. With the new russian fighter(which looks freakin` sweet) Pak Fa i believe, and the J-20 from china which kind of resembles the concept Su-47 "Berkut", the F-22 could be one elaborate dis-info project. We could have already produced the F-22`s replacement and now the money is being shifted to that project.
I`ve always thought the F-22 looked like an F-15 with a body kit. Just a thought.

you don't understand..

They've been flying the F-22 for a few years now, we just don't see it. They're working on the F-24 now; think about it .. if Business corporations have a working model a year in advance before it goes to market.. don't you think the US military would trump that by 3, 5 or 7 years? Personally, I think the US mil research is 20-30yrs ahead of civilian research.. but .. that's just me.

Originally posted by
There is no point in risking another airmans life when they know there is a problem but have yet to find it.

I once had a problem with my car, but it was intermittent.

When I took it to a mechanic it didn't act up.

Not surprisingly, the mechanic said he couldn't find anything wrong. And it showed no symptoms to me on the way to the mechanic either.

However it still had an intermittent problem. It took some time to find out what it was.

Am I the only one who's had this experience? Because from some of the posts in this thread, some people act like it's never happened to them.

Thanks RichardPrice for your informative posts, and I agree with your assessment. Just because you can't find the source of the problem immediately doesn't mean it's some kind of conspiracy.

And sometimes I've wished an intermittent failure would become a complete failure so I could find the source more easily. But it can be hard to troubleshoot intermittent failures, so taking months doesn't sound unreasonable to me.