It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Entire U.S. Stealth Fighter Fleet Grounded

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:11 AM
reply to post by la2

Wow do you just open your mouth and let words senselessly fall out or do you fact check...

When the Harrier did fly in that conflict, its loss rate was more than double other major U.S. combat jets.

Harrier losses more than double any US jet

ETA: not really trying to piss the longest stream here but I just had to put it out there...I hate when people say things and have no clue if it's true or not just to win an argument.

Honestly I don't think it's that big of a deal since these planes haven't even been in combat yet anyway. Not like we don't have some great tool to use that we had before.
edit on 12-8-2011 by RickyD because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:25 AM
This really could have been a great thread. However, the mine is bigger than your crowd decided to go on for pages about whose wang was bigger and thrashed it.

OP, I am going to agree with a few (I think it was two actually) posters in this thread and say this is not true, at least not in its entirety. The world is a very volatile place right now. It seems that many have their fingers on the trigger and are getting itchy fingers.

When I personally face times like this I do not lay my hand out for all of my perceived enemies to see. I actually try to fool them in ways that make the real enemies either those I perceived to be or those I thought were allies come out of the wood work so to speak.

Without a doubt only a fool would announce to the world that they have entire fleets of top of the line aircraft grounded for mechanical reasons. It would be even more foolish to do such a thing in the world we live in today.

Take for instance the cold war. Things were pretty hush hush about what was really taking place. However, we sure talked up a game about "star wars technology". At that time we could not even get close to doing half of what we said we could.

World politics can be fun and entertaining, but there is also the huge wager taking place and lives are always at stake.


posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by Wertdagf

I heard from a good source I know at Lockheed that the F-22 and F-35 might be the last manned aircraft they will build. So my friend is kind of worried ,and might be out of a job in the next few years. Drones are less expensive to build and less expensive to maintain, so i was told.

I did get too see some F-22 do some flight maneuvers that just completely defy gravity at Lockheed. All I can say is I would not want meet one in a dog flight.

Oh, what is with all this Barbecue foods in the Lockheed cafeteria? Barbecue everyday.. Must be a Texas thing?

edit on 12-8-2011 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:31 AM

Originally posted by kalunom
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive;" - Sun Tzu

Seems odd to find a story saying our entire stealth fleet is grounded...

You're a smart cookie. Good to have peeps like yourself on ATS. At first I was thinking that this was such a waste of time and money on the gov's fault but I think you hit the nail on the head.

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:40 AM
I would believe it's true honestly it's not like we have lost a great tool we were using. It hasn't flown combat missions yet. It's still in a production phase and well they hit a snag with them...that's why they test things so much and so long.

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:47 AM
reply to post by RickyD

Lets imagine if you will that the governments are like selfish children (okay really we do not have to imagine that it is true).

Does the selfish child want the broken new toy or the working reliable toy? My bets would be on the working reliable one. It is easier to copy what is already done than to copy and fix a problem, better to let someone else fix the problem then copy it.

See what I am getting at? If we tell them it is still not working they are not going to be eyeing it as much. Sure they will still be looking that way, but not as much as if it were a fully functioning device.

Right now we have a fleet of them and I would wager they are ready for use. Things could blow all over the world as we speak. Having these ready with people thinking they are broken gives us an edge. Again you do not tell everyone at the table what cards you hold, at least not until the hand is over.


edit on 8/12/11 by Raist because: fixing typo

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:52 AM
This JennaDarling is a huge troll, why do you guys keep feeding it?
I've already blocked her. so I don't have to keep seeing her crap.

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:01 AM
reply to post by Raist

Very true on that point it may be a ploy to keep the Chinese from trying to steal those designs...knowing that they can out match us in the computer field now a days as far as hacking goes and would be the more likely candidate to attempt that. Also we have kinda been BSed by them a lot lately maybe this is in response to that...

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:02 AM

Kind of wondered the same thing my self being a ret, military aviator. Friend of mine we talk from time to time. and tells me about the day. " All my birds (F-22 F-35 ) are out of the barn checked and flying" I guess The Lockheed engineers on the line work in teams and are assigned a cretin number of aircraft that have be out of the finial line production checked and test flown. So if there passing the flight tests at production... Then I read these articles like the Op posted and I wonder , whats up. An O2 system is a very big deal not to catch in the production and test mode of the aircraft.

edit on 12-8-2011 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:17 AM
reply to post by JennaDarling

Do yourselves a favour, and buy either Russian or European planes, far more realiable.

While the F-35 is a trainwreck at the moment and arguably the F-22 is too, neither Europe or Russia have anything comparable to the F-22 or F-35. It would be better to compare European and Russian aircraft to the F-15 and F-16 both of which are highly reliable aircraft. In many cases it's a myth that European and Russian aircraft are any more reliable than American aircraft - actual research will reveal that there are many Russian (or maybe Soviet) aircraft that had severe maintenance difficulties. Some European aircraft had teething issues such as the PIO issues with the Gripen.

Ruggedness is NOT the same as reliability and I'm often sure there was a reason why russian aircraft needed more ruggedness than american aircraft.

Perhaps it was too overcomplex? You don't see this problem with Russian hardware do you?

Russia really hasn't introduced a completely new aircraft since the Mig-29 and Su-27. Until recently all that they were doing was play around with derivatives of those aircraft. So that's a completely unfair comparison, and even if they did - they don't speak english - and are far more secretive than the US so it's unlikely that we would hear it even if such issues were occurring.

"Stupid reason"?, is that all we need to shoot down the worlds most advanced aircraft that is invisible to radar?

The real "not stupid reason" is the fact the commander knew his job and worked his SAM hardware well, and the US could not get a lock on them. That is not a "stupid reason" that is a VERY SMART person.

You got outsmarted, so now you get mad and referr to it as a "stupid reason".

The F-117 flew with virtual impunity. Only one aircraft was downed after many successful missions. The pilot survived. I don't think this is really that significant at all - if it were any other plane that was shot down - nobody would care. Serbia didn't have a bleeding edge air defense system either so I don't think it was overly demonstrative of stealth. But yes, tactics and numbers can make up for a massive technological disadvantage.

I find it hilarious that American's practically worship the statue of liberty on one hand and diss the French on the other as cowards when infact the statue is French itself.

I find it hilarious that Europeans always whinge and whine about Americans because they apparently generalize Europeans. Chicken versus the egg scenario - what came first? Maybe break the cycle?

And then you write this:
"America has castles too.. Disney Land."

So in other words you try to come up with as many examples of why america apparently sucks and then your justification is that americans do that to you? Did they in this thread? No? Quit grinding your axe.

Sounds like WW2 all over again, taking the yanks a year or more to decide to do anything.

Why do you need to rely on the USA to decide to do everything? I thought America was not the center of the world? If it isn't why do you treat the USA like they are?

NASA:.. German

While some people in the early days of NASA were German, the vast majority of the science and engineering was performed by americans. Also given that the USA was built from immigration, Wernher von Braun being originally from germany and then immigrating to the USA hardly qualifies as being not american. He was an american citizen. He died in the USA. His Children were born in the USA.

Harriers, OLD OUTDATED JUNK yet you are trying to reproduce this technology in the F-22 ?

Which technology from the Harrier is the F-22 "trying" to reproduce exactly?

Concord - OLD OUTDATED JUNK, yet you are still trying to go faster than sound with hypersonic gliders that you just LOST CONTACT WITH?

If the USA wanted to make a concorde clone there's no reason they couldn't off. Instead they wanted to go Mach 3 and the expense required just didn't make sense. Also what exactly does a hypersonic glider have to do with concorde?

RADAR - British Invention Harrier Jump Jet - British Invention Concorde - British/French Mini - British Ferarri - Italian BMW - German Mercedes - German Rolls Royce - British Lamborghini - Italian Audi - German Renault - French Aston Martin - British Jaguar/Land Rover/Range Rover - British

Yes, Europe has done a lot of great things. But this isn't a competition - you're trying needlessly slag off the USA while pretending to be the victim.

As for rail roads, who invented that? Germany Steam engines? Britain.

Most of the freight locomotives in the world are american and if they're not they're likely using a GE or EMD diesel engine in them. As far as I know all the the high speed rail projects China is undertaking use Japanese and or European technology, whereas all the freight stuff is American.

Yes thats another thing.. worlds safest airline ... Quantas.. Australia

It's QANTAS or Qantas, not Quantas. Also QANTAS has far lower flight hours than most of the larger american airlines - so it's likely the only reason why they haven't had a crash with a jet airliner (excluding runway over-runs) is because they simply don't fly as often.

Qantas has 139 aircraft, 60% of which are long haul aircraft which don't take-off and land as often.

American Airlines has 616 aircraft, 19% of which are long haul aircraft which don't take-off and land as often.

United Airlines (now merged with Continental) has 706 aircraft, 22% of which are long haul.

You really want to compare them?

They don't skimp on maintenance.

They often outsource it to South-East Asian countries actually. And while it might be a media-beat-up, there has been claims that Qantas is actually, skimping on maintenance. I'm trying to tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I can't tell.

Frankly American airlines scare the pants off me.

There is no logical reason for this.

The only real difference between Australian and American airlines is that the flight attendants are hotter and younger in Australia. But that's likely because they are paid far less in Australia so you get a younger crowd.

Have you ever actually been to the USA?

Stealth technology was compromised years ago.

There is no single "stealth technology". Instead "stealth technology" has and is improving over time. Stealth usually only means a reduced detection range, not much more.

Wasnt it also discovered that weather satelites can detect them ?

Low frequency radar can (apparently a OTH-B radar in Australia detected a B-2 bomber on the other side of the planet) but it cannot provide the resolution necessary to actually fire stuff at them. This is still useful to cue fire-control-radar to the stealth aircraft though. There are also other techniques and tactics which can be used, but it doesn't mean that stealth is useless at all - otherwise the rest of the world wouldn't be trying to develop stealth technology. They are.

The reason the Harrier is still one of the best VTOL planes out there and the F-35 cannot replicate it is because it actually requires FLYING SKILLS to fly a VTOL. Ask any Harrier pilot what kind of skill it takes.

If the British were developing the Harrier today they would make it very easy to fly via computer systems. Why should the pilot focus on basic things like flying the aircraft when you can get a computer to do it for you (and better than any human) and the pilot can instead focus on the mission? The F-35 can and has accomplished VTOL, but the program is honestly a train-wreck at the moment.

Putting an American in a VTOL is like asking them to drive a manual stick car..

America has harriers and last I checked they were not crashing all the time. I've seen people try to make the argument that the marines were safer actually.

what "other" countries do you referr to? Can you name them all please (alphabetically, then by GDP size then by population size).


It's obvious you're trying to create a pissing match between the USA and Europe as a whole. And you're failing miserably with nothing more than red-herrings.
edit on 12/8/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/8/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/8/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/8/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:18 AM
reply to post by RickyD

reply to post by SJE98

I am no expert by any means; and in fact I am actually pretty tired as I type this.

I just know that China has given us half truths and blatant lies for years. China has also plopped their new toy boat in to the water. The state of the world is crumbling around us and everyone is a bit antsy and paranoid.

I also see about how I would handle the situation on a much smaller scale, and this is exactly how I would do it. Again I am no general, planner of wars, or even a soldier; I just know what has worked for me in life. Sure global is a much larger scale than personal but in the end it works down to the same thing because it is other individuals who are making calls. Most calls are made through personal experience and that experience starts from the time we become social creatures.

If you are not able to or are too lazy to come up with the technology to begin with you are not going to be able to solve the problems involved with that technology. That is why it is easier to steal the information after everything has been battle tested. Only fools or those who have worked through the problems are willing to be the first to test something in battle.


edit on 8/12/11 by Raist because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:22 AM

Originally posted by Violater1
You want to get some money for the poor, here you go.
Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 FOR LIFE

Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN $38,000

current retired presidents
George H Bush
George W Bush
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter

Annual cost to the tax payer $720000

current active duty military personnel (globally) 1,430,895 @ $38,000

Annual cost to the tax payer $54374010000

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by JennaDarling

The Tornado is a work horse, but I my self almost shot one down. The avionics IFF system in that aircraft is old and outdated and was not working half the time. Thank goodness I made the night flight briefing that evening I had there mission freq's or that Tornado would have been put into the ground. oh, I did have lock on him.

edit on 12-8-2011 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:07 AM
reply to post by SJE98

What aircraft were you in? Did you fly in Desert Storm?

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:13 AM
Interesting enough. I'm wondering if they are regretting not going with the YF-23 (Northrop Grumman) now when it was in competition with the YF-22 (Lockheed Martin).

Yf-23 vs F-22: Did the Air Force take 2nd best?
edit on 12-8-2011 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by JennaDarling

Oh please! Because the pilot's oxygen is not working up to spec's, the whole plane is bad? Doesn't work that way, just a minor part of the big picture. And, DoD: F-35 JPO authorized a return to ground ops for the F-35 today (August 10, 2011). It's a "first step" in return to full flight ops.

Original story: May 6, 2011
By Mandy Smithberger
The DEW Line's Stephen Trimble broke the news that the F-22 fleet is standing down "until further notice" due to concerns about a glitch in the on board oxygen system after pilots complained about hypoxia and decompression sickness (indicating they weren't getting enough oxygen). An Air Force source told Defense News in March that defects with the On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) may have been responsible for a F-22 crash that occurred in November, killing Capt. Jeffery Haney. Why wasn't this worked out in testing?

A review of annual reports from the director of Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E) didn't uncover any mentions of oxygen issues, with the exception of a 2004 report noting that the contractor measured oxygen concentrations during simulated high-altitude mission profiles at their simulator system facility. Former DOT&E Director Tom Christie told POGO he didn't recall problems with the system and that they could have been relatively easily fixed if they had been detected. According to Flight Global, Boeing led life support development, including the OBOGS.

POGO has not been able to find other information on testing for the F-22's OBOGS, but simulation would not be sufficient to test the system. "It's not something you simulate," Christie told POGO. "It either works or it doesn't."

Even when these systems are working, an interview with aerospace and operational physiologist Capt. Matthew Taranto at the Las Vegas Sun explains that pilots must train their bodies to be able to tolerate 15 seconds of intense acceleration pressing down on them (9 G-forces) to resist oxygen deprivation to their brain.

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by chuckk

Your post reflects why I think this is not true.

Look at all the things that could go wrong if all these systems were not operating like they should. At the very least you lose a jet and 1 o2 2 people (not sure how many would be in the thing). It sounds like a very minor thing, but just think about what happens is it fails.

So as with my other posts you let the world know it is not working and some eyes leave the project while others are only partly looking your direction still. It is like a big card game with a lot more at stake than a few dollars. No one wants to steal something that is not working that they will have to fix. Once these things prove they are ready then we will have people globally trying to get their hands on the secrets.

Seriously why would a government put this information out there unless it was a bluff. It would be like posting a sign in front of your house saying you are gone for the next week and expect that no one would break in.


posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by fixer1967
I think the whole stealth thing is going to play out soon any way. It is just a mater of time before some one invents a radar type system that will make stealth planes pointless as they will show up just as any non-stealth plane does. All weapons systems have a limited life span. They get countered by something better.

erm.... actually those kinds of RADARS do exist ..... and guess what, they are based on the very first RADAR systems, lol ...

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:50 AM
I was thinking about this yesterday and I think I may have found one more viable alternative explanation, but I really hope it's not. I do of course understand the official reason could be genuine, but...

I just wondered about the timing of this news about downing an entire fleet of "high tech" key military hardware, being announced so close after we heard about the operation "Shady RAT" hacking/espionage story.

We know from revelations about previous 'aledged' Chinese espionage cases that they have managed to successfully infiltrate and/or compromise significant strategic 'assets', including aerospace and military ones.

Well would any administration really mention/release any direct link between advanced hostile foreign espionage, a contractor involved in the design of the JSF and the grounding of an entire fleet of prestige weaponry with an enourmous price tag - in a recession, and in the run up to an election? Maybe - if they wished to initiate a physical conflict/war?

Consider also the news within the past year on how 'surprised' USA military leaders were at the rate of development China has exhibited in relation to stealth or stealthy aviation projects including their fighter, and UAVs, and anti-carrier/ship missiles etc...

And note also how McAfee say it cannot yet be known when or if all the damage from these 'sleeper' hacks has yet been done/released.

Here are some examples of the language used in the 'Shady RAT' story:

McAfee: Revealed: Operation Shady RAT

Having investigated intrusions such as Operation Aurora and Night Dragon (systemic long-term compromise of Western oil and gas industry), as well as numerous others that have not been disclosed publicly, I am convinced that every company in every conceivable industry with significant size and valuable intellectual property and trade secrets has been compromised (or will be shortly), with the great majority of the victims rarely discovering the intrusion or its impact. In fact, I divide the entire set of Fortune Global 2000 firms into two categories: those that know they’ve been compromised and those that don’t yet know.

Lately, with the rash of revelations about attacks on organizations such as RSA, Lockheed Martin, Sony, PBS, and others, I have been asked by surprised reporters and customers whether the rate of intrusions is increasing and if it is a new phenomenon. I find the question ironic because these types of exploitations have occurred relentlessly for at least a half decade, and the majority of the recent disclosures in the last six months have, in fact, been a result of relatively unsophisticated and opportunistic exploitations for the sake of notoriety by loosely organized political hacktivist groups such as Anonymous and Lulzsec.

What we have witnessed over the past five to six years has been nothing short of a historically unprecedented transfer of wealth — closely guarded national secrets (including from classified government networks), source code, bug databases, email archives, negotiation plans and exploration details for new oil and gas field auctions, document stores, legal contracts, SCADA configurations, design schematics and much more has “fallen off the truck” of numerous, mostly Western companies and disappeared in the ever-growing electronic archives of dogged adversaries.

What is happening to all this data — by now reaching petabytes as a whole — is still largely an open question. However, if even a fraction of it is used to build better competing products or beat a competitor at a key negotiation (due to having stolen the other team’s playbook), the loss represents a massive economic threat not just to individual companies and industries but to entire countries that face the prospect of decreased economic growth in a suddenly more competitive landscape and the loss of jobs in industries that lose out to unscrupulous competitors in another part of the world, not to mention the national security impact of the loss of sensitive intelligence or defense information.

I really encourage anyone interested to read the fulla article. All I'm saying is that he specifically mentions Lockheed Martin, but there are a lot more organisations listed by him that remain unidentified including USA government "agencies", "military contractors" and "satellite communications companies" - all entities that could IN THEORY be routes to an opponent unearthing info that could perhaps give a stealth fleet some problems.

I don't know how it's done, but presumably the USA can track it's stealth assets - what if China (with an impressive space program) managed to crack that - for example?
edit on 14-8-2011 by curioustype because: typo

edit on 14-8-2011 by curioustype because: typo ii

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 06:27 AM
i bet its just an excuse for not having them in the currant warzones..must have something secret for them to attack...wont be long till they are in syria or iran....

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in