US Navy aircraft crash lands at Bahrain International Airport

abcnews.go.com...

A US Navy F-18 apparently had an engine problem and crashed off the runway at Bahrain International Airport according to ABC News. The pilot ejected safely and is reportedly unharmed. The F-18 was from USS Nimitz. I don't have any pictures, but social media say nose was tipped into the air, but aircraft largely intact. Thankfully, no-one hurt.

a reply to: nelloh62
I think our air force has gone into third world status. There is pretty much another crash every week now, sometimes plural! There will be another before next Saturday.

Or Maybe this is simply the result of having more aircraft deployed globally than most others combined??

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I think you are more right with more aircraft deployed globally. I mean, it could just have been a bird ingestion or something. Statistically, the size of the US air force, something will eventually fail with the amount of aircraft they have flying, even with the best maintenance

a reply to: nelloh62

Airframes are getting older and older though. Surely they must build the F35 numbers they need now. I think the Air force made a huge mistake making so few F22s. Just looks like the age of airframes is catching up with all the forces now.

As usual, it all probably comes down to cost, although it shouldn't be that way. I know one thing, those damn bean counters aren't the ones putting their ass in the pilots seat

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: nelloh62

Airframes are getting older and older though. Surely they must build the F35 numbers they need now. I think the Air force made a huge mistake making so few F22s. Just looks like the age of airframes is catching up with all the forces now.

a reply to: nelloh62

Just a shame that they don't factor in a lot of future costs like loss of airframes and above all else personnel.

The jet came from the Nimitz, a ship. The source even states it was a navy jet.

Why are people in this thread still saying airforce?

But as was already said; old airframes, not enough time for proper maintenance, not enough pilots... It's going to happen. At least it seams no one was hurt.

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: nelloh62

Just a shame that they don't factor in a lot of future costs like loss of airframes and above all else personnel.

They do, but mission accomplishment comes 1st.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I can just about count the number of carrier deployments that didn't lose an aircraft on one hand. They average anywhere from two to four aircraft per deployment. You're operating a limited number of aircraft, in an incredibly harsh environment to begin with, then you're slamming them around the deck on both takeoff and landing. Lines work lose, things break, and bad things happen.

a reply to: nelloh62

originally posted by: watchitburn
The jet came from the Nimitz, a ship. The source even states it was a navy jet.

Why are people in this thread still saying airforce?

But as was already said; old airframes, not enough time for proper maintenance, not enough pilots... It's going to happen. At least it seams no one was hurt.

I think we're just generalising about age across the whole board.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey, good find Zaph. Too much contraband in the trunk there methinks

a reply to: Woody510

The original life cycle for the Hornet was 6,000 hours. They're pushing them to 10,000 now and want to go higher until the Pentagon gets off their ass and authorizes full rate F-35 production.

I'm working on a thread about a November midair that ties into the age thing too.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Its just going to equal more losses in the long run. Not only that but will they be limiting the stress the airframe can handle under G? How can you fly combat missions and be limited to manoeuvres that don't go over a certain stress limit?
Totally agree they need to start full rate production now and also start touting the 6th generation requirements for both the Navy and Air force.

Look forward to reading the thread you're preparing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I couldn't resist Zaph

Is that a vertical take off jet?

a reply to: iWontGiveUP

It is now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Perhaps I should I have gone with the HOT SHOTS landing scene

👍

Eta the video

A gem

a reply to: iWontGiveUP

I think that's what he was trying for.

Slap a new engine, some bondo and 200 mph tape, stick a rail under it, and just let him hit full afterburner and go.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I made three carrier deployments in the 80's. Two to three aircraft is about right. The reasons can vary. The Forrestal lost an F-14 when the pilot had a brain aneurysm and died at the controls. The RIO had to eject them both. We lost one because the tailhook tip hit the rounddown and broke off. We were doing "blue water" ops and were beyond the range to a land base. The pilot ejected safely.

1 in 100,000 seems like good odds until you make 1,000,000 flights.

Those f18 all are frankenstein built, with second and third hand parts...its a miracle they are still flying... bet that one will be used for spares.
The USA should forget about the F35 and rebuild the assy line for F15 - F16 and F-18 even the A 10 is a really fine destruction Machine, and While at it order 100 Tornados,,,I bet it would be cheaper in the long run.