F-22 crashes, again (0:2)

[EtherealN]

Nikola, I'll rephrace like this:

 

Do you expect that since the F-22 is new and modern, there should be no problems associated with development and entering service of this new system? (If so, you need a reality check.)

 

I mean, people are here raising alarm bells over accident numbers that are orders of magnitude below comparative numbers for the migs, the eagles, the falcons, etcetera etcetera. Remember: they were cutting edge when they were new. And have a look at how often they fell out of the sky - and how often they STILL fall out of the sky.

[EtherealN]

Yea, that would stand for every other aircraft in this world, but F-22 is something special, you cannot apply general rules.

 

Why?

 

What makes the F-22 magic? It is not allowed to crash at all because... ... ... ?

[EtherealN]

I still see nothing magic, no.

 

For the LO functions, I see some physics.

They are 100% irrelevant in this topic.

 

I ask again: where is the magic? What deity would cast spells towards making this aircraft's development be magically different from any other fighter development? Sorry, the spaghetti monster is taken.

 

Twice the speed of sound: sorry, this is 60's stuff. Planes did this when my father was younger than I am.

[aaron886]

This thread has truly devolved... :D

[ralfidude]

[EtherealN]

Here's the difference between the F-22 an a 60's aircraft:

 

1) LO.

2) Turns good.

3) Still fast in spite of #2.

4) A tonne of systems for the above.

5) Has crashed a lot less than previous generations of aircraft.

 

I hope you don't expect that because something isn't faster than the fastest aircraft of yesterday it should be immune to problems in development? Because in that case you will have a rough hello with reality.

 

F-22 is doing fine. It's roughly in the same place in this department as the other new aircraft that are entering service. Why aren't you complaining about the Rafale which is worse off? It doesn't even bother with the LO stuff, so surely it should never have crashed at all?

[almonds]

Here's the difference between the F-22 an a 60's aircraft:

 

1) LO.

2) Turns good.

3) Still fast in spite of #2.

4) A tonne of systems for the above.

5) Has crashed a lot less than previous generations of aircraft.

 

I hope you don't expect that because something isn't faster than the fastest aircraft of yesterday it should be immune to problems in development? Because in that case you will have a rough hello with reality.

 

F-22 is doing fine. It's roughly in the same place in this department as the other new aircraft that are entering service. Why aren't you complaining about the Rafale which is worse off? It doesn't even bother with the LO stuff, so surely it should never have crashed at all?

 

was the f-22 the first plane to supercruise?

[EtherealN]

but plane like F-22 should not crash at all.

 

Why?

 

This is very strange to me. So once again: why?

 

In such a marvelous project, engineers cannot be satisfied with low crash ratio, they must strive for 0 crash ratio, because otherwise, they failed.

 

Everyone strives to minimize mishaps, but there is no such thing as a "0 crash ratio" for a cutting edge fighter project. You get as close as you can, but no-one gets all the way. What are your qualifications for expecting this project to be magic?

 

Apparently the plane is so good that you have to invent silly stuff like this in order to have something to complain about?

 

Rafale comes from place where they cannot make a decent car, let alone aircraft.

 

I will not comment, because you would find my response offensive. :P

[EtherealN]

was the f-22 the first plane to supercruise?

 

No. Who said it was?

[Grimes]

F-22 is doing fine. It's roughly in the same place in this department as the other new aircraft that are entering service.

 

 

People make a big deal about an F-22 crash for two main reasons:

1. The number built is very small compared to other fighters

2. The cost per aircraft is massive compared to other fighters

 

Each F-22 lost is a sizable loss of investment and the relatively small number built is impacted a great deal. Yeah I know that brings up the whole "how many do we actually need" argument, but the number built is what it is. It didn't matter as much when we lost an F-16 when many times more were already in service and more were still being built. So the whole program needs to be a step above everything else when it comes to the safety record because each loss has a much bigger impact than the typical fighter from the 60s or 70s would if it crashed.

[almonds]

No. Who said it was?

 

Nobody, I was just wondering for personal knowledge because you know a lot about the F-22.

[almonds]

@almonds:

just to put it into perspective, ill quote wikipedia: "the main user of supercruise was Concorde, with more time spent in supersonic, largely supercruise, flight than all of the other aircraft put together"

 

Thanks

[Yurgon]

Of course development can go wrong here and there, but plane like F-22 should not crash at all. In such a marvelous project, engineers cannot be satisfied with low crash ratio, they must strive for 0 crash ratio, because otherwise, they failed.

 

Then surely half of Boeing's development team must have committed ritual suicide over the years, for the 747 was - and still is - one of the most prestigious aircraft in history. Yet, these things have crashed, crashed and crashed, killing more passengers at one time than most other aircraft could have.

 

I fully believe Boeing, just like any other aircraft manufacturer (civil and military), does strive for a 0 crash ratio. They just aren't perfect, and neither are the pilots, flight controllers, ground crew, other aircrew or any of the many people that are required to keep aviation going. Crashes will happen.

 

The important thing here is to learn from crashes, learn from mistakes, and to never repeat past mistakes. Seeing as the F-22 is one of the most expensive aircraft in history, I'm pretty certain the USAF has a solid interest in keeping them flying, thus making it a high priority to identify the cause of the crash and to make sure the same thing won't cause another crash (although I find it questionable how the F-22 fleet was un-grounded even though no cause for the hypoxia-like symptoms had been discovered last year).

 

Rafale comes from place where they cannot make a decent car, let alone aircraft.

 

Now that is trolling.

 

Edit: Sheesh, multi-sniped. Usually less traffic on the forum this time of night (or day, depending where you come from). :)

Edited November 17, 2012 by Yurgon

[EtherealN]

Each F-22 lost is a sizable loss of investment and the relatively small number built is impacted a great deal.

 

Loss as portion of programme cost is still similar to, for example, the Gripen.

 

(Though in the case of the Gripen we built about twice as many as we ended up "needing", but that's a different matter. :P )

 

What I am looking for is justification for the statement that there should have been zero F-22 crashes as some sort of function of what the aircraft project is. That's just so ludicrous I can't understand how anyone would even start to reach that conclusion.

[EtherealN]

(although I find it questionable how the F-22 fleet was un-grounded even though no cause for the hypoxia-like symptoms had been discovered last year).

 

Cause was found, and the fleet was altitude-limited while a solution was in development.

[Yurgon]

Cause was found, and the fleet was altitude-limited while a solution was in development.

 

In 2011? I didn't google it right now, but I'm fairly certain that last year they were next to clueless as to what the cause was, which is also what the two pilots brought up on 60 minutes some months ago, before the cause was finally identified.

[tflash]

I just stated and reiterate that each aircraft accident should be reviewed carefully, and fortunately this is the case. Statements like "the F-22 is doing fine" are irrelevant. I hold no opinion on how the F-22 is "doing". I would presume that the USAF, who own the plane, are not happy with this incident, just as they are not happy with any loss. But I can't speak for them anyway.

Edited November 17, 2012 by tflash

[tflash]

However, gathering evidence might be quite a challenge this time: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-f22-raptor-crash-tyndall-air-force-base-20121116,0,4048709.story looking at the wreckage.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Why?

Because it cost 100 000 000 dollars a piece, and for that money, a systems and procedures should be in place to insure that it doesn't crash. Because development lasted for 10+ years. Because it crashed in exercise, not in combat environment. Because ...

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

 

Seriously now. Accidents happen.

 

Every accident is preventable. And yes, accidents do happen. But, on a system that cost 100 million dollars, with hundreds if not thousands of engineers and scientist involved, loosing 100 million dollars system to accident is a serious failure.

[GeorgeLKMT]

I don't see a point why Raptor should not be "allowed" to crash. Guys, no matter how much development costs and how many people are involved, every airplane is just pieces of metal structures (or whatever), engines, bunch of electronic stuff and human being at control. Only because you add electronics doesn't mean you don't have to deal with aerodynamics and physical laws.

 

Think of it this way:

 

A320 (or any other airbus) - Computers involved in aircraft control, should not be "allowed to crash". Yet again, somehow flown into the forest and many other people died in crashes to date.

Sukhoi Superjet 100 - Latest technological marvel of russian engineering in civil aviation, yet had CFIT this year.

Space Shuttle - well, that's not an airplane, but money involved in this project and thousands of engineers and scientist should prevent it's crash right? Or not? Well two of these and its crew members were lost...

 

And many and many other airplanes were somehow better than it's predecessors and already had failures. Minor, major or even fatal. So now tell me, how the Raptor should not crash.

[marcos]

Every accident is preventable. And yes, accidents do happen. But, on a system that cost 100 million dollars

Slightly more than that.

[Weta43]

However, gathering evidence might be quite a challenge this time: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-f22-raptor-crash-tyndall-air-force-base-20121116,0,4048709.story looking at the wreckage.

 

If the fault was in the tailplane you might get a clue...

othewise, yep, could be a challenge...

[EtherealN]

Because it cost 100 000 000 dollars a piece, and for that money, a systems and procedures should be in place to insure that it doesn't crash.

 

Pipe dream.

 

It's an advanced aircraft. Stuff will happen.

 

Because development lasted for 10+ years. Because it crashed in exercise, not in combat environment. Because ...

 

See above.

 

You are suffering from unrealistic expectations. In this case the solution is to adjust your expectations to reality.

 

Space Shuttle launch: 450 million dollars. This is the launch itself, excludes the actual shuttle. Shuttle construction was about 1.7 billion dollars. And guess what - stuff happened.

 

Seriously, when you push the envelope there will ALWAYS be things that happen. If you want absolutely safe operation, go for airlines. Oh wait... (As an aside, a 747 flyaway cost is twice that of a Raptor. So surely they should be immune to accidents?)

Edited November 17, 2012 by EtherealN

[PFunk1606688187]

The only problem with regards to the F-22 is that there may not be enough of them to suffer this rate of loss.