F-22 crashes, again (0:2)

[monotwix]

They will make some more.

[PFunk1606688187]

They will make some more.

 

Oh yea, cause they took a break on the assembly line because the US was too busy applauding the budgetary prudence of the project so far.

[GGTharos]

How about all those hypersonic testbeds that crashed?

 

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 ...

[tflash]

With a first flight in 1997 and introduction to service in 2005, this no longer produced golden oldie cannot easily be compared to hypersonic testbeds.

But it is still fair to say it did much better than older generation fighters and its accident rate compares to that of Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen.

 

So in this regard, there is really nothing special to say about F-22, as many other posts in this thread have already stressed.

 

Of course, F-22 is in the press crosshairs and attracts negative comments on a routinely basis: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/f-22-crashe/

 

The real thing worth mentioning however is that USAF routinely flies fifth generation aircraft, and I guess those who are desperately trying to copy this as well as those who are frantically digging deeper holes to hide got that message as well.

Edited November 18, 2012 by tflash

[Alicatt]

was the f-22 the first plane to supercruise?

Not sure which was first but the EE Lightning prototype P1B could supercruise back in 1958 and reach a speed of >Mach 2

[monotwix]

That's impossible.

[Namenlos Ein]

Looks bad.

 

4256 x 2832

 

In this July 31, 2012 file photo, Maj. Gen. Charlie Lyon, left, holds a valve during a news conference at the Pentagon in Washington to provide an update on the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board study into life support systems installed on the F-22 and operations.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/international/171516451.html

[marcos]

^The cause of the crash is right there. The pilot has no arms!

[Stickers]

^The cause of the crash is right there. The pilot has no arms!

 

 

LOL

[slowhand]

:megalol:Too funny, some sic puppys running around here:doh::music_whistling:

[Phantom88]

^The cause of the crash is right there. The pilot has no arms!

:lol::lol:Brilliant!!!:lol::lol:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Pipe dream.

I did not say, trouble free, I said prevent from crashing (and thus total loss).

 

It's an advanced aircraft. Stuff will happen.

What about back up systems?

 

 

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

I am suffering from fear that when I retire, my social security, therefore my pension, will not be there. So, loosing 100 000 000 million dollars, just because it is an "advanced aircraft" is not an excuse that that makes me happy.

 

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.

And what did analyses of the tragedies revile? The first tragedy was a political in nature, Challenger was not ready to fly, but was ordered to take off. Colombia disaster was a fatal design flaw of Space Shuttle program where the shuttle itself is located below possible falling debris. So, is this pushing an envelope, or something else?

[GGTharos]

I did not say, trouble free, I said prevent from crashing (and thus total loss).

 

What about back up systems?

 

You know, or should know, that this is not possible in practice. But already the F-22 seems to be way ahead in mishap rate compared to other fighters.

 

 

I am suffering from fear that when I retire, my social security, therefore my pension, will not be there. So, loosing 100 000 000 million dollars, just because it is an "advanced aircraft" is not an excuse that that makes me happy.

 

F-22's crashing are not the problem here. Try focusing on the real problems as far as economy goes; F-22's crashing is but a drop in the bucket, and there aren't that many F-22's anyway.

 

And what did analyses of the tragedies revile? The first tragedy was a political in nature, Challenger was not ready to fly, but was ordered to take off. Colombia disaster was a fatal design flaw of Space Shuttle program where the shuttle itself is located below possible falling debris. So, is this pushing an envelope, or something else?

 

Challenger was ready to fly, but not in that weather. All of this stuff is pushing the envelope. You can't expect something to be designed with the perfect solutions to everything, even though the engineers will genuinely try.

[EtherealN]

I did not say, trouble free, I said prevent from crashing (and thus total loss).

 

Again: pipe dream.

 

If you want safe stuff, use old hardware, Or actually, don't. There's still 747's crashing 40 years after the type was introduced... Why do you expect the F-22 to be better? Because it's supersonic, includes a craptonne of new technology and doesn't have several hundred people on board?

 

What about back up systems?

 

What about them?

 

I am suffering from fear that when I retire, my social security, therefore my pension, will not be there. So, loosing 100 000 000 million dollars, just because it is an "advanced aircraft" is not an excuse that that makes me happy.

 

It's not a subject fit for this forum, but if you're worried about your SS and pension, you have other places to look at. Google "unfunded liabilities".

 

But more to the point: the F-22 has a comparatively extremely low crash record. While an F-16 cost less in nominal dollars (I can't be arsed to do the inflation adjustments, especially since it's a hellish nightmare to work through monetary and real etcetera), there crashed way more of them. And let's not forget that while the F-15 is dime-a-dozen now, so to speak, it was a monumentally expensive program at the time.

 

Using inflation numbers from the Bureou of Labor Statistics, I arrive at one F-15C being a third of an F-22.

 

1989 US GDP was ~7.8 billion dollars

2011 US GDP was ~13,4 billion dollars

These numbers are also inflation adjusted (US Department of Commerce). So we have a 70% growth in this timespan. This keeps up roughly and keeps us at one per three, roughly. (51 million dollars per F-15 if counted as a portion of the economy.)

 

Now, how many were built?

F-15C's - 483 - adjusted dollars: 24 billion and 633 million (NOTE: where's the F-15A's? :) )

F-22's - 187 - adjusted dollars: 28 billion and 50 million

 

Didn't have time to wade through further details regarding crash costs, because this is complicated territory to sort through this kind of stuff, but my point is: if you're worrying about money, there is absolutely nothing new going on here. I looked at the list of crashed, non-casualty F-15C's and there were a good few, but meh at spending the time. (Sorry, but I have things to do too. :P )

 

And what did analyses of the tragedies revile? The first tragedy was a political in nature, Challenger was not ready to fly, but was ordered to take off. Colombia disaster was a fatal design flaw of Space Shuttle program where the shuttle itself is located below possible falling debris. So, is this pushing an envelope, or something else?

 

Yeah, and one of my takeaways here is absolutely obvious: something costing a lot is absolutely not, in no way ever, a guarantee for a lack of failures. You might be able to brute-force some error sources into oblivion, but you'll introduce others. In the 60's and 70's we swedes send planes into service with fatal structural flaws that caused tonnes of our fighter pilots to suddenly find themselves out of wings. We no longer do that. We employ way more checks now. It's a long string of development where we don't make the same mistakes again (very often - there are obvioously some exceptions because people are people and sometimes old people want that pension - one case of pension had one of our first Gripens crash in the middle of stockholm right in front of a million people at the water festival :D ).

 

Seriously, you need to spend some less time with amateur economics and some more time figuring out how aircraft development works. When something is new, it is by definition new, if it wasn't new you wouldn't need this thing that is new, and since it is new... There will always be SOMETHING.

Edited November 20, 2012 by EtherealN

[monotwix]

I want some F-35 pension layout.

[aaron886]

What about back up systems?

 

Tell me about how the airbag in your car will save you from being trapped in the vehicle and burned alive.

 

Where do you people get this concept that aircraft should be these perfect, cheap, magical things, and pilots should be robots that have both sound judgement and perfect ineffable skill? Either you're dredging for arguments, or less informed than you think you are.

[monotwix]

Tell me how the incorrect use of fire extinguishing methods can stop your heart.

[monotwix]

Escaping the airbag procedures:

Step 1: make sure the airbag contains the necessary brain pieces in order to escape the danger zone

[aaron886]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy

[Vekkinho]

Dammit stop fighting over it already!

 

The main reason all Raptors crashed so far is the Earth's gravity!

[GGTharos]

Someone make gravity illegal!

[EtherealN]

But what about enforcement? :(

[Jona33]

[Cali]

Dammit stop fighting over it already!

 

The main reason all Raptors crashed so far is the Earth's gravity!

 

Someone make gravity illegal!

 

I'm working on it, give me 2 weeks.

[Slayer]

This argument reminds me of hilarity ensued when the F-22 computers locked up, crashed and couldn't be restarted because they crossed the international dateline :P

 

Anyways the F-22 is so 1990's , the new porkbarrel is the F-35. We shall see some real nice arguments once these klunkers start falling from the skys...