brabus Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Hopefully those hearings don't follow a massive loss of American lives (or worse). Unfortunately if people don't pull their nuggets out of their asses and realize the importance of this, our boys on the ground may some time in the future have to re-learn what it's like to get shot at by the enemy from the air. When was the last time an enemy dropped on our guys...the 50s? Yeah, good idea, let's just take air superiority for granted...that'll work out for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runnerdm6 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Washington Post Article The article was too long to copy and paste onto here. It presents a lot of points that have been previously used as fuel against keeping the production line open. I won't even try to analyze any of it, as I have no real experience/firsthand knowledge to speak intelligently about the situation. Anyone else care to comment on the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 My bet is that in future times, after all the currently-vogue USAF "hatred of all things fighter" and use of fighter culture as the scapegoat for all of the ills of the AF, TMike will be seen as a martyred visionary for his championing of modernization/recapitalization of USAF aircraft during the '00s. Probably not to the extent of a Billy Mitchell, but in a similar vein. Good point. Jumper was an even stronger advocate. His vision included programs that enabled connectivity and awareness of total capabilities across the USAF with a process and structure to capitalize on that connectivity in combat. He opened up the FWS and many other programs when people all around him (even/especially in the fighter community) were telling him that was a mistake. The "fighter mafia" and "Nellis mafia" haters also decried what Jumper was doing even as he was actually lifting everyone's game. Significantly. Buzz was just collatoral damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 A fighter staff guy the pentagon told me that if the af had bought more -22s we'd go broke trying to sustain them. They are extremely worried about the f-35 as well because nobody predicted the 5th gen operating costs to be so high. Current cost per hour for an ops sq f-22.....70k, mostly due to the ram mx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 F-22 grounding continues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Latest bar rumor I heard is that they think they might fly by end of fiscal year. I hope the world can survive that long without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Third one in 10 days...mx guys getting hammered in the jet now. So, that OBOGS fix seems to be working out pretty sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masshole Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Third one in 10 days...mx guys getting hammered in the jet now. What does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Noonin Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Third one in 10 days...mx guys getting hammered in the jet now. So, that OBOGS fix seems to be working out pretty sweet. I heard the story on this one and I wouldn't jump to any conclusions here by lumping it in with any other incidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I heard the story on this one and I wouldn't jump to any conclusions here by lumping it in with any other incidents. On which one? Two air and one ground at different bases in ten days. Trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Noonin Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 On which one? Two air and one ground at different bases in ten days. Trend. I'm talking about the ground one. I don't think that is at all related to the other incidents IF the details I heard are correct. Beyond that, the situation as a whole is ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I'm talking about the ground one. I don't think that is at all related to the other incidents IF the details I heard are correct. Copy. Beyond that, the situation as a whole is ugly. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seriously Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 After some interweb browsing, I found this little audio interview of Sprey and Win Wheeler about the F-22. Obviously it's critical but definitely intriguing. I didn't know that Sprey and Riccioni were talking about "supercruise" over 25 years ago. Link Edit: link Great audio link there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Air Force Orders Inspections of F-22 Oxygen Supply Backup Units By Mike McCarthy, Defense News, Dec. 8, 2011 The Air Force ordered immediate inspections this week of the backup oxygen units fielded on F-22 Raptor as it continues to grapple with oxygen supply issues behind groundings of the advanced fighter jets. The inspections are focused on the Emergency Oxygen System (EOS), which was designed for use as a backup to the Onboard Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS). The Air Force has been examining the oxygen supply systems after reports of pilots experiencing hypoxia or compression sickness following training sorties. The service grounded the Lockheed Martin [LMT]-built fleet of 165 planes in May. They were briefly grounded again in October after returning to flight a month earlier. Air Combat Command said the EOS has been needed on less than one percent of flights since the F-22s returned to the air and there were a small number of performance anomalies. Those cases were analyzed and corrected, the command said. "This inspection has been implemented simply as a prudent step to ensure the full functionality of the EOS given increased usage under current operating procedures," the command said. "The EOS is a self-contained backup system. It is not linked to other aircraft systems, nor has it caused any hypoxia-like incidents," the command added. Air Combat Command said it expected the inspections to be complete within a week, and that sorties will continue to be flown on a reduced basis but only after the aircraft have undergone the inspection. "Since the F-22 fleet returned to flying status in September 2011 we have adapted procedures to use the EOS as a precautionary measure to further protect pilots when they receive indications that physiological incidents may occur," the command said. The OBOGS system was under investigation following an F-22 crash in Alaska in November 2010 that left the pilot dead. Senior Air Force officials have since said the system was not at fault for the accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 And another one again today. The hits just keep on comin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB Stacker Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I'm going to throatpunch the next asshole that throws out the "well it's never been used in combat so therefore it is useless" card. The Eagle spent over a decade in service before it was ever used in combat, guess it was completely useless. Don't get me wrong, I'm as frustrated as anyone with this damn OBOGS issue as well as all the other Raptor problems (have friends/colleagues working it on the mx side, so I'm under no illusion as to the problems), but that bullshit card has always pissed me off. It shows a total inability to understand the purpose of the U.S. military (hint: if we're actually fighting a war we've already ######ed up to some degree) as well as an inability to think strategically or long term. As far as the "test mission" thing goes, I guess multiple intercepts of Bears with live weapons on board are just "test missions." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I'm going to throatpunch the next asshole that throws out the "well it's never been used in combat so therefore it is useless" card. Well, why hasn't it been used in combat? Seriously. We are flying in combat this very minute. Why isn't it being used? The Eagle spent over a decade in service before it was ever used in combat, guess it was completely useless. But we weren't flying combat sorites during that time. Big difference. It shows a total inability to understand the purpose of the U.S. military (hint: if we're actually fighting a war we've already ######ed up to some degree) Not sure what you are trying to say here or what it has to do with the F/A-22. As far as the "test mission" thing goes, I guess multiple intercepts of Bears with live weapons on board are just "test missions." Would you call them combat sorites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Noonin Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Well, why hasn't it been used in combat? Seriously. We are flying in combat this very minute. Why isn't it being used? Not sure if you're actually serious, but just in case... Do you think if we still had F-117s in the inventory, they would be in Afghanistan right now? Do we have B-2s sitting in XCAS orbits in Afghanistan? Of course not. It would make no sense, fiscally or otherwise. The F-22 has no pod, just a couple JDAMs. It's not a CAS platform. We have 180-something of them and the stealth is ridiculously expensive to maintain. It would make no sense to build facilities to maintain the stealth coatings, etc, in Afghanistan. If we sent them to the stan and let the stealth rot to hell because it doesn't matter for that scenario, then we lose the ability to use them elsewhere if needed. And there are lots of realistic scenarios where they would be needed. I'm not a big F-22 fan, but they can do things (that we absolutely need in our arsenal) that no one else can do. They just don't make any sense in Afghanistan. Nor did it make any sense in Iraq. Dudes can bitch and moan all day long about how expensive it is and that it hasn't been used in combat. All true. But that completely misses the point of why we have them or the fiscal/logistical realities of operating/maintaining them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Where in the hell did the popcorn emoticon go?!? Oh wait, there it is... This is gonna get interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Noonin Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 No need for popcorn. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with anyone. F-22 bashing is a sport, and a fun one at that. But it makes no sense for them to be used in this particular conflict and deep down everyone with any objectivity and perspective knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 ] Not sure if you're actually serious, but just in case... Just in case? That’s you’re job, make sure I understand what kind of airplanes we need in combat in Afghanistan? Great. I guess your reason for chiming in when I was just poking a ranter is because “Just in case” has been the mantra for high priced unused Air Superiority show dogs for a long time. It probably seems natural for you to jump in a patronize me about what the F/A-22 should be used for. Do you think if we still had F-117s in the inventory, they would be in Afghanistan right now? If by “in Afghanistan” you mean would they have ever flown any sorties? Maybe. Do we have B-2s sitting in XCAS orbits in Afghanistan? I don’t know. I can’t see the ATO. I’m guessing the answer is no, they're too fucking expensive. But, we tried using it in combat for a while. Of course not. It would make no sense, fiscally or otherwise. Or otherwise? The F-22 has no pod, just a couple JDAMs. It's not a CAS platform. We have 180-something of them and the stealth is ridiculously expensive to maintain. We all know that we’re not going to talk about what the F/A-22 does have that would be useful, so this is kind of a foul. That said… So you're saying the amount of money we're flushing down the toilet over there does make sense? You're saying something has to have a pod and carry more than a couple JDAMs and be a CAS platform of which we have more than 180 before it makes sense to use it? You can see where that line of thinking is going, right? It would make no sense to build facilities to maintain the stealth coatings, etc, in Afghanistan. I would be interested to see the financial modeling you're using to justify this general statement. It doesn’t make sense to me to spend 69% of what we’ve spent over there and that has nothing to do with the F/A-22. If we sent them to the stan and let the stealth rot to hell because it doesn't matter for that scenario, then we lose the ability to use them elsewhere if needed. And there are lots of realistic scenarios where they would be needed. First, “scenario” is a training term. In combat the “scenario” takes care of itself. We are sending other jets to "rot in hell" over there and we are burning those assets to the fucking ground. There are "lots of realistic scenarios" where they would be needed, too. I'm not a big F-22 fan, but they can do things (that we absolutely need in our arsenal) that no one else can do. Uh oh, I hope we don't really absolutely need those things they can do at this very moment! They just don't make any sense in Afghanistan. Because they're too expensive or because there aren't very many and they don't have a pod and don't carry a bunch of ordnance? Nor did it make any sense in Iraq. Really? But we had albinos flying over there until they were grounded because they couldn't carry a b-word. If they had been F/A-22s they could've kept flying. So, you're absofuckinglutely wrong on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tac airlifter Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Well, this is a useful discussion. It could be; serious question, do you think the rationale for not using the F-22 in Libya was valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I guess your reason for chiming in when I was just poking a ranter is because “Just in case” has been the mantra for high priced unused Air Superiority show dogs for a long time. Other than the F-22, which ones do you refer to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetter Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 It could be; serious question, do you think the rationale for not using the F-22 in Libya was valid? What was that rationale? Why didn't we use the F-15C in Libya? One word - gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 What was that rationale? Why didn't we use the F-15C in Libya? One word - gas. C models have less loiter than vipers, typhoons, tornados, and mirages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now