http://www.adn.com/2010/11/17/155905...#ixzz15ZzxiIb8
This thing seems like it may not have the best safety record..
Printable View
http://www.adn.com/2010/11/17/155905...#ixzz15ZzxiIb8
This thing seems like it may not have the best safety record..
USAF is reporting they've found the wreckage, no word on pilot:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123231186
Not good for Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, after losing the C-17 a few months ago and now this. I hope they find the pilot at least on this one.
Compared to what? This is a front line fighter, often flown under intense conditions. This is the second operational loss of an F-22 (plus one that crashed during testing when the pilot suffered a GLOC and wasn't able to recover in time). So far I haven't seen anything pointing to a poor safety record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perriwen
Well, if you look at the percent of aircraft crashed compared to those built, this aircraft, in a few years, has matched the same percent of F-15 crashes as accumulated in 30 years. Plus, the F-15 took a 10-year period to reach the same amount of losses as the F-22 has in a four year period.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
Now lets revisit this with the aircraft F-14, that had many losses compared to the F-22 program. MANY MORE LOSSES and that was considered very safe.
I'm not arguing one way or the other, but there were almost 7x more F-14s built than F-22s. I think it's safe to consider all Navy jets less safe due to the much harsher conditions they operate under.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derf
Originally Posted by moose135
- http://www.aolnews.com/tech/article/...Clink3%7C26642
I was talking more about the test program for the F-14. They did loose a few aircraft. I think it is that fly by wire is crap.... It may be better in theory but but all that technology is got to be a reliability issue. Member that B-2 that got wet and crashed on takeoff.. I am still pissed they took the crank off the front of the cars..... one step forward and 2 steps back! lolol
F-22....Those numbers in the article suck. I would like to see what the issues were.
Remember, the thing with the F-14, a big one at least, was the earlier engines had a tendency to explode.
Nobody is perfect
If you read the article, they are talking about Class A accidents, which is defined as an accident costing more then $1M. To me that is a BS measuring stick, because the F-22 is also the most expensive fighter we have ever had. I would think minor damage to an F-15, or F-14, could cost 10x as much to fix on the F-22 due to its advanced materials, electronics, ect. Also, you have to take into account that we cant fix as much for $1M today, as we could have 20 years ago, which is when the F-14, F-15, and F-16 accumulated a major part of their flight time
back on topic.....
the thing that blows my mind is that in this day and age, you can build a $146 million dollar plane, and you can track your dog by dog collar with an iPhone App....
And yet there seems to be no tracking device on this pilots ejection seat.
Pilot didn't make it. http://www.adn.com/2010/11/19/156343...-in-crash.html
RIP and blue skies
The safety record is fine (although isn't this the third w/o, not the second?), but as for intense conditions, the F-22 has not yet been deployed in an offensive operation, and I think the only time it's ever "engaged" a live enemy target is when one went out to meet a Tu-95 off Alaska a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135