[ARCHIVED THREAD] - F22 flying again (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 9/23/2011 11:18:58 PM EDT
An F-22 Raptor flies over Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, Sept. 21, 2011, after a four month stand down. Air Force senior leaders recently approved an implementation plan that will allow the F-22 to resume flight operations. The stand down of the fleet was directed May 3, 2011, as a safety precaution following 12 separate reported incidents of pilots experiencing hypoxia-like symptoms. |
|
Well,
You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. |
|
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. Quoted to preserve the massive fail. |
|
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. Holy cow! I have to try really hard to come up with that many mistakes in one post! 9/10 on failmeter |
|
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. Damn, you created a troll account just for that 
|
|
Quoted: Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. Rarely in the annals of the Internet, has a first post been such a raging torrent of fail.  Seriously, my mind is all full of fuck right now. |
|
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. your right!!! we should make it slower and less advanced than our enemies...GREAT PLAN!!!! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So did they ever figure out what the problem was? Yes Did they ever fix the problem
No. Just leave the hangar doors open, right? 
That + periodic blood testing and stuff for their pilots to ensure the toxin level is... safe.  What were the toxins? |
|
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. 1st post from you riddled with fail. I suggest you try again, under a different account, with a new name. The above post is unable to be redeemed. |
|
Quoted: Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. These were perfectly capable aircraft. Why were they replaced by newer, more expensive aircraft only 22 years later? Taxpayers want to know why dammit!  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. Quoted to preserve the massive fail. Holy shit I almost inhaled a chip and fell out of my chair laughing. |
|
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. 
no really
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So did they ever figure out what the problem was? Yes Did they ever fix the problem
No. Just leave the hangar doors open, right?
That + periodic blood testing and stuff for their pilots to ensure the toxin level is... safe. What were the toxins? Air Force Times Toxins found in pilots’ blood include oil fumes, residue from burned polyalphaolefin (PAO) anti-freeze, and, in one case, propane. Carbon monoxide, which leaves the blood quickly, is also suspected. “There is a lot of nasty stuff getting pumped into the pilots’ bloodstream through what they’re breathing from that OBOGS [On-Board Oxygen Generation System]. That’s fact,” one former F-22 pilot said. “How bad it is, what type it is, exactly how much of it, how long — all these things have not been answered.” |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So did they ever figure out what the problem was? Yes Did they ever fix the problem
No. Just leave the hangar doors open, right?
That + periodic blood testing and stuff for their pilots to ensure the toxin level is... safe. Fuck. The aircraft were never started with the god damn hanger doors closed. That AF times article was full of fuck. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So did they ever figure out what the problem was? Yes Did they ever fix the problem
No. Just leave the hangar doors open, right?
That + periodic blood testing and stuff for their pilots to ensure the toxin level is... safe. Fuck. The aircraft were never started with the god damn hanger doors closed. That AF times article was full of fuck.
Yes, we all know that. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. The OBOGS seems to be the problem, and there is no fix (at least, according to everything I've read) to address the shit its pumping into the lungs of the pilots. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So did they ever figure out what the problem was? Yes Did they ever fix the problem
No. Just leave the hangar doors open, right?
That + periodic blood testing and stuff for their pilots to ensure the toxin level is... safe. Fuck. The aircraft were never started with the god damn hanger doors closed. That AF times article was full of fuck.
Yes, we all know that. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. The OBOGS seems to be the problem, and there is no fix (at least, according to everything I've read) to address the shit its pumping into the lungs of the pilots. rgr, OBOGS is the problem. not easely fixable. Dassaut have had similar problems on the Rafale. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So did they ever figure out what the problem was? Yes Did they ever fix the problem
No. Just leave the hangar doors open, right?
That + periodic blood testing and stuff for their pilots to ensure the toxin level is... safe. Fuck. The aircraft were never started with the god damn hanger doors closed. That AF times article was full of fuck.
Yes, we all know that. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. The OBOGS seems to be the problem, and there is no fix (at least, according to everything I've read) to address the shit its pumping into the lungs of the pilots. What I don't get is that this isn't the first jet with OBOGS. Haven't some of these issues been seen before and already fixed on other airframes? |
|
Quoted:
What I don't get is that this isn't the first jet with OBOGS. Haven't some of these issues been seen before and already fixed on other airframes? This is Stealthy OBOGS. Completely different. OBOGS has had problems since its inception. I don't think there is an airframe with OBOGS without its share of problems. |
|
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. this is funny 
quoted so people can see the fail repeatedly 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I don't get is that this isn't the first jet with OBOGS. Haven't some of these issues been seen before and already fixed on other airframes? This is Stealthy OBOGS. Completely different. OBOGS has had problems since its inception. I don't think there is an airframe with OBOGS without its share of problems. Is there really that much benefit to using it instead of LOX? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I don't get is that this isn't the first jet with OBOGS. Haven't some of these issues been seen before and already fixed on other airframes? This is Stealthy OBOGS. Completely different. OBOGS has had problems since its inception. I don't think there is an airframe with OBOGS without its share of problems. Is there really that much benefit to using it instead of LOX? Absolutely. Think of the LOX storage requirements onboard a ship or forward deployed - not to mention the system maintenance on the LOX system in the aircraft. OBOGS (with a back-up pressure-bottle) is a no-brainer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. Damn, you created a troll account just for that In for the "You seem... familiar." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I don't get is that this isn't the first jet with OBOGS. Haven't some of these issues been seen before and already fixed on other airframes? This is Stealthy OBOGS. Completely different. OBOGS has had problems since its inception. I don't think there is an airframe with OBOGS without its share of problems. Is there really that much benefit to using it instead of LOX? Absolutely. Think of the LOX storage requirements onboard a ship or forward deployed - not to mention the system maintenance on the LOX system in the aircraft. OBOGS (with a back-up pressure-bottle) is a no-brainer. Gotcha. My jet has GOX, so my knowledge of LOX usage is pretty much nothing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I don't get is that this isn't the first jet with OBOGS. Haven't some of these issues been seen before and already fixed on other airframes? This is Stealthy OBOGS. Completely different. OBOGS has had problems since its inception. I don't think there is an airframe with OBOGS without its share of problems. Is there really that much benefit to using it instead of LOX? Absolutely. Think of the LOX storage requirements onboard a ship or forward deployed - not to mention the system maintenance on the LOX system in the aircraft. OBOGS (with a back-up pressure-bottle) is a no-brainer. Stealthy OBOGS and now this as a reason for not using a legacy liquid LOX system? Talking a little out of your realm of expertise are we? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I don't get is that this isn't the first jet with OBOGS. Haven't some of these issues been seen before and already fixed on other airframes? This is Stealthy OBOGS. Completely different. OBOGS has had problems since its inception. I don't think there is an airframe with OBOGS without its share of problems. Is there really that much benefit to using it instead of LOX? Absolutely. Think of the LOX storage requirements onboard a ship or forward deployed - not to mention the system maintenance on the LOX system in the aircraft. OBOGS (with a back-up pressure-bottle) is a no-brainer. Stealthy OBOGS and now this as a reason for not using a legacy liquid LOX system? Talking a little out of your realm of expertise are we? The Stealthy OBOGS thing was a joke. I didn't think the smiley was necessary. LOX is a PITA in almost every respect when compared to OBOGS. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I don't get is that this isn't the first jet with OBOGS. Haven't some of these issues been seen before and already fixed on other airframes? This is Stealthy OBOGS. Completely different. OBOGS has had problems since its inception. I don't think there is an airframe with OBOGS without its share of problems. Is there really that much benefit to using it instead of LOX? Absolutely. Think of the LOX storage requirements onboard a ship or forward deployed - not to mention the system maintenance on the LOX system in the aircraft. OBOGS (with a back-up pressure-bottle) is a no-brainer. Stealthy OBOGS and now this as a reason for not using a legacy liquid LOX system? Talking a little out of your realm of expertise are we? The Stealthy OBOGS thing was a joke. I didn't think the smiley was necessary. LOX is a PITA in almost every respect when compared to OBOGS. My sarcasm meter must need calibrated; my bad.  LOX is a thing of the past and will be phased out eventually. It simply cannot supply the high pressure Oxygen that's required on today's platforms. That and like you said; it's a PITA to handle, transport and service.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So did they ever figure out what the problem was? Yes Did they ever fix the problem
No. Just leave the hangar doors open, right?
That + periodic blood testing and stuff for their pilots to ensure the toxin level is... safe. Fuck. The aircraft were never started with the god damn hanger doors closed. That AF times article was full of fuck.
Yes, we all know that. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. The OBOGS seems to be the problem, and there is no fix (at least, according to everything I've read) to address the shit its pumping into the lungs of the pilots. The OBOGS isn't producing these toxins. These hydrocarbons are probably getting into the system from either an improperly serviced or defective heat exchanger upstream of the OBOGS. |
|
Quoted: Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. It's funny how the people making these claims are never the same people we ask to fly into harm's way. If my kid goes into air combat, I damn sure want them in a platform that is superior in every way possible.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. It's funny how the people making these claims are never the same people we ask to fly into harm's way. If my kid goes into air combat, I damn sure want them in a platform that is superior in every way possible.
I won't hold my breath waiting for these to be used. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. It's funny how the people making these claims are never the same people we ask to fly into harm's way. If my kid goes into air combat, I damn sure want them in a platform that is superior in every way possible.
I won't hold my breath waiting for these to be used. I doubt they ever will. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, You take an expensive aircraft...More stealthy than needed, more technologically advanced than needed, way faster than needed, more maneuverable than needed, more expensive than needed, and bigger/heavyer than needed. Now, you minimize it's payload (restricted to internal muns only) dip it in an expensive coating without drilling dain holes, then pump it up and sell it to people that were conned into believeing we needed to replace the "Aging F-15" which we still manufacture and sell to friends. Then take pilots that missed breakfast, and probably got smashed at ops last night...because they are way cooler than needed. It's funny how the people making these claims are never the same people we ask to fly into harm's way. If my kid goes into air combat, I damn sure want them in a platform that is superior in every way possible.
What's funny is how so many people have become convinced our national defense is dependent upon a couple of super whizbang sexy aircraft just because of years of intense propaganda from the guys who make them. I guess when the MexioSinoRusso Armada invades from the moon, we will be ready with the 5 or 6 F 22s that are FMC at the time. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - F22 flying again (Page 1 of 2)
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.