ANOTHER F22 crash - Florida this time..
Discussion
onyx39 said:
Yikes... The Canadian Air Force's purchase of F22s is a major controversy up here, because of the high cost and unproven capabilities. No idea whether it's the best choice or not, but this is definitely alarming news.Canada is buying, or planning to buy at least the F35 not the F22.
So far at least the F22 doesn't have a great reputation living mostly in a state of being grounded due to some minor issue like being toxic to all who ride in it or work on it or facing severe altitude restrictions incase the pilot needs to open the canopy for some fresh air. Then there are other issues like the insane running costs, the insane maintenance costs and parts wearing out very quickly.
Seems a bit of a white elephant of a programme all in all.
So far at least the F22 doesn't have a great reputation living mostly in a state of being grounded due to some minor issue like being toxic to all who ride in it or work on it or facing severe altitude restrictions incase the pilot needs to open the canopy for some fresh air. Then there are other issues like the insane running costs, the insane maintenance costs and parts wearing out very quickly.
Seems a bit of a white elephant of a programme all in all.
Edited by Godalmighty83 on Friday 16th November 00:37
The Tornado loss rate is worth looking at:
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_typ...
Not really comparable due to the size of the fleets, F22 flight restrictions, and so on, but it gives some perspective.
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_typ...
Not really comparable due to the size of the fleets, F22 flight restrictions, and so on, but it gives some perspective.
Fair point. How about the F.3 then? Similar size fleet and role.
Again, it's difficult to make a comparison as what do you judge it on, in service air miles?
My point was that the numbers don't seem excessive in comparison to other military aircraft, especially in the first few years of service.
Again, it's difficult to make a comparison as what do you judge it on, in service air miles?
My point was that the numbers don't seem excessive in comparison to other military aircraft, especially in the first few years of service.
jimmyjimjim said:
The Tornado loss rate is worth looking at:
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_typ...
Not really comparable due to the size of the fleets, F22 flight restrictions, and so on, but it gives some perspective.
That's not a very comprehensive list at all, there are several Tornado losses not mentioned on there.http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_typ...
Not really comparable due to the size of the fleets, F22 flight restrictions, and so on, but it gives some perspective.
eccles said:
jimmyjimjim said:
The Tornado loss rate is worth looking at:
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_typ...
Not really comparable due to the size of the fleets, F22 flight restrictions, and so on, but it gives some perspective.
That's not a very comprehensive list at all, there are several Tornado losses not mentioned on there.http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_typ...
Not really comparable due to the size of the fleets, F22 flight restrictions, and so on, but it gives some perspective.
Mojocvh said:
eccles said:
jimmyjimjim said:
The Tornado loss rate is worth looking at:
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_typ...
Not really comparable due to the size of the fleets, F22 flight restrictions, and so on, but it gives some perspective.
That's not a very comprehensive list at all, there are several Tornado losses not mentioned on there.http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_typ...
Not really comparable due to the size of the fleets, F22 flight restrictions, and so on, but it gives some perspective.
Eric Mc said:
IanMorewood said:
Not yet in the same league as a Starfighter for it lethal capabilities.
A bit of a myth, actually. The Luftwaffe had a very bad record with the F-104. Other air forces got on a lot better with them.F-104 loss statistics are definitely not the stuff of myth. It was fundamentally unsuited for its task and had by far the worst accident record of similar types from the time. Lockheed killed a lot of pilots; that they did so by making sales via bribery and corruption makes it an even more appalling record.
Mojocvh said:
Eric Mc said:
IanMorewood said:
Not yet in the same league as a Starfighter for it lethal capabilities.
A bit of a myth, actually. The Luftwaffe had a very bad record with the F-104. Other air forces got on a lot better with them.Eric Brown wrote in one of his books that he had serious doubts about the re-formed Luftwaffe operating the F-104, he felt they were trying to run before they could walk.
Nearly all new aircraft have problems when entering squadron service, the F-16 was known as 'The Texan Lawn Dart' at one point.
IanMorewood said:
Eric Mc said:
A bit of a myth, actually. The Luftwaffe had a very bad record with the F-104. Other air forces got on a lot better with them.
I think the Canadians also had more than a few problems with it too.dr_gn said:
IanMorewood said:
Eric Mc said:
A bit of a myth, actually. The Luftwaffe had a very bad record with the F-104. Other air forces got on a lot better with them.
I think the Canadians also had more than a few problems with it too.Basic problem is that a high speed, high altitude interceptor was tasked as a low level strike aircraft.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff