backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 157 comment(s) - last by daily.. on Mar 9 at 1:33 PM
Six Lockheed F-22 Raptors have Y2K-esque glitch of their own over the Pacific

Lockheed’s F-22 Raptor is the most advanced fighter in the world with its stealth capabilities, advanced radar, state of the art weapons systems and ultra-efficient turbofans which allow the F-22 to "supercruise" at supersonic speeds without an afterburner. The Raptor has gone up against the best that the US Air Force and Navy has to offer taking out F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18 Super Hornets during simulated war games in Alaska. The Raptor-led "Blue Air" team was able to rack up an impressive 241-to-2 kill ratio during the exercise against the "Red Air" threat -- the two kills on the blue team were from the 30-year old F-15 teammates and not the new Raptors.

But while the simulated war games were a somewhat easy feat for the Raptor, something more mundane was able to cripple six aircraft on a 12 to 15 hours flight from Hawaii to Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan. The U.S. Air Force's mighty Raptor was felled by the International Date Line (IDL).

When the group of Raptors crossed over the IDL, multiple computer systems crashed on the planes. Everything from fuel subsystems, to navigation and partial communications were completely taken offline. Numerous attempts were made to "reboot" the systems to no avail.

Luckily for the Raptors, there were no weather issues that day so visibility was not a problem. Also, the Raptors had their refueling tankers as guide dogs to "carry" them back to safety. "They needed help. Had they gotten separated from their tankers or had the weather been bad, they had no attitude reference. They had no communications or navigation," said Retired Air Force Major General Don Shepperd. "They would have turned around and probably could have found the Hawaiian Islands. But if the weather had been bad on approach, there could have been real trouble.”

"The tankers brought them back to Hawaii. This could have been real serious. It certainly could have been real serious if the weather had been bad," Shepperd continued. "It turned out OK. It was fixed in 48 hours. It was a computer glitch in the millions of lines of code, somebody made an error in a couple lines of the code and everything goes."

Luckily for the pilots behind the controls of the Raptors, they were not involved in a combat situation. Had they been, it could have been a disastrous folly by the U.S. Air Force to have to admit that their aircraft which cost $125+ million USD apiece were knocked out of the sky due to a few lines of computer code. "And luckily this time we found out about it before combat. We got it fixed with tiger teams in about 48 hours and the airplanes were flying again, completed their deployment. But this could have been real serious in combat," said Shepperd.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hmmmmm
By cochy on 2/26/2007 11:16:45 AM , Rating: 2
Weird story.

12-15 hours from Hawaii to Japan? Are these things supersonic or hot air balloons? Shouldn't take more than a few hours for even a commercial airliner to cross that distance, considering it takes about 15 hours to get from Toronto to Hong Kong.




RE: Hmmmmm
By TomZ on 2/26/2007 11:40:41 AM , Rating: 2
Hawaii to Japan is 3850 miles - do the math - there's no way it's a "few hours."


RE: Hmmmmm
By cochy on 2/26/2007 11:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
Well like I said, Toronto Hong Kong is 15 hours and that's 7800 miles. Plus I'm assuming these planes move a tad faster than an Airbus. Though I did underestimate the distance from Hawaii, I always forget that it's as far south as it is.


RE: Hmmmmm
By Brassbullet on 2/26/2007 2:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, they were flying with their tanker, either a KC-135 (B707) or a KC-10 (DC-10).

Generally military aircraft do not fly at the altiudes that commercial aircraft fly at, and fighter jets are especially inefficent flying at those altitudes.

I would expect that the flight group was around 20-30k and moving slower than would a JAL 747 going the same route.


RE: Hmmmmm
By yacoub on 2/26/2007 1:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
So.... 8-10 hours?


RE: Hmmmmm
By Triring on 2/26/2007 9:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
They took off from Kadena in Okinawa right next to Taiwan.
It's a three hour flight from Tokyo.
The Tokyo-Honolulu flight takes about 8-10 hours depending on which way you are heading affected by the jet stream.
So twelve hours in sub-sonic flight exercising refuel maneuvers doesn't seem that outrageous.


RE: Hmmmmm
By MrTeal on 2/26/2007 2:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind they were flying with their tankers. The F-22A can supercruise, but I think the Stratotanker might have trouble keeping up.


RE: Hmmmmm
By eryco on 2/26/2007 3:41:43 PM , Rating: 4
They should have left the fuel lines attached so the F22s could have towed the StratoTanker into supercruise...


Maintaining Air-superiority is one thing.....
By osalcido on 2/26/2007 2:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
Spending $125 Million a piece on these aircraft when our only major conflicts in the past year have been against some less than well equipped dictators in Africa and the MidEast... that $125 million could've been better spent on a few (dozen) more armored APCs so our troops on the ground don't have to get around in unarmored SUVs...




RE: Maintaining Air-superiority is one thing.....
By stromgald on 2/26/2007 3:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
With that mentality, the Chinese would be kicking our butts in 2020, if not sooner. It's a simple fact: you have to keeep dvancing or else you will be overtaken.


RE: Maintaining Air-superiority is one thing.....
By osalcido on 2/26/2007 5:30:03 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah I think the Soviet Union subscribed to that doctrine... and look what happened to them.

Progress is fine and dandy. But for the price of one of these things you could feed thousands of Americans or build a couple of schools , etc.

Progress in moderation would be best.


RE: Maintaining Air-superiority is one thing.....
By osalcido on 2/26/2007 5:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
Afterall, what good is futuristic weaponry when it's defending a decaying civilization? How ironic that these high-tech things are built to defend cities with crumbling infrastructures


By Scabies on 2/26/2007 6:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
You must live in St Louis?
wait no thats just crumbling abandoned buildings (theyre working on this... kinda)


By SmokeRngs on 2/27/2007 10:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah I think the Soviet Union subscribed to that doctrine... and look what happened to them.


The arms race was able to bankrupt the Soviet Union because it did not have the financial infrastructure and policies in place to drive the economy along. Military and government spending were the only things driving the economy and that is not sustainable. That's the simplified reason why the Soviet Union fell. Remember, the US was obviously in the same arms race and did not go bankrupt. What makes you think it would bankrupt the US now?


Equator
By gsellis on 2/26/2007 1:54:49 PM , Rating: 3
I would not want to be the first pilot to fly south of the equator after this bit of news.




RE: Equator
By Scabies on 2/26/2007 3:04:45 PM , Rating: 3
and I DEFINATELY would not like to be in your formation any other time.
Or in your geography class.


RE: Equator
By gsellis on 2/26/2007 3:16:47 PM , Rating: 3
There have been problems with nav computers as they crossed 0 in the past. Suddenly, the plane thinks it is going 'North'. I know some commerial planes required an upgrade to fly to South America in the 80's.

Would not want to be in your history class... ;)


RE: Equator
By porkpie on 2/28/2007 10:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
I HOPE he was joking-- but I'm not too sure.


I think
By suryad on 2/26/2007 6:53:43 PM , Rating: 1
those exercise numbers and kill ratios etc are quite doctored up just to get the bean counters all happy and produce large orders. The F22 is an impressive piece of machinery and a marvelous technological achievement no doubt but I doubt those are actual numbers. It wont be the first time the military will have lied to us after all.




RE: I think
By stromgald on 2/26/2007 7:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
You think . . . maybe you should get some knowledge before speaking up. The F-15C has an acutal kill ratio of 95-0. So, the simluated combat of the F-15's successor gets 241-2 isn't so far fetched when you look at the real numbers from previous air superiority aircraft. Then again, you'll probably claim that the 95-0 number is made up to.


RE: I think
By Brassbullet on 2/27/2007 1:24:38 AM , Rating: 2
Kinda like the F-15 loses in excercises were padded and arranged so to scare Congressmen into funding the F-22?

Not that I have anything against the F-22.


RE: I think
By mino on 2/27/2007 5:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
No, they do not have to lie on this one.
Congressmen's lack of brainpower will suffice.

Just take into account that F15, not its weapons, radar or pilot training for that matter was designed to shoot down non-existent threat like Russian F-22.
They do not need to, there will be no 5-gen craft as stealthy as Raptor. Period.
What would be more informative is whether The raptors radar is able to detect themselves.
That would mean something as any enemy craft with simmilar abilities as F-22 will be spotted.

On the other hand it might make sense not to develop tech to see Raptor until there is a real F-22 threat on horizon as no one could steal tech that was not jet developed :). Heh.


RE: I think
By CascadingDarkness on 3/1/2007 6:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
No, they should develop it. They just need to keep it super secret and secure. Maybe they could put it in a 'lock box' somewhere.


RE: I think
By coldwarrior on 3/6/2007 10:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
The military doesn't lie to us and it is our military. There are some things that our military must hide for national security. I think they are releasing way too much information and the media is allowed to report way too much. Imagine a month before D-Day in WWII if the plan to win the war by invading at Normandy with a certain number of troops was broadcast on a world wide news channel.


pwnage
By codeThug on 2/26/2007 10:45:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
rack up an impressive 241-to-2 kill ratio


Prolly due to wall hacks and aim bots...




RE: pwnage
By GoatMonkey on 2/26/2007 11:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
They h4x0r3d the radar with l33t st34lth ch34ts.


RE: pwnage
By mark2ft on 2/26/2007 3:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot wallspamming and flash immunity. And speed hack.


<no subject>
By Scabies on 2/26/2007 10:52:11 AM , Rating: 4
Oops. Was windows on the OS dev team?
I kid. Spatial disorientation could have been a HUGE problem. It takes a lot for a pilot to learn to trust their instruments, so when they go out, they can get screwed fast. Spatial disorientation is where the pilot's inner ear (thus overall perception) of planar orientation is skewed. For instance, if a pilot goes through a cloud bank and loses all visual cues as to where the earth is, which way is up and which way is down, they can begin to think that a few degrees rolled to the right or left (or even upside down) is the correct "level," or zero degrees. Then when they pop out and see what is correct... It is enough to cause a crash. This weather point that was reiterated over and over in DailyTech's quotes could have killed these pilots, and I imagine that the general press is fickle enough that it could have killed the F22 project in general.




RE: <no subject>
By Scabies on 2/26/2007 1:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
Jeez, was the windows thing too much for you? Could I get another negative for saying I am a Vista adopter?
Go look up spatial disorientation, and you'll see why having no instruments is really a life threatening situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_disorientatio...


RE: <no subject>
By CascadingDarkness on 3/1/2007 6:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. Even with clear skies at night can put you in similar situation. Not to much of a stretch to lose track of what's sky and what's ocean during a night maneuver.


You think they would learn
By nzervgpongo on 2/26/2007 12:26:18 PM , Rating: 3
The most amazing part of this story is that a simular thing happend to the last major fighter type introduced by the USAF.
The first time that F16s crossed the date line the whole formation inverted.
You think they would know to test for this kind of thing.




By marvdmartian on 3/7/2007 3:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
Geez, you'd think they would have inverted when they crossed the Equator.....being as everything is upside-down in the southern hemisphere, right? ;)

I was reading the story myself, and wondering if JPL (Jet Propulsion Labs) had anything to do with that software glitch. You remember them.....the nice folks that sent a couple Mars probes off into deep space when they failed to check and make certain that the spacecraft were using metric measurements, when in reality they were programmed for English (American) measurements. Yeah.....meters versus yards.....who'da ever thunk those few inches could make such a difference??? <sarcastic eye roll>


Cylons...
By EODetroit on 2/26/2007 5:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
The Cylons would totally pwn every F-22 in the sky, but that guy in the cropduster from ID would be immune and crash into their resurrection ship, killing them all.




RE: Cylons...
By BucDan on 3/8/2007 2:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
really...i see u believe that...well since the f-22 is a 5th generation aircraft which is stealth. the JSF is basically the little brother of the f-22 ....i say bring on all of that and we wont know until it is tested. all ur talkin about is just ur lil comment and not a fact...talk maturly please and try no t to talk so immature


always the small things
By otispunkmeyer on 2/27/2007 7:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
whenever anything as complex as this is designed built and tested you fret over all the scenarios except the small, stupid ones that would seem to have zero bearing at all on what your doing.

then it happens and shit hits the fan. but as is usually the case, the small supposedly insignificant little quips are the ones that are easy to deal with. the 22's just need a little software jiggery pokery and it'll be fine.

still, this shows the reliance on technology. the planes were effectively blind. this is why i love mechanical back up systems....theres a certainty to them




RE: always the small things
By otispunkmeyer on 2/27/2007 7:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
forgot to add

at least they didnt fuck something major up like the engines or areodynamics. those are a little harder and alot more expesnive to fix


Don Shepperd is the problem
By timmiser on 3/1/2007 7:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
This guy is known to sensationalize stories (i.e.- Make them up!) and I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. As others have pointed out, it is obvious he has no idea what he is talking about.

We may not all be F-22 experts but most of us are computer experts and I have a hard time believing that a date/time return area will cause the program to shut down. Most programming systems, and I would like to think this includes the F22's systems, won't just "shut down" the entire program for something as trivial as an incorrect date or time.

Plus as already mutually agreed in this forum, the F22 probably can't fly too well with EVERY system shut down which is exactly what this guy says happened.




RE: Don Shepperd is the problem
By 0serg on 3/4/2007 1:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well, why not?
Lets think: crash occuried when planes crossed IDL. Since it is not really important for a fighter to know local time (does it matter, 17:32 or 19:32 is the time at the place where you shoot an enemy plane?), we could guess, that current time zone tracking was implemented as secondary subprogram on plane. It was written fast, since it was secondary, and had never been heavily tested, so when plane crossed IDL something really ugly may had happen - integer overflow, for example, causing this small secondary program to throw an exception. But there were no handlers for any exceptions, and since plane OS is, I think, real-time and thus "single-tasked", this single unhandled exception caused main computer to freeze. And unfortunately there were no "reset button" to do something with it - pilots had to fly without computer at all. Of course, main plain computer is NOT controlling everything - most vital plane subsystems are autonomous, so pilots still can control aircraft.

Well, why do I think this version is real? Since there were several similar cases on American-built planes. It is a known legend, for example, about Israeli F-16, that got all it computer systems down when flying one patrol route near the Dead sea. Nobody in Israel can guess, what happened - the plane was absolutely ok. But next day, this story happened to another F-16 flying the same patrol, at the same point. Israeli had to ask american specialists for help. And it turned out, that plane computer is counting for absolute plane height (thinking it was a positive number, and, I think, implemented as unsigned integer), and failed, when this height became negative (the Dead sea is located 400 meters below the world sea level)


glad they made it safely
By yacoub on 2/26/2007 1:14:04 PM , Rating: 3
Welcome to the biggest downside of increasing reliance on electronics replacing mechanical components.

Hopefully this is a case where the systems were designed properly to withstand environmental and combat dangers such as solar storms and EMP, but this little man-made glitch snuck through.




Thank you media
By Scabies on 2/26/2007 5:15:46 PM , Rating: 3
so I read the transcript that gave birth to this story... and I have to wonder about a couple of things.
quote:
But it was no match for a computer glitch that left six of them high above the Pacific Ocean, deaf, dumb and blind as they headed to their first deployment. So what happened? We turn to a man who's at home in the cockpit, Retired Air Force Major General Don Shepperd. Don, let me set the scene. These F-22s, eight of them, were headed from Hickam (ph) Air Force base in Hawaii to an (INAUDIBLE) Air Force base in Japan. They were approaching the international date line, pick it up from there."


So, six of eight aircraft had this glitch, we didnt know that. The article goes on to discuss what had happened like college football coaches or something. "Oh yeah they had a hell of a time, you lose your instruments and you're like a rooster in a tornado" kind of talk.

quote:
At the international date line, whoops, all systems dumped and when I say all systems, I mean all systems, their navigation [etc etc....]

quote:
When you think of airplanes from the old days, with cables and that type of thing and direct connections between the sticks and the yolks and the controls, not that way anymore. Everything is by computer. When your computers go, your airplanes go.

quote:
You don't run -- you don't get yourself where you run out of fuel. You always have enough fuel and refueling nine, 10, 11, 12 times on a flight like this where you can get somewhere to land.


...why do I get the feeling that this is not a voice of experience? Or at least a trustworthy analyst? And the rest of the show, the news anchor is basically like "The US is in deep shxt. More after the break."

..oh wait it was CNN. It all becomes clear.




By Red Thunder on 3/6/2007 12:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
This goes to show that no matter how much money is spent a little glitch like this could be disastrous! I thought the AF can afford good Test Engineers to test EVERYTHING thoroughly before they allow an aircraft to fly(our tax money is the what allows them to create such aircraft in the first place, can they just tested even if it cost a little more!!). Obviously they need help...As a PRO TE I know someone did not do hes/her job exactly as it should!




F-22 is the 1337
By daily on 3/9/2007 1:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22 is a great Anti-Fighter plane but it's definately not gonna help the US in any military conflicts in the near future except the US is going to attack China which would turn into a Nuke-it-All Party anyways.

There are some points you should consider before making the F-22 Teh best A1rcraft ever.

1. For the price the US is gonna pay for its 150 F-22 they could've bought about 1000 F-16. (Also 1 F22 equals 3 Eurofighters in price)

2. The F-22 is sooooo super stealthy
Maybe the plane is very stealthy (at least in forward direction within 20 degrees off the nose). But for the "I shoot you down before even see me" tactic to work the Fighter must still employ some means of an active radar (or have AWAC support) therby making itself an visible to air-defense.

3. It's kill to loss ratio is ridiculous since the scenario it was made in is unrealistic (2 Fleets of Fighters approaching the other head-on and those who get the radar-lock on the others first win, brilliant)
They did make the same statistics for the F-15 and then:
"Some decades ago, the USAF conducted a fairly intense, somewhat relevant, airbattle test at Nellis
AFB called Aimval-Aceval. This was a two part test aimed at — a) Testing the difference between the
high performance, sophisticated F–15C versus a low performance, unsophisticated F–5E, and
b) Evaluating the effect of short-range missiles in the ensuing close-in, maneuvering airbattle.
Preliminary computer simulations indicated that the exchange ratio would favor the F–15 by 70-to-1.
Pilots flying some preliminary engagements suggested that the estimated ratio be lowered to 18-to-1.
Many engagements with 1–vs-1, 2-on-2, 2-on-4, and 4-on-4 were flown. They would enter from
opposite sides of a 30–mile diameter circular arena approaching each other head-on (in the classic
joust, of course), and then “have at it” in maneuvering engagements using computerized short-range
missiles and camera guns.43 Despite the fact that this test heavily favored the high performance F–15
with its vastly superior radar and medium range AIM–7F missile, the test results proved quite different
from the expectations. The results? The data? With 2 F–15s pitted against 1 F–5, the F–15 was better in
the ratio of about 5-to-1. In 1-on-1 jousts, the F–15 was 3 times as successful as the F–5. As the number
of aircraft in the arena became larger and more target rich, with 4 F–15s vs. 4 F–5s, still with even
numbers, the success ratio dropped to about 2-to-1. When the protagonists were 4 F–5s vs. 2 F–15s, the
success ratio tended to 1–to–1.44 A startling (unpredicted) result. But, in the end it made sense."

Though I must admit that believe the F-22 would have sth. like a 4 to 1 advantage (in real combat) over an Typhoon.
But I also believe that it would be possible to produce about 20 ground based air-defense systems for the price of 1 F-22.

We'll just have to wait a few years and see what technologies will be developed to shoot these things down.




what a waste
By jmunjr on 3/1/2007 7:19:23 PM , Rating: 1
Reading most of these comments has been a complete waste of my time..




jet threads on DT are retarded...
By skyyspam on 2/28/07, Rating: 0
Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By ButterFlyEffect78 on 2/26/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By ajfink on 2/26/2007 10:48:11 AM , Rating: 5
This just makes me laugh. I think they're incredible aircraft, and there is certainly a need to maintain air superiority, but even the most high-tech equipment can be felled by a computer glitch. There is a need, it's just not obvious now. They could come in handy in a lot of international situations where an impressive show of air force is necessary.

And they're sexy.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Obujuwami on 2/26/2007 10:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, i got a better idea!

Lets go back to using P-51s and F-4Us and save the government LOADS of money! Then, when we have to go again those SU-27s and MIG-29s we can out produce them and lose 10-20 aircraft for every one they put up!!!!

Ok, I agree that maybe this was a waste of money because of the JSF that is being developed but this is the first thrust vector aircraft that the US has actually put into production that works.

I don't include the Harrier though, that is completely a british design (and a damn cool one at that).


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By jaybuffet on 2/26/2007 12:20:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
lose 10-20 aircraft for every one they put up!!!!


You mean 10-20 pilots. I think thats the idea behind the high tech planes. Minimize the deaths of our pilots, maximize the deaths of our enemies.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Scabies on 2/26/2007 1:14:07 PM , Rating: 4
Paraphrased
No one wins a war by dying for their country
You win a war by making your enemy die for theirs
~Patton


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2007 2:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad you paraphrased the quote. The original is much more...colorful. One of my favorites.


By Pythias on 3/5/2007 9:36:29 AM , Rating: 2
Masher,

I'm not sure why these morons keep voting you down. I didn't see anything offensive in this post.


By microAmp on 2/26/2007 4:59:42 PM , Rating: 5
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- Attributed to General George Patton Jr

Taken from here:
http://quotes.tubegator.com/patton.php


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Calin on 2/28/2007 5:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
In the last years of World War 2, the germans had the best heavy tank of the war (the Tiger, and then the Tiger 2). Their only problems were reliability, and slow speed/short range. They were so much better than the russian T-34 and american Sherman, that a 10:1 advantage in tanks was needed for the americans or russians. However, the americans alone lost 12,000 tanks in Europe, and it was not enough a victory for germans.

But right now, the things are totally different: by then, the USA was producing tanks and planes faster than the germans could destroy them - now, planes are built by tens in a year. In the world war 2, in May 1944, the Soviets had increased T-34-85 production to 1,200 tanks per month - while the Il-2 planes were built at about 1,000 a month.

Meanwhile, the US Air Force is buying some hundreds F-22 planes, staggered during a few years.

Since maybe the Pacific islands war in WW2 (thousands of deads for an island a square mile big), american public started to want war with little casualties. This has pushed high-technology in a much more important place than it would be otherwise, and the end result is that now the technological losses during a war against a big opponent will hardly be replaced by new equipment


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By ceefka on 3/3/2007 1:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, the americans alone lost 12,000 tanks in Europe, and it was not enough a victory for germans.


Don't forget the Germans had lost air superiority by then since D-day. Especially since the arrival of the A-10 and Apache, a superior number of tanks means nothing if you don't gain air superiority first.


By 0serg on 3/4/2007 1:13:01 AM , Rating: 2
[quote]Don't forget the Germans had lost air superiority by then since D-day. Especially since the arrival of the A-10 and Apache, a superior number of tanks means nothing if you don't gain air superiority first.[/quote]

They lost air superiority long before D-day on Soviet front, and mostly because of impressive Soviet plane production capabilities - they send almost all their planes to Eastern front. Just for example, there were virtually no german aircrafts on D-Day at all - so it was really difficult to archieve air superiority this day when it was absolutely nothing to archieve ;)


By rtrski on 2/26/2007 1:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, I agree that maybe this was a waste of money because of the JSF that is being developed but this is the first thrust vector aircraft that the US has actually put into production that works.


Without the F-22, the JSF wouldn't be what it is. The whole initial point of it being so 'cheap' to produce is how much of the F-22 design it leveraged. Take a look at them side-by-side and the similarities will leap out at you.

Besides, they've got different roles, just as the F-15 and F-16 did.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By alicecbrown on 3/6/2007 9:53:25 AM , Rating: 2
It made me laugh, too but not for the same reason.

The International Date Line has made fools of many other programmers, and naive test engineers. We can't seem to learn from history, because we don't know our history.
the IEEE used to have a great feature in the Journal of Software Engineering that related various anecdotes where software killed people. If any of you know if it's still current, let me know. We need that cultural knowledge. Especially since ignoring time and timing issues is a Requirements/Design issue, independent of the coding language.


By seaman on 3/6/2007 6:47:55 PM , Rating: 3
alicecbrown noted:

quote:
the IEEE used to have a great feature in the Journal of Software Engineering that related various anecdotes where software killed people


You likely mean the ACM. See:

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.58.html

for the latest issue of the Risks Digest with a discussion of the F-22 IDL bug. Unlike the Darwin Awards, computer risks are also reported short of homicide. Aircraft and other transportation related risks are a frequent topic.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By iNGEN on 2/26/2007 10:52:22 AM , Rating: 4
To ensure complete air superiority. In modern warfare, if you don't have it, you lose.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By kelmon on 2/26/2007 11:14:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'm no expert here (so feel free to correct) but I was under the impression that the US already had air superiority with its current jets. Is there anyone else making fighters anymore that is likely to represent a threat or are they just building these things to keep the industry going?


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By cochy on 2/26/2007 11:33:31 AM , Rating: 5
No you're right. No point in innovating further. The Air Force should just sit and stagnate until it realizes that it's falling behind. Thankfully for Americans you're not in charge of spending.

The F-22 is a step in the direction where the Air Force wants to be, that is unmanned fighter aircraft.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By The Sword 88 on 2/26/2007 8:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
No way, in combat a computer cannot fight like a person; having the pilot with his decision making and instincts in the cockpit is hugely important.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Zelvek on 2/26/2007 11:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of remote control? The Idea for everything now is to make it RC no dieing soldiers means continued support on the home front.


By taikonaut on 2/28/2007 4:42:11 AM , Rating: 2
remote control can be easily jammed using yesterday's technology.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Brassbullet on 2/27/2007 12:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
And why not do you say? Ever flown a combat flight simulator? Ever gotten shot down by the AI?

A computer with software can beat even the best at chess, and modern air combat is very much like chess.

Besides, first generation unmanned fighters will be piloted by people in mobile command centers a hundred miles from combat. Who knows, maybe the flight software will even support the Xbox 360 controller.


By 0serg on 2/28/2007 1:11:37 PM , Rating: 3
Wireless network bandwidth is limited, especially when it is jammed. You can remotely control 1, 2, 5, may be 10 aircrafts in "real-time mode" simultaneously, but no more. This is not enough, i think, even for relatively "small" military operation. To make things even worse, you`ll get about 0.2-0.5 seconds lag in aircraft control. Of course, all this doesn`t matter if you just fly and launch dozens of AMRAAMs, but this is safe for pilot too, so you get nothing from RC.

Wireless network bandwidth is limited, especially when it is jammed. You can remotely control 1, 2, 5, may be 10 aircrafts in "real-time mode" simultaneously, but no more. This is not enough, i think, even for relatively "small" military operation. To make things even worse, you`ll get about 0.2-0.5 seconds lag in aircraft control. Of course, all this doesn`t matter if you just fly and launch dozens of AMRAAMs, but this is safe for pilot too, so you get nothing from RC.

When it comes to AI, you forget, that computer game AI do not need to solve "recognition problem". This thing do not have to try to understand where a hell the plane is when GPS fails and what all these radar signals are about. It already knows everything about whats happening around. Unfortunately, piloting REAL plane in REAL conditions is not like solving mathematical task. It needs real AI, and this problem have being solved for more than 20 years now - and still far from completion.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By TomZ on 2/26/2007 11:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
I think the point is that we don't just have to "achieve" air superiority, we have to "maintain" air superiority. The enemy cannot be assumed to be standing still technologically. In addition, even if you have air superiority, it still makes sense to increase capabilities to further decrease risk of losing life and assets. This requires ongoing R&D spending.

Finally, keeping the industry going is also a good thing, economically.


By VooDooAddict on 3/5/2007 7:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Finally, keeping the industry going is also a good thing, economically.


Not only that, but keeping the industry going is important to be ready to produce in large quantities if needed. Setting up the facilities to create an aircraft like this need to be done in advance of when it's actually needed. If you start R&D after the start of a conflict then by the time you can ramp up production there high likelihood that it won't be as effective. Or worse it will simply be too late.

Don't get me wrong there are plenty of things we waste military dollars on ... I just don't feel aircraft development is one of them. Would people rather we keep dumping taxpayer $$ into old designs and replacement parts?
(Don't get me started on the "waste")


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Kougar on 2/26/2007 11:42:08 AM , Rating: 1
Even assuming the US was the only major military power that was designing modern day jets (And we certainly are not), it is rather hard to claim air superiority when you sell off or trade several squadrons to various countries. Quite a few nations fly our own aircraft these days, and I specifically mean F-16s, F-18s, and F-14/15s. We've been selling the F-16 since the mid-80's. We are even currently selling them to both Pakistan and India, obviously a wise choice right there.

While I don't know about the wiki's source for this, it even claims Taiwan has already inquired about purchasing F-35s from us.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By stromgald on 2/26/2007 11:50:51 AM , Rating: 1
The military aircraft being exported by US companies are dumbed down. They generally wouldn't stand much of a chance against the ones used for US military branches.

We've had a long history of selling fighters to other countires. F-16s went to Japan, F-15s have been sold to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Korea. There's probably more that I can't recall off the top of my head.

For the F-35, IIRC it is being adopted by a few of our allies including the UK, Canada, Austalia, and Norway. Both the UK and Norway gave up on waiting for the Eurofighter from EADS and jumped on the F-35 bandwagon. I wouldn't be surprised if Taiwan was on that list.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Kougar on 2/26/2007 11:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
Not all of them are dumbed town. I know that in the past we've given our top model (at the time) F-16's to Isreal alone. And really, anything that is dumbed down would be easy to replace after the fact via some means... software especially I'd imagine.

Going by the wiki, Taiwan wasn't on the list for the obvious reasons, or I should say singular reason! If we were indeed handing F-35s to Taiwan then it's probably one of the absolute most closely guarded secrets, as China would most definitely not sit back over it and allow "a rogue island territory off their coast" to hold air supriority over their territory, let alone their entire landmass.


By cochy on 2/26/2007 12:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it be tough to hide an airforce? Is there a black market for these things?

PS. Lots of Ooops errors when trying to post.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Araemo on 2/26/2007 2:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm fairly sure that even the F-16s we sold Israel were not 100% US-spec. "Dumbed down" may not be at all accurate, but missing lots of classified US tech, sure. Does israel have comparable tech(possibly developed through cooperation with the US) that they can install? Probably.

That's one thing to remember, even though we have a tendency to strip out code and devices when we sell airframes to other countries, it would be silly to assume that they have no capability of building their own systems to make up for what we won't sell them. (It might take them an extra 1-5-10 years, but that is more of an intelligence question that changes over time, than a general 'dumbed down F-16s' question. ;) )


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Scabies on 2/26/2007 2:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you would be surprised about Israeli technology. Keep in mind they are in a constant struggle for their lives and their soverignity, so they have war time R&D going on constantly. In fact, some of our fun toys (I think some of our ECM derivatives) are fruits of Israeli design, if I remember correctly.
So dumbed down probably just means "customizeable" to them.


By Chillin1248 (blog) on 2/26/2007 3:56:06 PM , Rating: 5
Israel typically "upgrades/modifies" all incoming US or foreign equipment to meet their [Israel's] needs. Here are several examples:

F4-2000 (Kurnass 2000): which was a F-4E turned upside-down and inside-out:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israe...

LAVI: was to be built with US supplies (assembled into plane in Israel):

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israe...

And then we have the F-15s and F-16s in Israel refitted with Israeli electronics. We have the Kfir C1 and C2 that were copies and modifications of the Mirage 5. Hell even our M4A1s are modified in small ways from the US standard; such as having M16A3 carrying handles or sometimes M16A1 handles. Sometimes they have 20-1 twist in the barrel othertimes less.

Basicly what it comes down to is that Israel modifies the weapons it recieves for best efficiency in the enviroments it fights in. After all, I doubt we are doing Jungle combat anytime soon.

-------
Chillin


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Felofasofa on 2/26/2007 6:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
That "constant struggle" also makes them the largest consumer of recreational drugs per capita in the world. Pot and ecstacy are huge in Israel.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Scabies on 2/26/07, Rating: 0
By Zelvek on 2/27/2007 12:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
his point has so validity to it in times of increased stress alcohol consumption and drug use do go up. And it's not like he is calling all Israelis druggies just that there is a larger percentage of drug use.


By Dianoda on 2/26/2007 6:57:56 PM , Rating: 3
F35's to Taiwan will never happen. Politics demands that it doesn't happen. If Taiwan was truly an independent state, maybe, but Taiwan's political staus is too similar to Hong Kong's for this to every happen. Kougar put this quite well, there is no way PRC would allow an independently governed territory of it's own state to have air supriority, especially one that seeks true independence from the mainland as much as Taiwan.

Also, this would almost certainly damage the relations between the two most powerful countries in the world. Which is something niether country really wants.


By cochy on 2/26/2007 12:02:09 PM , Rating: 4
Oh and I bet the F-22 have backdoors programmed into them just in case they become hostiles ;)


By Brassbullet on 2/26/2007 1:31:58 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, the US generally gives its BEST fighters to other nations, especially Israel and Japan.

With the exception of maybe the F-15s based at Elemendorf in Alaska (just in case the Russkies try to invade I guess), the best 4th generation fighters in the world are in Israel.

This makes sense as countries in more unstable regions are far more likely to use such weapons than the US. In fact, the majority of the F-15's 101+ to 0 kill ratio can be attributed to Israeli owned and flown airframes.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By stromgald on 2/26/2007 11:45:23 AM , Rating: 3
Everything from the SAAB Griffon from Sweeden, the French Rafale C, Eurofighter, to a handful of Soviet aircraft (Su-30 and its variants, Su-47, MIG-35/1.44) are newer and equal if not better than the US F-15.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Brassbullet on 2/26/2007 1:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Although individualy some of those planes might have some superior qualities (although I wouldn't be so quick to put the Griffon or even the Rafale on that list), it is the implementation that matters. A lot of those planes you mentioned don't even exist per se, and it would be tough to counter US Air Force F-15s in terms of the support they have (although Israli F-15 drivers would probably kick our ass).


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Frallan on 2/26/2007 1:38:41 PM , Rating: 1
Hmm interesting - you might wanne explaint to the Swedish Air Force pilots that the plane thay have been flying for the last 5 or so years doesn't exist... And as for how good they are - in a low to medium rated crisis id say the probably would go about 1-1 to 1-2 with JSFs... The SAAB engineers beet the american to the ball with somwhere between 5 and 10 years as well as about 1 to 10 maintenance costs. A F15 or a F16 doesnt stand a chance against the JAS-Griffon. As for the others i dont know. but the Griffon most certainly exists and its one hell of a plane.


By MrTeal on 2/26/2007 1:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was saying that he wouldn't put the Gripen and Rafale on a list of planes better than the F-15, and that the Su-47 and MiG 1.44 aren't available. Even the Typhoon has very few units finished production.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By Brassbullet on 2/26/2007 2:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm, I didn't say that none of the planes on that list were in existance, just that many weren't. The Gripen certainly exists, although is starting to show age even for a new aircraft.

As far as going 1-1 against a JSF, it BETTER go at least 1-1 against a JSF. The JSF is basically a POS plane that adds some (partially) new abilites. It is a Swiss Army Knife of fighter jets intended for basically every 'allied' nation and would get beaten by almost any modern air superiority fighter.


By Frallan on 2/26/2007 2:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
A swiss army kniofe - jet fighter LoL :) Well so is the the "Gripen" JAS acctually stands for:

Jakt - Air superioity
Attack - Attacking Ground or Sea target
Spaning - Surveilance

And yes its getting older but still its very availeble. SAAB and BA has been selling i for some time. What is a bit funny tho is the mail competitors for the contracts are the F-15s and F-16s that the USF is selling selling at cut-throat rates.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By stromgald on 2/26/2007 4:09:08 PM , Rating: 3
Please define what you mean by "modern". Other than an F-22 and a few Russian planes, I don't think many aircraft can stand up to a F-35.

Although a couple of those five planes I mentioned aren't in production, they're all newer and potentially more advanced than the F-15, which was desinged back in the late 60s and first flown in the early 70s. The US has upgraded avionics and other important components, but for the overall airframe design, the designers of the Rafale C (1991) and Gripen (1988) have had about 15-20 years to catch up you the F-15's level of technology.

The Gripen and Rafale are newer, and clearly on the same level of technology as the F-15. That means with the similar pilots and equal amounts of experience in each aircraft, I think a Rafale C or Gripen would be a pretty even match with the F-15. Even just doesn't cut it when you're trying to achieve air superiority.


By Brassbullet on 2/27/2007 1:00:13 AM , Rating: 3
By modern I mean 4th Generation. 4th gen plans generally thought to be better air superiority fighters than a JSF are:

F-14 (interceptor)
F-15
F-16
F-18 Super Hornet

MiG-29 (interceptor)
MiG-31 (recon and interceptor)

Su-27/30/33

As well as most EU planes.

Again this list is an opinion formed from my contact with people that will have to be working with the JSF. These people may be biased (especially the ex F-14 drivers among them) but nonetheless were based on the specs and design philosophy of the aircraft at the time.

As far as the F-15 being too old, I'd argue that for an energy fighter, the F-15 is still unmatched (its only rival being the Su-27), even better than an F-22. Energy fighters have grown out of fashion, however, as the threat from high speed, high altitude bombers has disappeared to memories.

Stealth and extreme manuverability at high AoA are in vogue, and that is what the 'new' airframes deliver.


By Scabies on 2/26/2007 2:41:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
as well as about 1 to 10 maintenance costs.

US F-15 uses Sidewinder for 3290 DMG.
US F-15 fells FR Rafale.
Get 1200xp
Get 400g
Get "Secret Key"

I think another thing to look at is fighter PILOTS. It might always be a "mine are better than yours" kind of thing, but you cant leave the argument as to whose what is better if you look at only the hardware.


By Chernobyl68 on 2/26/2007 1:40:44 PM , Rating: 3
You're right. Comparing a fresh off the production line fighter to a plane that's been kicking a$$ for 20+ years now is a fair comparison.


By afkrotch on 2/26/2007 7:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, other countries are making new fighters that take air superiority away from the US. Russia has the S-37 and European countries have the Eurofighter Typhoon. Both of which can easily take out old generation fighters.

The F/A-22 and F-35 are needed. Both are needed. The F/A-22 with it's stealth is meant to roll in first and destroy any targets that would inhibit control of airspace. The F-35 will then come in and destroy anything else and provide air cover for ground forces.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By ElJefe69 on 2/26/2007 12:15:10 PM , Rating: 1
We have had air superiority since the 1970's.

we have made sure that no country has a real fighter plane since then as well. mig = snuffed. after that, nothing.

Do people realize that planes do not fight one another anymore? 1-2 fights a year if that = 0 to be worried about. And those are over countries where it is peace time and we arent supposed to be there. A plane traveling 1100 miles per hour cannot make more than 1 pass at another plane. You would be 100's of miles apart after one pass rendering the fight useless. THis is just military spending to the max and lockheed whatever making more billions on the backs of your weekly salary.

utter crap this idea of "air superiority" dont let me choke on this self righteous flag waving ideal that is old news and doesnt need billions to be spent on it again.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By cochy on 2/26/2007 12:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well the days of dog fighting might be over. You're right planes don't make passes anymore, they launch missiles at each other when they are 100's of miles apart. The more advanced the aircraft the less likely it will be shot down by an air-to-air missile or SAM and the more likely it will hit it's target.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By ElJefe69 on 2/26/2007 12:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
We have not been hit by a sam missile since before bush senior was in office. Certainly easily to read that no shotdowns besides our slow moving helicopters in the past 8 years have transpired.

we dont need more money to get the same perfection result. people on this forum seem to love govt/daddy taking their money from them and blowing it away on useless shit.


RE: Why do we need such high-tech planes?
By ThisSpaceForRent on 2/26/2007 12:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117

They shot one of these down with them thar missle thingies. March 27, 1999 just inside the 8 year window, hehe.

Part of the reason that the F-22's are so expensive at the moment is the economies of scale. They aren't in any sort of full scale production. Sadly they probably never will be built in large numbers, which means they will always carry a high per plane cost. Ho