Slashdot Mirror


Some USAF Pilots Refuse To Fly F-22 Raptor

Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that some of the nation's top aviators are refusing to fly the radar-evading F-22 Raptor, a fighter jet with ongoing problems with the oxygen systems that have plagued the fleet for four years. 'We are generally aware of a small number of pilots who have expressed reservations about flying the F-22, and each of those cases will be handled individually through established processes,' says Maj. Brandon Lingle, an Air Force spokesman. Concern about the safety of the F-22 has grown in recent months as reports about problems with its oxygen systems have offered no clear explanations why there have been 11 incidents in which F-22 pilots reported hypoxia-like symptoms. 'Obviously it's a very sensitive thing because we are trying to ensure that the community fully understands all that we're doing to try to get to a solution,' says Gen. Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command. Meanwhile Sen. John McCain says that the jets, which the Air Force call the future of American air dominance, are a waste of their $79 billion price tag and serve no role in today's combat environment. 'There is no purpose, no mission in Afghanistan or Iraq, unless you believe that al Qaeda is going to have a fleet of aircraft,' says McCain, a former combat pilot himself. '[The F-22] has not flown a single combat mission... I don't think the F-22 will ever be seen in the combat it was designed to counter, because that threat is no longer in existence.'"

38 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although many believe that when you sign up for the military, you're agreeing to die for your country, I would like to remind them that this is not exactly Plan A; The goal is to make the other bastard die for theirs. And a defective plane that causes a pilot to pass out while engaged in combat rather defeats that purpose. These pilots are quite right to refuse to fly it -- it's not flight-worthy if it can't even hold up under non-combat conditions.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Hmm. by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Precisely.

      I'll note that members of the military are sworn to follow only lawful orders, and are likewise duty-bound to disobey unlawful orders.

      One could definitely argue that while "fly this plane into extremely dangerous enemy territory and blow them up, we'll give you all the support we can but there's still pretty good odds you won't make it back" is a lawful order, "fly this plane on a routine practice mission over our own, undisputed territory, that's likely to kill you for no reason" is not. At the very least, you could argue that your death and the subsequent loss of the aircraft would amount to sabotage of America's defenses.

    2. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know what backwoods piece of shit branch of service you served in but in the Marines we are honor bound to do the right thing.

      I will tell you how my drill instructor told us many years ago while on one of our many island hopping campaigns (those were fun ugg)

      "A Marine is bound to always do what is right. If a superior gives you an order that you know you should not follow you better not."
      "However bitches here is the kicker. YOU HAD BETTER BE FUCKING RIGHT!"

      in other words when an enlisted person refuses an order he deems unlawful he had BETTER BE FUCKING RIGHT! (or he is fucked)
      There is no gray area for an enlisted person it is a very black and white situation, right or wrong.

      My favorite marine quote.

      "The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps! "
      Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945

    3. Re:Hmm. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually, it's officers who have the right to interpret orders. as an enlisted or noncom you can still be convicted for refusing to follow an order from your CoC regardless of merit.

      Um, no. Everyone in the military, from E-1 to O-10, has both the right and the duty to refuse an unlawful order. And officers can also convicted for refusing to obey an order if they thought it was unlawful, but the court-martial finds otherwise. Obviously political reality enters into this -- a corporal is a lot more likely to end up behind bars for refusing to obey an order than is a colonel -- but under the law, there's essentially no difference between the obligations of officers and enlisted in this regard.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Hmm. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Although many believe that when you sign up for the military, you're agreeing to die for your country, I would like to remind them that this is not exactly Plan A;

      As long as SuperPAC donor corporations are making money building the F-22 and the F-35, it doesn't matter one bit what is "safer" or "more effective" or a "better weapon". It doesn't matter how many pilots get splashed and it doesn't matter that the generals don't want those aircraft.

      What matters is some transnational corporation's stock price and political donations depend on those boondoggles. They're going to fly the F-22 and like it, because nobody cares what those pilots want. And not one dollar can be cut from military spending, no matter what agreements were made, no matter what votes were taken, no matter how wasteful.

      And one presidential candidate wants an additional $100 billion for defense spending, while cutting $600 billion from "wasteful" things like Pell Grants, Head Start schools, infrastructure and food stamps.

      Now who are the real "welfare queens"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. There is a point by Henriok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a point for the F22, and that is to suppress all other power's desire to make stuff that will encounter it. That's why the US have nuclear weapons, not to use them but to deter others from using such weapons agains them. So.. it very well might be well spent money.. but we never know, since we won't see the stuff that the F22 is designed to encounter..and that's the point.

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
    1. Re:There is a point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spending 80+ billion on a bluff would be stupid. The F22 is however not a bluff. It is the deadliest, sneakiest air superiority fighter ever created by man. The US government has spent 80+ billion ensuring that every other nation on Earth has planes in the air only because the US lets them, and the Russians and Chinese amongst others know this.

      You can assess the effetiveness of a weapon only when its been through fire.
      F-22s up to now are a bluff, a very expensive bluff.
      The day they go on the battlefield and emerge unscathed after being fired upon by the state of the art sam batteries then we can say yeah F-22s are great.

  3. Not only that... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but for those who say the threat "isn't there", I guess this is just a figment of the imagination then? And they certainly didn't have any "help"...

    Oh, I know, China isn't a "threat". The fact that it's on track to exceed US military spending by 2025 must be for "peaceful regional defense". This isn't really happening.

    What about the F-35? Oh, yeah — that, too.

    1. Re:Not only that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      shows he is perpetually fighting the LAST war, and never thinking about what might happen next. These aircraft were never intended for Afghanistan or Iraq.

      The F-22s were designed for the cold war and in much greater numbers. So much for forward thinking eh ?
      200 aircraft is too small a number to do 2 things :
      -insure the integrity of the US airspace
      - and deploy a sufficient number of F-22 to insure the air superiority of a hypothetical future battlefield that is not 100 km^2.
      In fact the number of F-22 is so small that the US military is too afraid to use them and potentially lose them on the battlefield. Much much better to lose then at home.
      They have become so costly as to be useless for all pratical purposes.

      Same problem as the B-2s. Why do we keep flying B-52s in bombing missions instead of B-2s ?
      Answer : we have a fuckton of B-52s and they are cheap, we have 20 B-2s and they cost a billion each so losing one is not acceptable.

      Military weapons that are too costly and in few numbers is never a good thing.

    2. Re:Not only that... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems valid only to people who will not learn the lessons of history.

      And I will point out that the reason there has never been a question of Air Superiority is precisely because the US was always looking at the Soviets as the next potential combatant, and developing high-tech planes for that eventuality. Now they are looking at the Chinese, or their client states, as well as places like Iran or Syria that have something like 50 times the anti-air missile technology that Iraq had.

      You can't seriously be suggesting that we wait till there is a superior opponent kicking our asses before we start development can you? It sure sounds like you are.

      The money was all spent here, and the aircraft will server for 30 years.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Not only that... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      200 is plenty.

      You build the weapons you need in the quantity you need. We have drones to do the super dangerous missions, and tons of F16s FA-18s, F-15s to rule the roost once the the F22s sweep the skys. Please don't assume because you have a computer and an internet connection that you are qualified to design force levels for a theater you can only guess at. Production has been purposely held back so that the country can be bankrupted paying for healthcare.

      Having an aircraft designed, tested, and an assembly line in place, these very small aircraft can be built in great numbers very fast as soon as cost become not a constraint.

      The F22 was not designed for a cold war. It was deigned for air to air combat.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Not only that... by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. That is incorrect. In Korea the US did have issues with air superiority until we deployed the F-86 and even then it was touch and go.
      2. Since then we have had air superiority because we have spent the most to develop it and keep it but even over vietnam we only had a roughly 1:1 kill ratio.

      Guess what? The same thing has been said about just about every aircraft ever developed. The F-4 was big and expensive and people said we would be better off just buying more F8Us. The F-15 was big and expensive and didn't see combat for a decade after it's first flight.
      And so on and so on.
      The F-15 is late 1960s tech. It is older than most of you on this board. It is now getting threatened by SU-32s and Su-37s.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Not only that... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was also designed to be a replacement for the F-15, not in addition to. The -15s are getting old. Given current fighter jet tempo, we can expect the F-22 to still be flying in 2040+. The current fleet of F-15s won't last that long. So we'll be left with 187 F-22's, whatever low hour F-15s we still have that won't break apart in the air, and as yet undesigned and untested air to air drone/robot.

    6. Re:Not only that... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if they start landing, they better pay attention to what a few Japanese generals stated about a rifle being behind every blade of grass
      Multiple conflicts throughout history have shown what local gurrila fighter can do against a "proper military" - now imagine what one of the best armed civilian populations could do... The 2nd Amendment isn't about deer, duck, or dove hunting - it is about fighting back against enemies both foriegn and domestic.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    7. Re:Not only that... by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems valid only to people who will not learn the lessons of history.

      If you want to learn the lessons of history, just look at HOW the US and NATO eventually conquered the Soviet Union. It wasn't though a SINGLE weapon used in war, it was by forcing them to spend money on their military until it basically bankrupted them.

      And big surprise, that's exactly what terrorist networks have done, what China, North Korea, Iran, etc have done. Create perceived threats with little expense and goad the US into responding with trillions of dollars in useless wars and weapons development. In China's case, they are even providing the shovel (ie loans) to dig the hole.

    8. Re:Not only that... by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the bigger problem is the hypoxia and the cost.

      I'm not opposed to be planning for the future, but we can't bankrupt ourselves doing it like North Korea. Build a cheaper plane and figure out how to keep the pilots from fucking suffocating.

      Quite franky, if it takes 350 million to push out a single aircraft then it is unsustainable. If it cost 10 million a piece for single family houses we would still be living in caves and huts.

      Instead of the constant boondoggles and Military Industrial Complex bailouts let's figure out a plane that will give us air superiority in either tech or numbers for less than 50 million a plane.

      Is that really that unreasonable?

      Ohhhh, and the ability to breathe too while we are at. For those pussy pilots who need oxygen.

    9. Re:Not only that... by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Production has been purposely held back so that the country can be bankrupted paying for healthcare.

      It's thinking like this is why, in fact, the US is doomed. Yes, it's far better to pour billions into some weapon of war that may or may not prove useful in some unknown future war(mongering) scenario, rather than do something positive with a fraction of that cost to give its citizens a better quality of life right now. Healthcare in other countries hasn't bankrupted them, there's no reason it should bankrupt the US. That's just right-wing FUD. The problem is that the US has been fed this thinking for so many generations now that it has become a military state - it seems perfectly normal to constantly talk of war and keep its industries on a war footing, and anything that even faintly smells of small-s socialism is treated with enormous suspicion. It's so out of balance with any form of rational basis for a nation that it will certainly topple over. It's not a question of if, but when.

    10. Re:Not only that... by EQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud. I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth. I will crown every hillside with a place of worship consecrated to peace. ~Charles Sumner

      It'll be a great day when education gets all the money it wants and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy bombers. ~Author unknown, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs

      Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953

      I'll just leave these in this thread...

      Nice sentiments. But far too idealistic and unrealistic. Your problem is, human nature. Those who beat their swords into plowshares will till the soil for those who have not.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    11. Re:Not only that... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But none of that would have worked if the US had not maintained a large and very well equipped armed forces. Without the ability to hold the Soviets in check militarily, the West would have been screwed.

      What defeated the Soviets was Containment. Part of that was economic, and par of it was force projection and the ability to counter or respond to all Soviet military capabilities.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Not only that... by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, the Soviet Union was defeated with a lot of help from by surface to air missiles (Stingers among others), antitank missiles and mines supplied by the U.S. to Pakistan which in turn provided them to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was bled white fighting a brutal, futal ten year war in Afghanistan and some of the returning veterans were a leading voice of disillusionment with their government.

      They were pretty cheap weapons, but still you are exaggerating your point when you say "It wasn't through a SINGLE weapon used in war".

      It is also something of an exaggeration to say military spending bankrupted them. It may have been a contributing factor but the collapse of the Soviet Union was a lot more complex than that. If Gorbachev hadn't been in power, and a hard liner had been, it might not have collapsed at all.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:Not only that... by jayveekay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What defeated the Soviets was that the "Communist" economic model they used was ineffective at promoting long term economic growth and prosperity.

      I believe their economic model was best summarized by a saying of the workers: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

    14. Re:Not only that... by haruchai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a pity the US and the West didn't think about Chinese dominance before they started shipping their hi-tech manufacturing there.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    15. Re:Not only that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It wasn't though a SINGLE weapon used in war, it was by forcing them to spend money on their military until it basically bankrupted them.

      That's right. And I don't think you understand how we managed to do that.

      1. Superior weapons are not meant to be used. If they were never used, that means they worked beautifully. It's called a deterrent. If you have air superiority, nobody is going to want to fight you in the air.

      2. Maintaining superiority is less costly than trying to leapfrog somebody else. If we stand by twiddling our thumbs waiting for everybody else to catch up, then we'll be required to leapfrog them, and the same fate the USSR encountered will be ours.

    16. Re:Not only that... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sad thing is, you are describing exactly the program that F35 set out to be. In fact the original target price was $30-$45 million. For the first time, cost was fixed as a primary requirement, meaning, performance parameters were to be sacrificed to keep price in check if necessary. And yet it spun out of control.

    17. Re:Not only that... by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Air superiority hasn't been remotely in question in any war the US has been involved in since WWII.

      Or, as USAF types put it, "American troops have not had to fight under a hostile sky since WWII. This did not happen by accident."

    18. Re:Not only that... by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      shows he is perpetually fighting the LAST war, and never thinking about what might happen next. These aircraft were never intended for Afghanistan or Iraq.

      That's exactly McCain's point. The aircraft aren't intended for Afghanistan, or Iraq, or any of the wars we've actually been in for the past 10 years, they're intended for a war against Soviet Union. Back in 1981 when the Air Force began looking for an F-15 successor, this probably made sense, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question becomes, why do we need these planes?

      The only countries currently pursuing fifth-generation fighters are China and Russia. At this point, the idea of war with China seems like a remote possibility. The U.S. can't live without iPads and China can't live without U.S. money. Russia's military fell apart after the collapse of the USSR and it would take a long time to rebuild it to the point where it would be a serious threat. At any rate, war with either country is extremely unlikely given this little thing called "mutually assured destruction". Because of that, the U.S. hasn't gone to war with a major power in 60 years, when we fought against China in Korea.

      So it's a fair guess that the wars of the next 50 years will look like the wars of the past 50 years- Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. Wars against enemies with inferior air forces, and guerrilla wars. In that sense, the Obama administration's move to cut the F-22 program while expanding the role of drones and increasing the size of Special Forces looks like the right move.

    19. Re:Not only that... by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've watched Red Dawn too many times. An armed populace without logistical support or actual training is just a bunch of folks with guns, not a militia, and not an army. They might look the part, but they're no coherent fighting force. The only real way for the American population to fight would be as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan - concentrate on IEDs. That's the only force multiplier at play in that scenario.

  4. No. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To use the F-22 correctly we'd have to go to war with Russia or China. If that happens then there are a lot of other issues that are more important than the F-22.

    If we fight another proxy war (like Vietnam was or when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan) then we'll probably be using drones.

    Follow the money. Who's making the profit on the F-22?

  5. Headline seems a bit grandiose. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sen. John McCain says that the jets, which the Air Force call the future of American air dominance, are a waste of their $79 billion price tag and serve no role in today's combat environment.

    If the Libyans had acquired Eurofighters, rafales or if the syrians had any decent russian aircraft he'd be singing a different tune. Yes NATO has air assets that can handle SU27's and Mig 29's, but you end up in a shooting war with eretria, or sudan or syria and they manage to down even one US aircraft people will be wondering wtf there wasn't something better available.

    The problem with *all* military spending is that you're trying to guess future needs and have something that can cope with an unknown problem. It's not like the US was stupid enough to only buy f22's (at the astronomical price that would have entailed). The US Air force has something like 2400 'fighters' of which about 200 are F22's. That's not counting the Navy. For what they do that seems like a fairly reasonable allotment of 'might need for air superiority role' for the next 20 years or so. One can argue specifics on stealth, performance or total numbers, but it doesn't seem like the F22 purchase was wildly out of place by US standards. As with any piece of equipment it's possible there is something wrong with a system (in this case the oxygen system), but that could be a maintenance issue, a replacement part issue a design issue, or any number of other things. Whenever you buy any piece of equipment (including a car) you take the chance that something on it will be defective.

    1. Re:Headline seems a bit grandiose. by LeperPuppet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why they think it will be different this time I don't know.

      The contractors lie about capability and cost because they want to win the contract. The DoD accepts these lies because it wants shiny new toys. Congress goes along with it as long there's pork involved. No-one learns anything because there's no incentive to avoid corrupt behaviour. The MICC at its finest.

      Reality intervenes and the project goes overbudget. Production gets cut, yet it doesn't really save any money. The project continues through several cycles of the death spiral until it is either cancelled or delivers a product. And we end up with the congress critters getting their pork, contractors getting their piles of money, DoD getting their shiny new toys, along with promotions for anyone who didn't end up holding the bag. The troops end up with nothing or a handful of gold-plated weapons with less capability than they were promised. Oh, and the taxpayer gets screwed, but that's the usual outcome.

  6. Re:Air Superiority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The sub fleet has been scaled back as well but subs are much more versatile than the F-22s will ever be.

  7. Also somethign to keep in mind by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is the R&D type military spending does have civilian benefits. The most major and obvious one in recent history would be GPS. It was built because the military wanted to be able to precisely locate all their men and material anywhere. Now? It is the principal navigation method for virtually commercial and civilian all craft, falling back to less accurate measures only should it fail.

    GPS is the biggest and most evident, but not the only one.

    While that doesn't mean we should just blindly throw money at anything, I think money spent on military R&D is better than money spent on wars, or having a massive military. I'd rather have a smaller military with the highest of the high tech equipment than a massive one with whatever can be scraped together.

    And of course, as with any R&D, you can to be ok with the idea that the results may suck, they may not work, they may have problems, or there just flat out may not be any. If you want guarantees, you have to stick with what you have. If you try new things, there may be problems, failures, as you push the envelope.

  8. China is interested in blocking US projection by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...not attacking us; there's no point. They want to challenge our force projection and protection of other countries, especially those they want land and resources from. They could care fuck-all about North America. They want oil, rare earth metals, and territory buffer/control near them. We've been a thorn in their side, protecting Japan and a whole lot of the rest of Asia from them.

  9. Cost of a plane... by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know about $50M, but I remember somewhere that the marginal cost for another F-22 was something like $60M. That's discounting the R&D and operational costs.

    Excepting the RAM coatings, the F-22 was actually designed to be cheaper and easier to maintain than a F-15. The hypoxia is a serious design flaw, yes, but it's actually a pretty tiny portion of the plane.

    If you want a $50M plane, we're going to have to build them by the thousand to justify the R&D and tooling to automate manufacture to the point that they're that cheap.

    IE want 10 F-22s? $75M a piece, discounting R&D. Want 100? $60M because they end up automating more.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  10. You only have drones and you have a weakness by Svartormr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A smart opponent will bring broad spectrum active jammers (on automatic drones) and now the ground pilots can't fly the drones. I don't think any drone A.I. is going to be good enough in air combat maneuvering so down they will go. It's just another version of combined arms. Plan for both and make them able to play together.

    1. Re:You only have drones and you have a weakness by felipekk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure drone A. I. is going to be vastly better at air combat maneuvering quite soon. Keep in mind that a plane without a human on board doesn't have to respect the body limits regarding g-force.

      The way I see it, humans have the edge on 1-on-1 fight, so then you could just default your drone to follow him as best as it can, even if it ends up in a "draw". Once you start going X vs X, the drones can communicate practically instantly with the whole network, much faster than the humans, and that IMO is a decisive factor (not considering the g-force limitations that the drones don't have).

  11. Medicare Part E (E = everybody) by rsborg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Would be an incredible success. Part of the cost of medicare is that only disabled and seniors are allowed on it, leaving the profitable rest of the population to the private insurance market. If the risk pool were allowed to include the healthy and young, you would start to see serious improvements in medical outcomes and at a reasonable coverage rate.

    [1] http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64029-medicare-for-everyone

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  12. Why not? It worked for WW2 by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the price was only the US getting its ass kicked and the death of hundreds of young men fighting a superior force in obsolete planes. But hey, it is not you doing the dying is it, just someone elses son.

    WW2 saw the US hopelessly unprepared and it wasn't the fat cats who paid the price for it. Afterwards, the US promised itself to never be caught unprepared again. Preparing your national defense for what is happening now is silly, it takes decades to prepare and nobody can predict even 5 years ahead. War is wasteful, being prepared so war can be avoided only seems wasteful. Until you get it wrong.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.