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.'"

19 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
  2. 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 Dahamma · · Score: 5, Interesting

      His point seems valid. Air superiority hasn't been remotely in question in any war the US has been involved in since WWII. $80B was a massive waste of money for a plane that after 15 years of development is still not combat-ready (and more notably hasn't been missed in the slightest).

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.
    9. 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."

    10. Re:Not only that... by Swampash · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ronnie didn't beat the commies, they just fell apart. Fuel prices fucked their economy, they got tied down in a series of costly pointless overseas wars, and the government became too bloated, corrupt, and bureaucratically frozen to function.

      Fortunately that combination of influences will never ever happen to anyone ever again, ever.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Re:No purpose? You sure about that? by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Funny

    What I don't get is this: They could make equal money building out a fleet of say, 1000 F16 / F18 Superwhaterver BlockZ aircraft. Scary enough and potent enough to deal with any adversary in the next several decades. Cheap enough for generic use.

    But this is the F22. It's 4 louder than the F18!

    Something else is going on, maybe military penis size or something.

    A little known fact: the famed pacifist Gandhi had the biggest cock in all of India. He'd swim in the Ganges, and people would think that an anaconda was following him. Which was kind of weird, since anacondas live in South America. Then Gandhi and Martin Luther King would stand on opposite sides of the river and have a swordfight.

  7. You will look fondly on $79 billion by gelfling · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When the near trillion dollar price tag for the F-35 comes due. Already nearly 5 years behind schedule, with hundreds of billions in cost overruns and no end in sight. 7 project ending design flaws uncovered in the last Quick Look Review. And the model being built for the Marines, they don't even want it. The Naval version is melting carrier decks and the Air Force version doesn't fly well. Plus most of the Tier 1 nations that are supposed to buy it in return for building components for it, are starting to bail out and contracting with rapid upgrades of the soon to be discontinued F-16 or purchasing the Eurofighter or Dassault Rafale.

    And the really sad thing is that their early competition, the Boeing F-32 was widely acknowledged to be a better cheaper more efficient and elegant AND more advanced plane but it was not selected because, and I quote, the Air Force didn't think it looked aggressive enough, compounded with weak VTOL characteristics that now, it's clear, aren't going to work out for the F-35 either because it's SO efficient that it melts runways, which is why the Marines don't want it.

  8. Re:There is a point by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Funny

    The F22 is however not a bluff. It is the deadliest, sneakiest air superiority fighter ever created by man.

    And apparently, some of its pilots agree with you.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  9. 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.