60 Minutes: Is the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet making pilots sick?

Hacker15e said:
I'm guessing you might feel differently if it were ever your own butt strapped into an ejection seat on night one of the next war.
Click to expand...

Exactly, as long as our conventional war fighting doctrine correctly assumes air superiority must be attained immediately, and we train and send our best to achieve it, we should always provide the best possible system our technology can provide. There are other places to cut the defense budget and still have the best capability, air superiority is not one of them. My feeling is we should have at least one fighter aircraft a few decades ahead of the next nearest weapon system, allied or not.
 
I definately see the value and need for the Raptor and advanced aircraft like it coming down the skunk works pipe. Given my limited knowledge of the aircraft I'd take a stealth anything we have on day one over a F-15 or F-16.

The OBOGS systen needs to get corrected, even if that means putting LOX in the aircraft until the source can be found. If it were me, I'd look at putting LOX in as a temporary safety measure in the majority of the fleet. Then take the birds that had the highest number of incidents and give them to the volunteer pilots or test pilots that want play lab rat and help ID the problem. To me that would keep the majority of the fleet combat ready, satisfy the pilot group, and possible reduce the PR nightmare that is starting.
 
The argument can be made that we don't need the Raptor to defeat any of our enemies today, but we may not be able to say that 50, even 20 years from now. There are one or two countries whose economies and military's are growing relatively fast. When it takes 20 for a new airplane to get from concept to operational ready, we cannot be reactive to threats, we have to stay ahead. A plane shouldnt be scrapped because its 50 years ahead of anything out there, unless we have something on the horizon that can match or exceed its capabilities.
 
inigo88 said:
Acetylene? As in Oxi-Acetylene gas welding? Didn't see that one coming... that's a strange contaminant.
Click to expand...

Yeah its hard to find much info on the OBOGS system. It seems like the air you breath runs through the engines and needs to be quite heavily filtered. The filters seem fragile and could be contaminating the system.
 
One of my cronies flies those for that unit. I'll have to pick his brain for his perspective.
 
BEEF SUPREME said:
Yeah its hard to find much info on the OBOGS system. It seems like the air you breath runs through the engines and needs to be quite heavily filtered. The filters seem fragile and could be contaminating the system.
Click to expand...

That is the basic gist of it. It pulls bleed air from some stage of the compressor, scrubs it, and then puts it in your mouth. That's about as complex as the explanation needs to be really.

As for the system in general, it has had it's fair share of problems in the Hornet/Super Hornet communities. I can't speak for the F-15 or F-16, but I'm guessing they may have had issues as well. It's a complicated way of making breathable oxygen in comparison to LOX systems. Doesn't mean it's inherently bad, just that it requires some extra safeguards, and more maintenance to keep it working properly. I'm sure there are some bugs being worked out with the F-22's OBOGS, and I would also highly doubt that the details (and lack of disclosure) are in any way related to other classified aspects of the program. Nobody wants to read an article written in engineer talk about the operation and design of an oxygen system, and if you do, you are a complete dork. That and it's probably just not in their best interest to air all of their developmental dirty laundry for the entire world (who makes a habit of reverse-engineering well made western products) to see. Just my .02
 
Good to hear:

Air Force: No punishment for F-22 whistleblowers Captain Josh Wilson and Major Jeremy Gordon
CBS News said:
At the Senate hearing Tuesday, lawmakers learned that the top brass of the Air Force has issued a directive that the two pilots who appeared, Captain Josh Wilson and Major Jeremy Gordon, should not be retaliated against.

This is significant because both men faced potential disciplinary action for choosing not to fly the jet over health concerns, and because proceedings have begun already against one of them, Captain Wilson.

When Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown asked General Janet Wolfenbarger to confirm there would be no retaliation against the two pilots, Wolfenbarger said "absolutely" not.

"There is clearly the whistleblower protection, the statute that protects those folks," Wolfenbarger elaborated, adding that she considered the two pilots whistleblowers. "Our chief and our secretary have made that understood in our Air Force."
Click to expand...
 
///AMG said:
That is the basic gist of it. It pulls bleed air from some stage of the compressor, scrubs it, and then puts it in your mouth. That's about as complex as the explanation needs to be really.

As for the system in general, it has had it's fair share of problems in the Hornet/Super Hornet communities. I can't speak for the F-15 or F-16, but I'm guessing they may have had issues as well. It's a complicated way of making breathable oxygen in comparison to LOX systems. Doesn't mean it's inherently bad, just that it requires some extra safeguards, and more maintenance to keep it working properly. I'm sure there are some bugs being worked out with the F-22's OBOGS, and I would also highly doubt that the details (and lack of disclosure) are in any way related to other classified aspects of the program. Nobody wants to read an article written in engineer talk about the operation and design of an oxygen system, and if you do, you are a complete dork. That and it's probably just not in their best interest to air all of their developmental dirty laundry for the entire world (who makes a habit of reverse-engineering well made western products) to see. Just my .02
Click to expand...

Yeah I kinda like looking at aircraft systems and getting an understanding ;) I can totally understand the operational reasons for needing "on demand" air as well. I also spelled breathe incorrectly and no one heckled me. I love JC. Thanks Derg!
 
I guarantee raptor dudes aren't studying schematics or in depth engineering descriptions of the obogs system. If there isn't anything you can do about it in the jet (aside from recognizing when it isn't working and pulling the green flow handle), it isn't worth the brain matter of committing to memory. Not in a single seat fighter. Just sayin, don't let me keep you from dorking out though :)
 
Hacker15e said:
Comments like these get thrown around in a lot of Raptor discussions -- it's unfortunately that people don't understand that designs like the Viper, Eagle, etc, are all ready 30+ years old and are out-gunned hopelessly against peer air-to-air and (especially) surface-to-air systems that are all ready deployed to numerous red and gray states globally.

No reasonable number of Eagles and Vipers can replace the capability of the Raptor, even if they were to be constructed with better avionics and weapons.

Raptor certainly has had it's share of problems, but IMHO it's well worth it because of what it can do. It is a generational leap over the capability of anything else in the world.
Click to expand...

The airplane could leap tall buildings in a single bound, but it's useless if they refuse to expose it to a combat environment. Additionally, the only REAL airborne threat we will ever face comes not from ANY gray state, or even most red states. Technologically, China or Russia can't go toe to toe with us. It's a perfect example of corporate technology being used to maintain a baseline level. Other than that, complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
 
///AMG said:
I guarantee raptor dudes aren't studying schematics or in depth engineering descriptions of the obogs system. If there isn't anything you can do about it in the jet (aside from recognizing when it isn't working and pulling the green flow handle), it isn't worth the brain matter of committing to memory. Not in a single seat fighter. Just sayin, don't let me keep you from dorking out though :)
Click to expand...

No one can stop me from dorking out!
 
I think the intent is that it shouldn't be a fair fight. If we ever have to go down range into china or elsewhere on night one, they are the dudes I want watching over us. No question about it.
 
Canassis said:
The airplane could leap tall buildings in a single bound, but it's useless if they refuse to expose it to a combat environment.
Click to expand...

By that standard, every nuclear-armed aircraft ever built, and all of the ICBMs ever built, are "useless". Ridiculous.

But that's not even the point. Since the Raptor has become IOC, there hasn't yet been a conflict where there has been an air threat, and hence there hasn't been a reason to employ it. It has nothing to do with "refusing to expose it to a combat environment." Use a hammer to pound a nail and a screwdriver to install a screw.

Canassis said:
Additionally, the only REAL airborne threat we will ever face comes not from ANY gray state, or even most red states. Technologically, China or Russia can't go toe to toe with us. It's a perfect example of corporate technology being used to maintain a baseline level. Other than that, complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...

So....based on your crystal ball, what "REAL airborne threat" will the US "ever face"? I mean, since you seem to have some miracle wisdom about that, I'm sure there are lots of man hours and money to be saved in not training to fight Flankers and wade into IADS of double-digit SAMs.

The point isn't if anyone in the world can match Raptor -- clearly they can't. The point IS if anyone in the world can match the aircraft it's replacing, and there are numerous air-to-air and surface-to-air threats that are widely fielded that will absolutely make mincemeat out of Vipers and Eagles. That's true today, and of much greater importance is that it will especially be true in years to come.

Let's not forget the lead time required to design, build, test, and field an operational combat aircraft. The Raptor took more than 15 years to go from paper to operational status. It's not like we can whip up a new batch of capable airplanes in a few weeks once a threat starts showing itself. The Viper and Eagle are OLD designs. It's like the Wright Flyer was sitting on the ramp at Wheeler Field the morning of 7 December 1941 instead of P-40s.

All of this is a moot point, anyway. Raptor is here in operational service...it is phenomenally capable...and they'll do whatever they need to in order for it to be healthy for decades to come. God only knows there's no replacement for it coming anytime soon, either.
 
Canassis said:
The airplane could leap tall buildings in a single bound, but it's useless if they refuse to expose it to a combat environment. Additionally, the only REAL airborne threat we will ever face comes not from ANY gray state, or even most red states. Technologically, China or Russia can't go toe to toe with us. It's a perfect example of corporate technology being used to maintain a baseline level. Other than that, complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...

It's a waste because it completely overwhelms anything an enemy can bring to the fight? In addition, double digit SAM's will have a hard time against it and many nations have those vice a capable Air Force. It's a waste to only buy 170 something vice 300+, that's the waste. Cut real waste like some social programs and you've got your aircraft that does and will dominate the sky's for years, much like the 104-0 Eagle did.
 
Canassis said:
The airplane could leap tall buildings in a single bound, but it's useless if they refuse to expose it to a combat environment. Additionally, the only REAL airborne threat we will ever face comes not from ANY gray state, or even most red states. Technologically, China or Russia can't go toe to toe with us. It's a perfect example of corporate technology being used to maintain a baseline level. Other than that, complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...

The proliferation and development of next gen IADS is a real threat.
 
As an attack guy, all I care about is the ordnance dropping capability it has.....to which a friend of mine that used to be in them, says it's treated almost the same as the light grey's treated the concept. :D
 
///AMG said:
That is the basic gist of it. It pulls bleed air from some stage of the compressor, scrubs it, and then puts it in your mouth. That's about as complex as the explanation needs to be really.

As for the system in general, it has had it's fair share of problems in the Hornet/Super Hornet communities. I can't speak for the F-15 or F-16, but I'm guessing they may have had issues as well. It's a complicated way of making breathable oxygen in comparison to LOX systems. Doesn't mean it's inherently bad, just that it requires some extra safeguards, and more maintenance to keep it working properly. I'm sure there are some bugs being worked out with the F-22's OBOGS, and I would also highly doubt that the details (and lack of disclosure) are in any way related to other classified aspects of the program. Nobody wants to read an article written in engineer talk about the operation and design of an oxygen system, and if you do, you are a complete dork. That and it's probably just not in their best interest to air all of their developmental dirty laundry for the entire world (who makes a habit of reverse-engineering well made western products) to see. Just my .02
Click to expand...


Well by that description it works the same way the climate control and pressurization in the Dash 8 I fly works, why would that need to be scrubbed, its just outside air that is compressed in the on of the compressor sections of the engine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top