Pilot trapped for 5h in cockpit of USAF's new $135m F-22A Raptor after canopy jams
Plastic PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Pilot trapped for 5h in cockpit of USAF's new $135m F-22A Raptor after canopy jams
With pictures.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/25/Navigation/177/204883/Pictures+Pilot+trapped+for+5h+in+cockpit+of+USAF's+new+$135m +F-22A+Raptor+after+canopy.html
Had to be chainsawed out.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/25/Navigation/177/204883/Pictures+Pilot+trapped+for+5h+in+cockpit+of+USAF's+new+$135m +F-22A+Raptor+after+canopy.html
Had to be chainsawed out.
I have to scoff at the wisdom some bright fellows have to offer in things related to aviation. "Max Kingly Whatever" in the link, suggested the Americans at Lockheed needed to re-learn lessons from Battle of Britain days where Spit/Hurri pilots wound the canopy back prior to engaging in combat.
Timely advice I would suggest as you whiz about at Mach 2.
He neglected to note the "wise" men, who built simple canopy opening systems, of that day ignored the fuel tank conveniently sat in front of the pilot in those aircraft that way too frequently became the method of the pilot's demise in a most horrific manner.
Folks like that probably support Fighter aircraft without guns and no live fire training.
Timely advice I would suggest as you whiz about at Mach 2.
He neglected to note the "wise" men, who built simple canopy opening systems, of that day ignored the fuel tank conveniently sat in front of the pilot in those aircraft that way too frequently became the method of the pilot's demise in a most horrific manner.
Folks like that probably support Fighter aircraft without guns and no live fire training.
The Pentagon "experts" historically have required very complex systems which tend to involve even unseen parts being machined until smooth. That is one reason why the Mig-25 (which was "borrowed" by Soviet Lt. Belenko) had internal rivets-this had no effect on the airflow. This truly shocked the experts in the US, before they put it back together and returned it to the Soviets in Hakodote, Japan.
Incidentally, you would not believe where they hid Belenko for months...he was on water.
The 'brilliant' lack of guns on some Vietnam-era fighters required the creation of the Navy "Top Gun" school at NAS Miramar, San Diego, CA. Those Pentagon commanders, or at least some, were so enamored with missiles that they forgot about basic combat, having gone through the paranoia that a high-altitude bomber might penetrate US airspace. The B-70's appearance resulted in the Mig-25, and a Soviet plane (the "Backfire"?) resulted in the F-15, which had cannon and missiles.
Another symptom of the former "we are all fighter pilots...." mentality in the Air Force resulted in one training pipeline-except for those who volunteered a for helicopter s at the very beginning. Until several years ago or so, when some training between the USAF and Navy was combined, all graduates of US Air Force (UPT) Undergraduate Pilot Training received their wings, but with the "centerline thrust" restriction. Put in a twin-engine Piper Aztec or Cessna 402 (i.e., a Navy Training Command T-44 'King Air'...), few would have had any idea what to do with an engine failure. This might have somehow contributed to the fact that the top graduate of Vance AFB class 80-02 died in a Cessna 172 with passengers somewhere in Montana (how?) ...and he was a current, successful F-16 pilot. He was trained for very high performance fighters with 'zero-zero' ejection seats.
Maybe this is unrelated, but a former Navy F-4 pilot, who had flown about 20 years with US airlines, died with his wife and two young daughters in a borrowed single-engine Piper in the Florida panhandle, where they glided into trees. There are lots of woods there-weather there very often produces quite hazy, limited vis.
Incidentally, you would not believe where they hid Belenko for months...he was on water.
The 'brilliant' lack of guns on some Vietnam-era fighters required the creation of the Navy "Top Gun" school at NAS Miramar, San Diego, CA. Those Pentagon commanders, or at least some, were so enamored with missiles that they forgot about basic combat, having gone through the paranoia that a high-altitude bomber might penetrate US airspace. The B-70's appearance resulted in the Mig-25, and a Soviet plane (the "Backfire"?) resulted in the F-15, which had cannon and missiles.
Another symptom of the former "we are all fighter pilots...." mentality in the Air Force resulted in one training pipeline-except for those who volunteered a for helicopter s at the very beginning. Until several years ago or so, when some training between the USAF and Navy was combined, all graduates of US Air Force (UPT) Undergraduate Pilot Training received their wings, but with the "centerline thrust" restriction. Put in a twin-engine Piper Aztec or Cessna 402 (i.e., a Navy Training Command T-44 'King Air'...), few would have had any idea what to do with an engine failure. This might have somehow contributed to the fact that the top graduate of Vance AFB class 80-02 died in a Cessna 172 with passengers somewhere in Montana (how?) ...and he was a current, successful F-16 pilot. He was trained for very high performance fighters with 'zero-zero' ejection seats.
Maybe this is unrelated, but a former Navy F-4 pilot, who had flown about 20 years with US airlines, died with his wife and two young daughters in a borrowed single-engine Piper in the Florida panhandle, where they glided into trees. There are lots of woods there-weather there very often produces quite hazy, limited vis.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 4th May 2006 at 04:15.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,132
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
Originally Posted by frodo_monkey
Yeah, what sort of idiot country would buy a fighter without a gun?!
Oh yes...
Oh yes...
Let us not forget that the Tornado suffered from sticking canopy syndrome in the early days. I recall the firemen having to cut through a canopy at TWCU after it refused to open. The cause was traced to dissimilar metal expansion on the locking bolts, if I remember correctly.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pianosa
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$135m?
Not according to the GAO's Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on 06Apr06.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06585t.pdf
Project cost $65,400,000,000 (estimated)
181 aircraft Ordered.
(See page 5)
To save everyone from getting their calculators out, that's a little over $361.3 million a copy- 188% over the initial estimated cost per unit.
From now on, fire sections have been ordered to place a "duty chav" on standby with a wire coathanger and a jimmy bar for such eventualities. They can be drawn from stn MT Sections or Police Flts.
Not according to the GAO's Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on 06Apr06.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06585t.pdf
Project cost $65,400,000,000 (estimated)
181 aircraft Ordered.
(See page 5)
To save everyone from getting their calculators out, that's a little over $361.3 million a copy- 188% over the initial estimated cost per unit.
From now on, fire sections have been ordered to place a "duty chav" on standby with a wire coathanger and a jimmy bar for such eventualities. They can be drawn from stn MT Sections or Police Flts.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that tales of Battle of Britain pilots winding canopies back for combat are mere fantasy. If it happened at all it was extremely rare and I am not aware of a single tale of such an event.
Regarding the expense of the FA-22 Raptor, it may indeed seem expensive - when it takes on some as yet unidentified enemy in a few years time it may seem quite cheap at the price. If you think building modern fighters that can win battles is expensive, just think of the cost of building fighters that can't. My own nation has been using a desperate aircraft, the Tornado F3, for many years and has mercifully never had to take on another fighter for real. It was probably better than the Phantom but when everyone else has F15s, F-16s, F-18s, Mig 29s, Su30s etc, then it sadly does not cut it among the big boys. We are the country that despises all things American and therefore knew better and took the gun out the Eurofighter - what do the yanks know about air combat after all? Fortunately the Eurofighter is a genuine fighter that will be able to take on the previous generation of fighters which is more than its predecessor could do. Needless to say, over the same period we were developing the Eurofigher, the Americans produced the Raptor which made the Eurofighter obsolete before it reached front line service. One can only hope that the Chinese are not producing some stealthy fighter like the Raptor - but then why worry as we will never have to fight them because they really are very nice chaps.
Regarding the expense of the FA-22 Raptor, it may indeed seem expensive - when it takes on some as yet unidentified enemy in a few years time it may seem quite cheap at the price. If you think building modern fighters that can win battles is expensive, just think of the cost of building fighters that can't. My own nation has been using a desperate aircraft, the Tornado F3, for many years and has mercifully never had to take on another fighter for real. It was probably better than the Phantom but when everyone else has F15s, F-16s, F-18s, Mig 29s, Su30s etc, then it sadly does not cut it among the big boys. We are the country that despises all things American and therefore knew better and took the gun out the Eurofighter - what do the yanks know about air combat after all? Fortunately the Eurofighter is a genuine fighter that will be able to take on the previous generation of fighters which is more than its predecessor could do. Needless to say, over the same period we were developing the Eurofigher, the Americans produced the Raptor which made the Eurofighter obsolete before it reached front line service. One can only hope that the Chinese are not producing some stealthy fighter like the Raptor - but then why worry as we will never have to fight them because they really are very nice chaps.
The Phantom indeed was purchased without a gun. Missles were king. We found ourselves getting our asses kicked because of the lack of a gun (and some completely stupid ROE's). A centerline gun pod was introduced then later models had the internal gun and advanced training (Top Gun and the Air Force equivalent). Every fighter since then has had the gun as standard equipment.
We learned our lesson the hard way. Guess who is next?
Pride does in fact go before a fall.
We learned our lesson the hard way. Guess who is next?
Pride does in fact go before a fall.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
over the same period we were developing the Eurofigher, the Americans produced the Raptor which made the Eurofighter obsolete before it reached front line service
The Eurofighter is more than a match for any other opponent, either in service or in development, and, based on the above figures, only about a quarter of the price. It will also, eventually, have a more than adequate GA capability whilst the F-22 is a pure AD aircraft.
All 55 of them?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Remind me, did the Sea Harrier have a gun in the Falklands War? The AIM-9L did more than adequately I believe. Just how many Israeli kills were gun kills, and how many GW kills were gun kills? It can be argued that the need for a gun in Vietnam was more a result of the ROE which didn´t allow the enemy airfields to be attacked or BVR to used effectively combined with the poor performance of early AAM, particularly the appalling HMI of the AAM-4 Falcon.
Not saying a gun isn´t useful, just that using Vietnam is a justification lays you open to having the rug pulled from under you.
Not saying a gun isn´t useful, just that using Vietnam is a justification lays you open to having the rug pulled from under you.
Untitled
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remind me, did the Sea Harrier have a gun in the Falklands War?
I'm sure WEBF will be along shortly to give you the actual tally.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Optional external ventral pods, not an internal gun. Very much the same arrangement as on the F-35B/C which has a dedicated ventral station for an optional gun, only the CTOL A model having an internal gun. It will be interesting to see if it used as a standard fit or just on AD missions.
Last edited by ORAC; 3rd May 2006 at 17:18.
Orac,
Why do modern air forces practice Air-Air combat maneuvering if all the engagements are going to be punching off missiles at radar images and hollering "Fox something" over the radio while beating a hasty retreat for Tea and Stickies in the Mess?
If you have no gun....there is no reason for our young ones to get out and jolly around playing tail chase games. That is a waste of taxpayers money.
Exactly a 1960's American concept done up in Oxford English and Crab Blue.
Why do modern air forces practice Air-Air combat maneuvering if all the engagements are going to be punching off missiles at radar images and hollering "Fox something" over the radio while beating a hasty retreat for Tea and Stickies in the Mess?
If you have no gun....there is no reason for our young ones to get out and jolly around playing tail chase games. That is a waste of taxpayers money.
Exactly a 1960's American concept done up in Oxford English and Crab Blue.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And who's going into a fight with a weapon needing a tracking solution when the other guy might have an over the shoulder Mx like Archer, ASRAAM or IRIS-T? A gun can be usefull if you get a target of opportunity like a helo, but it means going down into indian country below 10-15K and that can be a baaad idea.
Why is it called the F/A 22?
Seems it can do the mission of the F-117 along with the Air to Air deal too.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...22-weapons.htm
Seems it can do the mission of the F-117 along with the Air to Air deal too.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...22-weapons.htm