WT Forums

October 6, 2004: More details have come out about the "losing" performance of U.S. F-15Cs (from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing) against India's air force in the Cope India air-to-air combat exercise earlier this year. The Air Force and some members of Congress have used the "failure" to justify the need for new F/A-22 and F-35 fighters. Some are calling the results a demonstrated weakening of American air combat capabilities

Two factors have been cited as major reasons why the 3rd Wing took a drubbing. None of the participating American aircraft had the latest long-range AESA radars, although some of the F-15Cs of the Wing had this equipment. A decision had been made beforehand not to send the AESA equipped planes to India due to the additional maintenance package required to support them. A total of six F-15Cs were sent to India, each equipped with a fighter data link, short-range AIM-9X heat-seeking air-to-air missiles, and the U.S.'s helmet-mounted cueing system.

Secondly, at India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C's onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15. Practiced tactics by the F-15 crews mix two AESA-equipped F-15Cs with two stock aircraft. The AESA aircraft take long-range missile shots to thin out and disrupt the formation of a numerically superior force before the two sides close up for closer fighting.

The F-15s flew in groups of 4 against packages of 12 Indian Air Force aircraft consisting of a mix of Mirage 2000, Su-30, Mig-21, and Mig-27 aircraft. The Mirage and Su-30 aircraft were used in the air-to-air role, while the Mig-27 was used as the strike aircraft with the Mig-21 providing escort to the Mig-27s. The Indians also had a simulated AWACS platform and the use of simulated active radar missiles such as the AA-12 and the French Mica, unlike the F-15Cs. This gave the Indian Air Force a fire-and-forget air-to-air missile capability that the U.S. fighters didn't have, a heavily unrealistic assumption in actual hostilities.

However, the U.S. pilots admitted that they did have problems with the simulated active missile threat and don't normally train against launch-and-leave threats. They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots. Indian air force planners never repeated failed tactics and were able to change tactics as opportunities became available, mixing things up and never providing the same tactical "look." Some of the Indian aircraft radars had different characteristics than U.S. pilots had seen on stock versions of the aircraft, including some of the Mirage 2000s.


"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

so mudd could the f-22 have won with these test rules?

<i>Here's some related stuff, biased as it is.</i>


<b>F/A-22 Sweeps Tests </b>
10/01/04
John A. Tirpak, Executive Editor


Flying Colors for F/A-22
By all accounts, the F/A-22 fighter breezed through four-and-a-half months of exacting tests—its toughest yet. The Raptor demonstrated that it can handily beat today’s best fighters flown by today’s best crews.

The Air Force has classified the results of the F/A-22’s initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E), conducted at Nellis AFB, Nev., from late April through mid-September. However, USAF officials said nothing in the testing suggests the aircraft won’t perform any way other than brilliantly in real-world combat.

Gen. John P. Jumper, Air Force Chief of Staff, told Inside the Air Force in August that the IOT&E phase was progressing “with fewer lumps and bumps than I ever thought it would.” He added, “We’re very, very pleased with what we’ve seen so far.” The F/A-22 passes its toughest test. (USAF photo by Ken Hackman)

Air Force officials said the service probably would this fall provide an unclassified synopsis of the test results, after USAF completes all analysis.

The F/A-22 was required to prevail in five broad, live scenarios, each with a number of variations.

In the first, USAF measured the Raptor’s ability to spot, shoot, and destroy an F-16 in a “first look, first kill” test. In the second, two F/A-22s had to destroy a “high-value airborne asset” such as an E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft defended by four F-15s or F-16s. In the third, two F/A-22s had to protect a B-2 bomber against four F-15s or F-16s. In the fourth, four Raptors had to defend a high-value platform such as an AWACS against eight attacking F-15s or F-16s. In the last, four F/A-22s had to protect four F-117s against eight attacking F-15s or F-16s. Supporting aircraft included the Navy’s EA-6B Prowler airborne jamming aircraft.

Besides winning the engagements, the aircraft had to dodge ground-based air defenses. The Air Force said it flew 188 sorties with six F/A-22s during the evaluation.

The tests were run and “graded” by the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, headquartered at Kirtland AFB, N.M. The testing looked at not only how effectively the aircraft met its mission but also its reliability, ability to surge, sortie generation rate, mission capable rate, and the number of shots required to destroy an enemy.

Based on the performance of those six F/A-22s, AFOTEC developed models simulating how an entire squadron would fare, and it then measured this performance against requirements. An Air Force spokesman said that the modeling simulates large group flying operations “in sufficient detail to provide accurate estimates of suitability parameters.”

In addition, AFOTEC interviewed pilots and maintainers, adding their views to the quantitative data. AFOTEC ultimately will decide whether the F/A-22 is suitable for Air Force use, the spokesman said. “AFOTEC will determine if the aircraft met or did not meet the criteria [that Air Combat Command] set forth, using these data,” said the USAF spokesman.

The IOT&E tests did not look at the F/A-22’s ground attack capabilities. That mission element will be tested later, as additional munitions are certified for F/A-22 use. However, the first deployed F/A-22s will have the capability to drop the 1,000-pound version of the Joint Direct Attack Munition. The main ground attack weapon for the F/A-22 is to be the 250-pound Small Diameter Bomb (SDB). Each Raptor would have the capability to drop six SDBs.

The F/A-22 is slated to achieve initial operational capability by the end of 2005. Air Force officials said they are confident the Raptor will reach that milestone on time, but they cautioned that they might still see some last-minute technical surprises.



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

Truth is Stealth is becoming less and less effective today. New detection techniques and so forth are being developed.

The strength in the raptor is in the avionics, the airframe is just a shell to haul it around.....with a hell of an engine, but in time,

I ofton wonder how long it is before we are no longer using rotational assembly engine designes.... IR signature is the achilles heel in todays battlefield.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

So Glenn, in your estimation does the F/A-18E/F posses the same capabilities from a battle management standpoint as does the F-22. I know the Super Hornet gets a lot of flack, but its avionics are truely state of the art...

NAVY was the first to Data link its Airwing into the BattleGroup. The F18 E/F is fed from the Ships, AWACS, and Also relays what it sees. The F18 is a Sentry controlled by the battle group commander

The F22 goes beyond this in many ways. IT has the potential to be the Battle group commander. I say potential,cause that is the legally safe word. It is too flexible to describe.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

<i>IT has the potential to be the Battle group commander...</i>

Without being specific, how did they get the computing power of 4 Crey super computers into the size of a tactical fighter!!????

And speaking of data-link, I remember reading that the Mig-31 Foxhound was the first to perform information sharing between two planes, something the Tomcat couldn't do <i>at that time</i>.
Anyone 'member that?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Truth is Stealth is becoming less and less effective today. New detection techniques and so forth are being developed.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's the way of things in military technology...thrust and parry. Radar camoflage is not going to work forever, but we have some more tricks don't we?<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The strength in the raptor is in the avionics, the airframe is just a shell to haul it around<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Et tu Brute. <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle> Well if all we need is a shell (or a "platform" or a dust cover as they say here), why don't we just use Predator drones for everything. If any group has a claim to say the airframe only exists for them, it is armament, not avioinics. Everything in the aircraft is there to help the weapons kill the enemy. If speed, climb and maneuverability don't help, then dump it. It is costing us a lot of time and money to get.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I often wonder how long it is before we are no longer using rotational assembly engine designs.... IR signature is the achilles heel in todays battlefield.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yeah, turbomachinery sure is hot. What do you have in mind<img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle> Ever see that old Garret (now Honeywell?) engine called the ATF-3? It was a really cool running high bypass mixed flow tubofan used on a drone in the '80's (and on some Coast Guard airplanes). It was heavy but had a lot of potential for low IR sigs.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

Hey you two, Isn't aerospace engineering basically a mechanical engineering discipline with more emphasis on fluid dynamics?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Yeah, turbomachinery sure is hot. What do you have in mind Ever see that old Garret (now Honeywell?) engine called the ATF-3? It was a really cool running high bypass mixed flow tubofan used on a drone in the '80's (and on some Coast Guard airplanes). It was heavy but had a lot of potential for low IR sigs.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

What about a magnetohydrodynamic drive, akin to the propulsion system used in the "Hunt for Red October" except it utilizes the amotsphere instead of water...

As far as the Fighter Data Link, I was under the impression that the F-14 had that capability in the 70's...able to communicate with other fighters, as well as the E-2's...In fact one F-14 could launch a AIM-54 passively and allow the AWG-9 from another one slave it to the target before the Phoenix's own radar took control...Unless what I read was incorrect.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Truth is Stealth is becoming less and less effective today. New detection techniques and so forth are being developed.

The strength in the raptor is in the avionics, the airframe is just a shell to haul it around.....with a hell of an engine, but in time,

I ofton wonder how long it is before we are no longer using rotational assembly engine designes.... IR signature is the achilles heel in todays battlefield.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Howdy! I dont want to be seen trying to step on anyones toes, but... could not help but notice, you have said nothing but vague innuendo here...

What, exactly, is being developed that has rendered stealth so 'less effective today'... I see no referrence to this anywhere on any database, including that at USNI and JHU-APL, that would render the Stealth of the F-22 less effective...

The basic fact, here, that you seemed to not have addressed, is that the F-22 would have swept the IAF in the same exercise with the same limits. The IAF aircraft and awacs would not have detected the F-22s at the same range (if they detected them at all) as the Eagles and the F-22s would have closed to firing distances at a much higher rate, via sustained supercruise, thus denying the IAF the time to alter its tactics as they did against the slower Eagles which were detected farther out and flew at a much lower rate of speed, with, as you mention, a higher IR signature due to having to use reheat to go supersonic in bursts. The radars the Eagles were forced to use(as you mentioned, unrealeatically, to locate and track their targets are also a huge handicap when compared to the F-22s LPI radar...

As for avionics, the F-22 is actually in trouble... Its current Blk level is under fire at GAO (again) as being out of date and based on older technology...

GAO used this as further 'evidence' that the F/A-22 should either be built in less numbers or not built at all...

CAG out...











Edited by - CAG Hotshot on Oct 07 2004 11:08 PM

Like I said in another thread on this exercise. It was a rigged test to produce rigged results.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

A good bit of stealth technology is in the shape of the plane. By reflecting the radar away from the reciever, you get less of a return, and therefore, a smaller blip, eventually small enough to blend in with the background noise. The main threat is radar with a reciever in a different place, where you're not depending on returns going straight back to thier source. One example of this is systems being developed to use cell phone signals and such as the source, and going from there.

"Some pup"
Nickname by Fenderstrat72

_________________
Evil is evil, no matter how small.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

What about a magnetohydrodynamic drive, akin to the propulsion system used in the "Hunt for Red October" except it utilizes the amotsphere instead of water...

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Don't you think that would be easier to track than an IR source, with all the electromagnetic stuff going on?




THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Like I said in another thread on this exercise. It was a rigged test to produce rigged results.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You're right. It was a rigged test, but for what? I think the rules were set to obtain data that can be used to calibrate war gaming routines. Somebody really has to do a lot of analysis to find out what it means. The obvious conclusion that the USAF is beatable is undoubtably wrong.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Howdy! I dont want to be seen trying to step on anyones toes, but... could not help but notice, you have said nothing but vague innuendo here...

What, exactly, is being developed that has rendered stealth so 'less effective today'... I see no referrence to this anywhere on any database, including that at USNI and JHU-APL, that would render the Stealth of the F-22 less effective...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I am familiar with the physics of the problem but I have no specific knowledge of the effectiveness of stealth features, or of the countermeasures to them. My comments are generally applicable to military secrets, that is, they won't remain secret forever. But, I do not think anecdotes of stealth aircraft being "detected" by cell phone equipment are relevant. I can hear mosquitoes flying around my room in the dark but I'll be dammed if I can kill the SOB's.



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

Was reading the first F/A-22 squadron stood up at Langley. Also heard rumor that one of the F-22s snapped it's spine during air refueling after getting in the tanker's jetwash. Hope it's still under warranty, if true.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Was reading the first F/A-22 squadron stood up at Langley. Also heard rumor that one of the F-22s snapped it's spine during air refueling after getting in the tanker's jetwash. Hope it's still under warranty, if true.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<i>Well, it has made the media. The story is very simlar to the "Top Gun" scene where Maverick flies through the jet wash of a manevering target, looses conrol, ejects and Goose gets killed. In this case the pilot just got a wild ride that included massive over g's before control was regained. Amazingly, the jet held together and no bits fell off. There is no overtly visible damage but...just damn! That was close.</i>

<b>Second Oldest Raptor Off Flight Line After Turbulence Incident During Flight</b> (Posted: Monday, October 18, 2004)
[Defense Daily, Oct. 18, 2004]

By Lorenzo Cortes

The second oldest Lockheed Martin [LMT] F/A-22 aircraft in the Air Force's inventory, Raptor 4003, is temporarily off the flight schedule at Edwards AFB, Calif., due to an incident during a flight maneuver with an F-16 aircraft on Sept. 28.

The aircraft was repositioning during a gun tracking maneuver behind an F-16, Edwards spokesman John Haire told Defense Daily last week. During the maneuver, the pilot experienced turbulence, which resulted in a significant "over G" condition.

The pilot recovered the aircraft and returned safely to base. Haire told Defense Daily that there were no visible signs of damage. An engineering analysis is underway, which is expected to take several weeks.

The F/A-22 program earlier this year entered initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) at Edwards (Defense Daily, May 3). F/A-22 training takes place at Tyndall AFB, Fla. A full-rate production decision on F/A-22 from the Air Force could follow the completion of IOT&E.





THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

Nobody ever really factors in the Negative G loading..

Assymetric loads are impossible to compute RAte vs Shear

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

question can the spine of jet be repaired or is it a write off. Mudd as a pilot does the airforce monitor your 'abuse if you will' of aircraft. The reason I ask is in the private sector employers now are monitoring drivers use and abuse of commercial vehicles.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
question can the spine of jet be repaired or is it a write off. Mudd as a pilot does the airforce monitor your 'abuse if you will' of aircraft. The reason I ask is in the private sector employers now are monitoring drivers use and abuse of commercial vehicles.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Everything is repairable. its always a Cost analysis on the step to take. To many factors to look at.

One thing to take note is that In the Raptor program is no differnt than any other type of design study and application Testing. The Airframes design matures and evolves over each Block that is released from the factory.

A10 Stress could discuss this best on Manufacture design evolution.

Dice could discuss this best in Special project tasking management.

Coach could discuss this best on the operational End User management.

A 30 year old airframe today could experiance something never forseen that could stimulate a engineering review and possible New suite of upgrades.

This is why aircraft are tracked in their management process and released under evolution blocks, Once this takes place The engineers and Test people force feedback to each other and provide a report to the GOVT. From here they decide the Fate of that program. IF the program is to continue or funding is needed for the update then congressis involved and the program continues this maturing process.

Once the operational user recieves the "product" they take note as to what "Airframe number and Block they are operating and use the neccesary operational data assigned to the airframe.

This data is created by all of us in the team.

The Raptor has one in place, It is called the Combined Raptor Testforce. It is a Partnership of Industry, Military, Govt, Educators.


Is the Raptor a bad plane? No definately Not.

Just growing its feathers and maturing. Every aircraft does this.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

The facts of that test Aircraft is that it was operationaly "Stessed" in flight. ThIs the 2nd flyable test aircraft. Much has been evovled in the program. This aircraft more than likely failed from the repeated Stress of the test program. That is what the aircraft is there for.

Test aircraft are pushed beyond paper Thesis.

Anything can be attributed. these planes are built to be broke on purpose. the only way to properly evaluate an aircraft is to push it and keep the pressure on it, So we better understand andfix its capability, its lifespan, and failures.

This aircraft will never see operational Usage. In fact the actually operational Product may not even be identical to the intial testbirds.

You are just getting a glimpse of what takes place in the Evolution of a product.

Every system has a "history"

It is best to combat test and fail the aircraft now in a controled combat evaluation test enviroment, than to have it fail cause it was not tested hard enough when True Combat happens and many lives depend on the aircraft and pilot being able to prosecute their mission.

Nobody puts aircraft through Hell Like the U.S. DOD. We know more about forign aircraft that nany other advesary or for foriegn industry competitor.

Nato Countries wont let us test their aircraft in their manufacturing process. they couldnt afford what we would do to make a competent and confident product

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Edited by - mrmudd on Oct 18 2004 1:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
question can the spine of jet be repaired or is it a write off. Mudd as a pilot does the airforce monitor your 'abuse if you will' of aircraft. The reason I ask is in the private sector employers now are monitoring drivers use and abuse of commercial vehicles.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Don't know if it's a write off yet. Also, I don't know what you mean by "spine" but I'll guess you mean the whole center of the airplane. That is pretty much right, but add on the roots of the wings, fins and horizontals too. This was a fully instrumented test aircraft, a one of a kind. Although it is the second oldest in the remaining flying inventory, it is actually the third flying model built (tail no 91-4003). It's our loads measurement and envelope expansion jet. I do not think pilot error of any kind is in play here.

The basic F-22 does remember a lot of flight history parameters and these can easily downloaded, post flight, if you have need. The flight test jet telemeters all those parameters, and more, to the ground station in real time. The primary purpose of this capability in the operational jets is to get useage data, not to check on the pilots.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The fact of that test Aircraft is that it was operationaly "Stessed" in flight. This the 2nd flyable test aircraft. Much has been evolved in the program. This aircraft more than likely failed from the repeated Stress of the test program. That is what the aircraft is there for.

Test aircraft are pushed beyond paper Thesis.

Anything can be attributed. these planes are built to be broke on purpose. the only way to properly evaluate an aircraft is to push it and keep the pressure on it, So we better understand andfix its capability, its lifespan, and failures.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Mudd may have a misunderstanding that I can clear up. We are not allowed to attempt to break the airplane in flight. The flight test airplane is only allowed to attempt maneuvers that the strength has already been proven on the ground. We prove that strength with a combination of analytically predicted loads, stress analysis and actual test, sometimes to failure. What happened here was totally unintentional, and will need to be understood.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Nobody ever really factors in the Negative G loading..<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We do, and this incident made us very wobbly.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Assymetric loads are impossible to compute Rate vs Shear<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We make a good effort at computing them, but not for this maneuver. Holy sh*% !



<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Everything is repairable. It's always a Cost analysis on the step to take. To many factors to look at.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yup. If it costs to much to do all the work required to restore confidence in the aircraft, it will become a gate guard.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This aircraft will never see operational Usage. In fact the actually operational Product may not even be identical to the intial testbirds.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's right, it will never be operational and it has many details that are not the same as the current production models. Yes, it is not the same as the two airframes made before it. However, it is very close in structural configuration to the one we ground tested, and to the current production types.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It is best to combat test and fail the aircraft now in a controled combat evaluation test enviroment, than to have it fail cause it was not tested hard enough when True Combat happens and many lives depend on the aircraft and pilot being able to prosecute their mission.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If what you mean is to uncover all the glitches we can in flight test, I agree. Realisticaly though, we have less than 5000 hrs total flight time in a relatively controlled environment. Even in 7 years of testing, we have only systematically spot checked the flight envelope. Once operational, the users will rack up hours fast and we'll have ten times the amount of flight hrs real fast. They are bound to find confounding problems that weren't uncovered in test. The users will operate them differently, still within the approved envelope mind you, but different. And the internal equipment will also give new problems. Anyway, I expect it.





THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Mudd may have a misunderstanding that I can clear up. We are not allowed to attempt to break the airplane in flight. The flight test airplane is only allowed to attempt maneuvers that the strength has already been proven on the ground. We prove that strength with a combination of analytically predicted loads, stress analysis and actual test, sometimes to failure. What happened here was totally unintentional, and will need to be understood. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It is an inside Joke, Not an intention. The truth is, We really dont know and their are too many forces at work once we put it in the air. No matter how diligent we are in Flight testing. Mother nature knows best and we deal with what she gives us.


"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

2 things, can this incident be described? what happened?
Also how is the FCS developed in a test program? Does it start out extremely mild and then step by step allowed to get more aggresive untill stuff like this begins to happen? Do they then "back it off" or do they make more of an effort to "fix" the plane's design so that the same or similar maneuvere wont bend the jet next time?

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.