Air Force Claims To Have Solved Fatal F-22 Oxygen Riddle 172
Hugh Pickens writes "DefenseTech reports that Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Lyon, the director of operations for Air Combat Command, told the Pentagon press corps that a valve that inflates the Combat Edge upper pressure garment is the cause of hypoxia-like symptoms in pilots flying the F-22. The problem forced the service to ground the Air Force's most prized stealth fighter fleet for four months and led two Raptor pilots to tell the nation on CBS's 60 Minutes that they refused to fly the jet because the pilots feared for their lives. The vests help control the breathing of pilots in high G-force environments, inflating before pilots start to experience extreme G-force conditions. However Lyon explained that the valves caused the vests to inflate too early in an F-22 flight, causing pilots to hyperventilate in the cockpits. 'It's like putting a corset around your chest,' said Lyons. Eagle and Viper pilots stopped wearing the upper pressure garments in 2004 'because they were not giving us the contribution we thought they would,' said Lyon. F-22 pilots kept wearing them because they flew at higher altitudes and the vests protected the pilots from 'rapid decompression,' adding that F-22 pilots, many of whom flew the F-15 and F-16, didn't notice the vests had inflated early because of the layers of gear a pilot wears in flight. Such a simple answer to a problem that has eluded Air Force engineers and scientists for four years has left some Air Force pilots skeptical that the USAF has solved the problem. An F-16 pilot said the Air Force is either 'incompetent for missing this until now,' or 'dishonest and trying to sweep something under the rug.'"
It's an Emergent Bug (Score:5, Insightful)
The valve explanation in the summary is a gross oversimplification. The valve - in isolation - was just fine. The combination of the valve, anti-chem warfare filters, the vest, and potentially other components in the *entire system* were causing the issues in seemingly random ways that were hard to fully pin down. If you took any of these components and tested it individually, you'd never spot the issue.
The moral of the story is that, just like complex software, complex aircraft can exhibit emergent bug behaviour that you won't catch with unit tests.
Covering up for a crony? (Score:4, Insightful)
The story I heard from someone who works at Lockheed-Martin and who specifically worked on the F-22 was that they were using the wrong lubricant on the valves of the oxygen system and that the bad lubricant was somehow to blame. At least, that's what the mechanics who worked on the jets were told...
Makes me wonder why the official story would differ so much? Maybe the Air Force is covering up for a Lockheed mistake? The big defense contractors are definitely in bed with the government; I just wonder how far it really goes.
Be skeptical of quotes like this (Score:5, Insightful)
An F-16 pilot said the Air Force is either “incompetent for missing this until now,” or “dishonest and trying to sweep something under the rug.”
Usually a reporter throws out dozens of quotes until she finds one like this that is sensational.
A quote like, "yeah, this is a really hard engineering problem to solve, and every time you go up and run a test flight it's expensive and dangerous," just wouldn't get printed because it's not news.
F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter (Score:5, Insightful)
The F-22 production line should be restarted, with limited exports allowed to Japan and Australia. Also, some portion (probably about 1/4) of F-35 production should be replaced by F-22 production.
The F-22 is operational now, and completely wipes the F-35 on at least two fronts - supercruise and all-aspect stealth. It also has a worthy air-to-ground role, carrying up to four small diameter bombs or a single 1,000 lb JDAM per weapon bay. Finally, with two engines it has a margin of safety that the F-35 can't match.
With F-35 costs spiraling out of control, the F-22 is looking to be quite a bargain at around the same cost per airframe.
Re:Be skeptical of quotes like this (Score:4, Insightful)
wouldn't get printed because it's not news.
It's plenty newsworthy, it's just not sensational enough for our retarded "If it bleeds, it leads" type 'news' here in America.
Re:Covering up for a crony? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't say anything about American aircraft design - aircraft are complicated beasts, and if the lubrication used is out of spec for the task at hand then it may cause unexpected behaviour. Does it stick when it shouldn't? Does it jelly when it shouldn't? What is its operating temperature ranges? What does it react with?
There are many reasons why a specific lubricant can only be used in certain ways and places on an aircraft - you don't want a low friction lubricant with a narrow operating temperature being exposed to low temperatures for example, but you also don't want a lubricant which can be exposed to low temperatures to be used in its place because it probably has a different viscosity and this will change how the lubricant works.
The differences between an AK-47 and an M-16 is that an M-16 is a finicky beast, but its also a more accurate beast - you will achieve rates of fire and accuracy with an M-16 that you wouldn't with an AK-47, but it comes at the price of higher maintenance requirements.
Re:Covering up for a crony? (Score:5, Insightful)
One further point to say - sure, its possible to make systems resilient to using the wrong lubricant, but the penalty for that is ... weight.
More weight means a less efficient aircraft. More thrust required, higher fuel burn penalties, lower performance ratings etc etc etc.
So require a specific lubricant, put that in the maintenance manual and move on.
Re:Covering up for a crony? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love for you to come and design an aircraft someday, if you think its a solvable problem that doesn't carry penalties...
We've moved on from the days of the Wright brothers - even a Boeing 787 requires on average about 400 different types of lubricant.
Re:Be skeptical of quotes like this (Score:5, Insightful)
I really miss the old days when they just reported the news factually and let people make up their own minds, rather then the "news as a product that must be tailored for optimal consumption" corporate-whore mentality that we're stuck with today.
It's not a new phenomenon (William Randolph Hearst was doing the same shit a century ago) but it's certainly become totally pervasive these days...
Re:Be skeptical of quotes like this (Score:5, Insightful)
I miss the days when trending twitter comments weren't considered "news" by mainstream outlets.
I think we're both out of luck.
Re:Covering up for a crony? (Score:4, Insightful)
Simpler maintenance is just one operational requirement on a shopping list with dozens of others - if you want to prioritise maintenance over everything else then sure, that's something we can do. Won't make for a good aircraft tho...
Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter (Score:4, Insightful)
The F-22 production line should be restarted, with limited exports allowed to Japan and Australia. Also, some portion (probably about 1/4) of F-35 production should be replaced by F-22 production.
Absolutely not. Neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are a "bargain" at close to a quarter billion dollars apiece, flyaway. As an aviation writer put it 30 years ago, "building a fighter with all the electronics of the starship Enterprise will do you no good if you can only afford two of them". We're at that point, budget-wise. We need a fighter that we can affordably build in quantity, or it's useless. Admiral Greenert was right. It's time to ditch the luxury car [usni.org] aircraft acquisition idea and go to flexible, cheaper "trucks" that we can build relatively quickly and in higher quantities. And as there is no proof that either the Russian Pak-Fa nor the Chinese J-20 are anything other technology demonstrators or outright Potemkin frauds to convince the West that "hey, we can do stealth too", we should probably just continue to build teen-series fighter with AESA radars. Nothing that the Russians or Chinese have that are in actual production are any better.
Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you about restarting the production lines of the F-22, but I can't disagree enough regarding exports. The F-22 represents 20+ years of the best R&D money can buy. Every part of that plane is filled with advanced tools that make it the most lethal air-to-air combat machine in the history of the world. I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't even as-yet be admitting the thing exists, let alone showing it off at airshows. While we don't have the complete picture, there's been enough public information leaked about the plane that even amateur fighter junkies have a fairly solid understanding of its capabilities. That means intelligence agencies and foreign militaries likely have an even better understanding of it. Does that mean they can then field planes to challenge it? Not in the next 20 years; no. At least not without pouring hundreds of billions into R&D in a massively accelerated program.
What would allow them to jump ahead in the R&D process cheaply? Getting in the cockpit, getting trained maintenance crew members to turn, etc. In the US, we have a massive counter-intelligence infrastructure capable of limiting that kind of risk. Not eliminating it, but minimizing it. If we start shipping this aircraft to other nations (even our best allies), we open the door to a Russia or a China to get their hands on exactly what they need to build an almost-as-good fighter in half the time. They'll not only use them to deter the US from threatening their interests around the world (because realistically, we aren't attacking each other directly, but countries like Georgia and Taiwan provide perfect examples of where this would come into play), but they'd also sell them to a lot of countries who would be happy to challenge the US directly (like Iran, North Korea, etc). That's just far, far too much of a risk to take.
The US military is counting on the F-22 (with upgrades along the way) to completely dominate the skies anywhere and everywhere in the world for the next 20-30 years. If someone else gets their hands on enough information to cut their R&D time and expense in half and build something that's nearly as capable, we've lost a massive air advantage. You cannot win a modern war militarily without control of the air. Right now, the F-22 gives us that hands-down. With the F-22, no country on Earth could field aircraft in any skies on Earth; including over their own soil. You really cannot underestimate what kind of deterrent that is to those who'd like to see our power balanced or who would like to take by force those who we protect.
So yes, the production line should be started by taking all future monies out of the F-35 program, but with one change: the entire production process should be completely overhauled to streamline it. When the F-22 production was begun, a political calculation was made to spread the program to as many states and districts as possible so that most politicians in Congress would have to choose between voting to fund the project and cutting off money and jobs to their own constituents. That drove up the cost of building the plane significantly (I've seen figures as high as $30 million per plane). By consolidating and streamlining the process, we'll be able to build many more F-22s with a lot less money.
I'd also note that it would be a huge mistake to try and add any significant ground attack capability to the plane. Our most successful aircraft do one job and do it well. The F-15 rules the skies. It does so wherever it goes and it's done beautifully. It kills planes. It's not great at doing a ton of ground attacking, but it doesn't need to. We have bombers hitting bombable targets and for moving targets we have another hugely specialized aircraft: the A-10. The A-10 is the pinnacle of anti-vehicle attack aircraft. You'd never fly A-10s in against enemy aircraft because that's not its job. The F-15s clear the skies and the A-10s clear the mobile ground targets. The F-22 should be a simple drop-in replacement for the aging F-15. The A-10 still does a f
Re:I think they are covering up something else (Score:4, Insightful)
There were a handful of reports of some ground crew members experiencing some similar symptoms. However, any psychologist will tell you that could very easily be psychosomatic response to a perception that something about the aircraft causes those kinds of symptoms. If it were widely reported that the A-10 were giving the pilots skin cancer, the ground crews would see members freaking out over every bump, blister, rash, and zit they found for months afterwards.
I'm not saying they've 100% nailed this problem and case-closed. I'm only saying that the most logical thing to do is sit back in a wait-and-see mode until we find out whether pilots continue experiencing symptoms during flight. If pilots are still blacking out at (or close to) the rates from before the 'fix', then we have no actual fix. If pilots are pretty much all ok after this, then the ground crew reports are almost certainly unrelated to this particular issue.
Re:Covering up for a crony? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point is that the benefits of these beasts don't outweigh their finickiness. We didn't need an M-16. An AK-47 would do the job. And we don't need an F-22 because there's not even a job for it currently.
The problem is that the extraordinary sophistication of modern combat aircraft means a longer design cycle. Here's some numbers from Wikipedia: The P-51 Mustang is widely regarded as one of the best planes of WWII, and it took just four years, 1938-1942, to go from concept to combat. The F-4 Phantom II took seven years, 1953-1960, to go from initial designs to entering service. The F-15 takes 11 years, 1965-1976, to enter service. The F-22 takes 24 years, 1981-2005. Maybe you could shorten that cycle a bit with better project management and less bureaucracy, but the trend isn't specific to the U.S. The Soviet Yak-3 goes from concept to service in 3 years (!), 1941-1944, but the Mig-29 takes 11 years, 1971-1983. Development of Russia's fifth-generation fighter, the Pak-Fa, begins in the late 1980s and it should enter service in 2015-2016.
The end result? The F-22 is an anachronism. It's something out of a time warp, a throwback to an era that's long past. Sort of the Austin Powers of fighter jets. First, it's designed to deal with a radically different strategic picture. In 1981, when design began on the F-22, the major threat was a large, sophisticated, Soviet military. Now the real threat is a guerrilla with an AK-47 and an IED. Conflict with an advanced nation like Russia or China isn't impossible, but it's unlikely. Second, the technological picture has changed as well. In 1981 the cutting edge in computing was a 1MHZ Apple II with 48k of memory; now computing hardware and software have advanced to the point where an onboard computer can take off, fly, and land the plane, so the pilot is increasingly redundant. The F-22 is an expensive, obsolete solution to a problem that no longer exists.
Fifth-generation fighters like the F-22 and F-35 are an expensive throwback. We've seen what the Predator can do, and it's been revealing. If you're familiar with military history you probably know about the 1921 battleship bombing trials. That was when bombs dropped by aircraft were used to destroy a dreadnought; it signalled that the era of battleships was over and that future naval battles would be conducted by and decided by air power; it signalled the rise of the carrier. We're seeing something similar now, with Predator UAVs being armed with Hellfire and Stinger missiles and used for precision ground attacks, close-air-support, and air-to-air. It's only a matter of time before UAVs take over missions traditionally left to manned aircraft. So instead of trying to refight the Cold War, a more realistic plan would be to maintain air superiority against Russia and China by upgrading fourth-generation aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 over the next decade, while leapfrogging past fifth-generation fighters to sixth-generation fighters- unmanned fighters. Eliminating the pilot isn't without it's issues (as the loss of the RQ-170 Sentinel over Iran shows), but eliminating the pilot and cockpit makes for a lighter, more streamlined aircraft which improves speed and range. Survivability also becomes less of an issue, so you don't need as many backups, the airframe doesn't have to be as tough, and stealthiness is less of an issue. Again, that means longer range and better speed. Eliminating the pilot and all the systems associated with his survival also means a cheaper aircraft, and one that takes less time to develop. Most importantly, without a pilot to worry about, you can carry out risky missions without worrying about the political implications of having a pilot shot down in Iran or the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Re:F-22 - without a doubt the world's best fighter (Score:4, Insightful)
Trucks vs luxury cars doesn't really capture it though. Top notch stealth is a huge force multiplier. Two F-22s can take on several dozen non-stealth fighters: the conventionals swarm around not finding anything to shoot at while the F-22s pick them off one by one. It's really that dramatic of a difference.
In limited-scale wars, the F-22 is just overwhelmingly better even in small numbers. In a protracted world war things would be different: eventually the other guys would take them out through blind luck, or a significant portion of the small fleet would be down for maintenance; then the "lots of cheap fighters" strategy wins (and the US still wins, since it still has tousands of cheap F-15s, F-16s, and to a lesser degree F/A-18s). The thing is that every war fought in the last 50 years has been the former sort where having a small number of F-22s IS the better plan, and I don't see anything on the horizon that will change it.
Re:Covering up for a crony? (Score:2, Insightful)