Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Rocky Three F-22

The Accident Investigation Board[AIB] trying to determine what caused the fatal crash of F-22 Rocky Three and the death of Captain Jeff Haney is still on-going. On Jan 24, 2011 the AIB was adjourned until more wreckage of the fighter is recovered. No other news has been released by PACAF, but hopefully during Alaska's construction season the search for answers will continue and an answer found.

Meanwhile, the USAF is looking at putting in an open architecture avionics system into the F-22. It seems the current avionics system is so tightly integrated that its cost-prohibitive to upgrade, so now they are looking at adding a second one. Has anyone learned anything from the whole TFX/F-111 mess?

Note: An AIB is convened to determine the cause of an accident, from a simple engine overheat to a total airframe loss. It is outside the scope of an AIB to lay blame for an accident.


Ed Rasimus said...

Apples and oranges comparing Raptor to F-111. One was a hodge-podge of immature technologies and then a series of model updates until you finally got the F model that could almost do the mission.

The Raptor is mainly hampered by small fleet numbers. The technology generally works well and performance is incredible. The real issue is future updates and somehow being dependent on Lock-Mart for upgrade to proprietary software to add whiz-bang developed for F-35 doesn't seem to be that difficult from long range. Who builds F-35? Lock-Mart again.

Anna said...

Ed, I apologise. I should have slowed down on the typing and singled out one F-111, the F-111D and its Mk II avionics that never worked right.

I agree the fleet-size is not sustainable. An F-22 becomes such an asset of such high value due to scarcity, it will never go into combat least one is lost. Which calls into question even building the plane if it will never be risked.

Good question. Unless the USAF has decided at the 11th hour not to be beholden to only Lockheed-Martin. And Lockheed-Martin decided not to share source code which is forcing the USAF to contemplate this new setup. Which on deeper thought raises questions of interface and emissions interference.

villanyszerel├ęs said...

I seriously enjoy your work on this blog and the quality posts you wrote. These type of post tend to be what keeps me going through the day time. I do a little blogging personally and I am always thankful to see others giving high quality info towards community.

1389 said...

I don't know whether you're interested in stories about airships (and airship accidents) but if you are, please take a look at this:

Michael Nerandzic, Serbian-Australian Hero Blimp Pilot

Ed Rasimus said...

Bullseye regarding F-111D. The "D" stood for disaster. Incredible maintenance overhead and very low in-commission rates for its entire life.

I disagree about using -22. The whole point is that the system is an incredible force multiplier. It is, however, going to be tough to get it where it is needed with that fleet size.

I don't see L/M as being reluctant to cross-talk in-house, but there may be all sorts of compatibility issues to sort out.

I remember, all too well, the wailing of the avionics types at Northrop when working on breadboard for ATF (YF-23). The emissions, the data display, the data fusion and the antennae placement while attempting to maintain stealth were all confounded by the need to work under DOD-mandate in ADA language.

Anna said...

villanyszerel├ęs, thanks for the kind words but I do make mistakes. I shall strive to do better.

1389, thanks for the link. My knowledge of the dirigibles is limited to such as Macon, R-101, and Zeppelin types.

Oh my gosh Ed, ADA. The DoD crafted language that was supposed to be the one language to bind the DoD together. To replace RPG, COBOL, Fortran, and such obscure dialects as Jovial. We have seen how that has gone over. And another example of why government is never the answer.