Another CF-18 crashes

[speede5]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...ter-jet-101118

[Pinner]

When my Sister was stationed at Cold Lake, I was thoroughly impressed by the daily airshows.

F 22 Pilot is missing in Alaska

An aerial search is underway in the Alaskan wilderness after a U.S. fighter pilot crashed during a training exercise.
A single-seat F22 fighter jet - the most sophisticated in the U.S. Air Force fleet - left Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage on a routine training run but crashed after 80 minutes of flight on Tuesday evening.
Wreckage of the high-speed aircraft has been found about 100 miles north of Anchorage but officials hope the as-yet-unnamed pilot could have survived the crash.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rashed-remote-

[FlameOn]

Another reason to replace these things ASAP.

[Jordan!]

RIP the F-22 Hope they find the pilot

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Another reason to replace these things ASAP.

That's jumping to conclusions. The crash investigation hasn't even begun yet; it's far too early to blame the age of the aircraft when this incident could have been caused by any number of reasons which may or may not have also occurred if the pilot was flying a brand new F-35 instead of a 25-30 year old CF-18.

Plus, as was pointed out above, an American F-22 crashed in Alaska today. Should the USAF "replace these things ASAP" too?

[CaptainCrunch]

Except that we've had two crashes in a very short period of time, one if I remember was engine failure.

We know that the CF-18's are reaching end of life, we've read about microfractures developing in the airframe due to long life and stress.

By the time we do get the F-35's the F-18 will be so worn out that we'll need to drill the bolts out to replace the engines.

[speede5]

Replacing the 18 has little to do with it's airworthiness. It is maintained well and is as safe as any other aircraft in the CF fleet.

The problem with it's age is that it costs much more to keep it airworthy, as stress damage accumulates you have to do more invasive repairs etc. Parts failures can be extremely costly as items which need replacement are out of production or there is a high turnaround time. This is a major issue with the Tutor fleet as well.

The CF tends to use it's aircraft well past the original service life, and that is fine but it costs a fortune. Imagine how much easier it is to find parts and service a 2010 Ford compared to a 1950 Ford. Both can be roadworthy but one the dealer will have parts on the shelf and the other you will search the internet for a month and pay through the nose.


Another of the main factors is that the 18 is not plug and play with other Nato aircraft. We aren't as capable to play with the US when they are in theatre. A recent avionics update helped but it's not the best way to go.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by speede5

Replacing the 18 has little to do with it's airworthiness. It is maintained well and is as safe as any other aircraft in the CF fleet.

The problem with it's age is that it costs much more to keep it airworthy, as stress damage accumulates you have to do more invasive repairs etc. Parts failures can be extremely costly as items which need replacement are out of production or there is a high turnaround time. This is a major issue with the Tutor fleet as well.

The CF tends to use it's aircraft well past the original service life, and that is fine but it costs a fortune. Imagine how much easier it is to find parts and service a 2010 Ford compared to a 1950 Ford. Both can be roadworthy but one the dealer will have parts on the shelf and the other you will search the internet for a month and pay through the nose.


Another of the main factors is that the 18 is not plug and play with other Nato aircraft. We aren't as capable to play with the US when they are in theatre. A recent avionics update helped but it's not the best way to go.

I always thought that the upgrade would have put us more in line or close to NATO requirements, what's missing in terms of interoperability?

[Jimmy Stang]

Can we be sure the pilots aren't ditching them to kill off the fleet so they can get some shiny new planes to fly?

[speede5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I always thought that the upgrade would have put us more in line or close to NATO requirements, what's missing in terms of interoperability?

Don't know enough, sorry, I didn't mean to infer they weren't in line right now, but this was an issue and typical of Canadians we patch it up even though the aircraft had reached it's life expectancy. I was trying more to make a point that the cost to continue flying an antique can compare to purchasing new.

The problem is you don't need government approval to maintain, but everyone screams when you go to buy new.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well I know that our helicopters require something like 8 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air.

I wonder what that ratio is like for the 18's

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Well I know that our helicopters require something like 8 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air.

I wonder what that ratio is like for the 18's

However long duct tape and crazy glue will hold I guess

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's jumping to conclusions. The crash investigation hasn't even begun yet; it's far too early to blame the age of the aircraft when this incident could have been caused by any number of reasons which may or may not have also occurred if the pilot was flying a brand new F-35 instead of a 25-30 year old CF-18.

Plus, as was pointed out above, an American F-22 crashed in Alaska today. Should the USAF "replace these things ASAP" too?

You sir are an idiot the obvious reason is gravity

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Pinner

F 22 Pilot is missing in Alaska

Hmmm.

The stealth fighter jet vanished from radar and lost contact with its wingman at about 7:40 p.m. Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/11/18/156142...#ixzz15fsLnUSB

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by T@T

Hmmm.


Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/11/18/156142...#ixzz15fsLnUSB[/COLOR][/LEFT]

No conspiracy here -- since he wasn't flying a combat mission and was over US soil, the pilot probably had his transponder broadcasting or a similar method to make his aircraft visible to radar (like TCAS).

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by T@T

Hmmm.


Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/11/18/156142...#ixzz15fsLnUSB[/COLOR][/LEFT]

defection

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Can we be sure the pilots aren't ditching them to kill off the fleet so they can get some shiny new planes to fly?

There are some brilliant folks on the CBC website making just these sorts of comments...but without the green.