http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/25/2038217


Nice going, whoever programmed these puppies.

Stealth???

 

Well, seeing as that the GPS runs on a completely independent circuit, and the firmware is the same as any other, I'm calling BS. Also, it has standard old backup flight instruments which can run without electricity even. If someone were going to post something like that, (the guy on the link) They really ought to know what they are talking about. A software glitch from crossing the date line? possible. Causing a flight safety navigation problem? I dont think so.



Edit: Also, the F-22 has already been over the date line on several occasions prior to this article

Snopes would have a good time with this.

 

They should have done a Control, Alt, Delete, then restarted them...

Air Force guys....

J/K: If this is true, everybody who tightened a screw on this plane, needs their **** kicked. a $45,000,000.00 (And that's probably low) plane, and it can't cross a freaking line?

747's do it everyday, and they were built in 1969 - Present.

This is poor... **** poor...

Bring back the F-15 and the F-14.

Use the F-22 for Domestic Defense, and to defend Europe.

Oh damn, you know what that means... If the F-22 can't cross the int'l date/time line- then F-117 and the B-2 can't either (Unless they're running Apple/Linnux/or some other OS. They'd better go across the Atlantic, that way they don't have to cross it.


>>Of Course I'm making a joke out of a serious matter... They need to get that siht fixes, ASAP.<<

This reminds me of that BS between Microsoft and GM, where Bill Gates allegedly said, "If GM spent as much money on R&D as we do, cars would only cost $35.00." (When talking about how computer technology was gettign cheaper, but cars were gettign more expensive... Then GM (Supposedly) wrote back, talking about how poorly their cars would run, if they were built by Microsoft..."

Funny, but you know Bill or GM never said anything like that.

 

more... Not thinking this is false info...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...to-hawaii.html

 

Ok, now that one sounds more credible... I dont deny the possibility of a glitch, it's just the drama about having to maintain visual contact with the tankers in the first link that I find unlikely. A glitch in the software like that that would call for a precautionary return sounds a lot more credible than "they were flying blind" like the first link insinuated.

 

Number of planes keeps changing.... But, I foudn this via YaHoo news...

Source: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6225

Six Lockheed F-22 Raptors have Y2K-esque glitch of their own over the Pacific
By Brandon Hill, February 26, 2007 10:28 AM

Lockheed’s F-22 Raptor is the most advanced fighter in the world with its stealth capabilities, advanced radar, state of the art weapons systems and ultra-efficient turbofans which allow the F-22 to "supercruise" at supersonic speeds without an afterburner. The Raptor has gone up against the best that the US Air Force and Navy has to offer taking out F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18 Super Hornets during simulated war games in Alaska. The Raptor-led "Blue Air" team was able to rack up an impressive 241-to-2 kill ratio during the exercise against the "Red Air" threat -- the two kills on the blue team were from the 30-year old F-15 teammates and not the new Raptors.

But while the simulated war games were a somewhat easy feat for the Raptor, something more mundane was able to cripple six aircraft on a 12 to 15 hours flight from Hawaii to Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan. The U.S. Air Force's mighty Raptor was felled by the International Date Line (IDL).

When the group of Raptors crossed over the IDL, all of their computer systems crashed. Everything from fuel subsystems, to navigation and partial communications were completely taken offline. Numerous attempts were made to "reboot" the systems to no avail.

Luckily for the Raptors, there were no weather issues that day so visibility was not a problem. Also, the Raptors had their refueling tankers as guide dogs to "carry" them back to safety. "They needed help. Had they gotten separated from their tankers or had the weather been bad, they had no attitude reference. They had no communications or navigation," said Retired Air Force Major General Don Shepperd. "They would have turned around and probably could have found the Hawaiian Islands. But if the weather had been bad on approach, there could have been real trouble.”

"The tankers brought them back to Hawaii. This could have been real serious. It certainly could have been real serious if the weather had been bad," Shepperd continued. "It turned out OK. It was fixed in 48 hours. It was a computer glitch in the millions of lines of code, somebody made an error in a couple lines of the code and everything goes."

Luckily for the pilots behind the controls of the Raptors, they were not involved in a combat situation. Had they been, it could have been a disastrous folly by the U.S. Air Force to have to admit that their aircraft which cost $125+ million USD apiece were knocked out of the sky due to a few lines of computer code. "And luckily this time we found out about it before combat. We got it fixed with tiger teams in about 48 hours and the airplanes were flying again, completed their deployment. But this could have been real serious in combat," said Shepperd.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damn, that blew the crap out of my $45,000,000.00 estimate (Based upon that Saab Commercial:

I can understand a 50% price increase over an F-14 / 15. But, not a 410% increase. (From $30,000,000 to $45,000,000)

Since no country out there can kick the **** on the F-14, F-15, F-16 or F-18, it's no wonder some members of congress want to kill it.

Soon, I'm sure the Navy will want their own "stealth" plane, but will not want the F-22 (And probably not the F-23 either), for long range, stealthy, fleet defense.

 

I'm still wondering why this didn't show up last year when they were in Osan?

 

Maybe they were transported over via a C-5?

Or, maybe this story is still BS...

PS: If they were in Osan last year, then this story (stating something about this beign their first deployment to Asia) is crap. This would be their 2nd deployment... South Korea is Asia...

Dude, when we landed at Osan, it was a trip watching those F-16's take off what seemed like every 5 minutes, doing their patrol routes. I supported an MLRS unit, and we went out for a 2-week gunnery exercise in some mountainous area. F-16's and A-10's would buzz our position a few times a day.

 

When they went to Osan, it wasn't a unit deployment, it was a small contingent doing a round robin of PACAF.

 

Ahhhh....

Did they do Team Spirit or UFL last year? That always gets the North's panties in a bunch, even though it's only an exercise... They try to pretend it's nore than what it is...

 

Don't know... I just know that when they left Elmendorf (where I am), they were headed there.

BTW, they really kicked some Eagle **** when they were here... we'll be the second base after Langley to get them... hopefully they will not use burner on takeoff with the Raptors like they do with the F-15's... It may sound cool the first few times, but gets really old really quick when you work next to the Runway.

 

Should be no need too, since the F-22 can do Mach 1 without afterburners.
Since the planes burn the most fuel in AB mode (take off) they probably won't. Just use 95 - 100% military power. That alone shoudl increase the fuel efficiency.

Unless they're going to "intercept" a Bear. (If Russia still does that.)

I heard the F-15 can take off from a dead stop on a 900 ft runway, I wonder if the F-22 can do that. Damn, 0 - 180 MPH in 900 feet,
That's damn-near top-fuel fast.

 

Intercept Bears, yeah they still do that... The 15's really dont need it either, we have a 10,000 ft runway, in fact pre-9/11 they hardly ever used AB, but now it's every time. Maybe if they just stopped using AB, they could save enough money to keep the 40,000 airmen they're cutting

 

My guess is that there was a new software version installed that had the glitch. My guess as to what happened is that when the aircraft crossed the IDL the GPS sent the info to the nav system. Somewhere along the way a programer forgot a .>]} or something like that and caused the computer to go into a loop. Each time it rebooted it still would enter the loop so the problem could not be fixed. Just my $.02.

 

Some of the facts I know regarding this material:

1. The F22 story is indeed true. KC-10 were the tankers that took them there. I was not involved but know a few that were.

2. The F-15 doesn't need AB's to takeoff but uses them to determine if the engine fuel control is working properly. An "After-Burner No Light" condition is an emergency for the F-15 & they will abort a takeoff for it. I've witnessed these aborts 3 times on F-15 drags. It's the first warning flag that your ECU is about to go TU. Understandably, the pilots would want to discover this while still on the ground than have to find out later & eject.

3. Both the F22 & F15 can takeoff in under 1000 feet UNLOADED. Since an UNLOADED fighter is about useless, the actually runway required is closer to 8000 feet. If you take tankers out of the equation, the runway is now closer to 10000 feet. This is why the US can kick serious butt in aerial warfare, we understand that tankers are the single most important aircraft in ANY aerial warfare scenario. Ask any fighter pilot and 95% will agree.

4. The Sukoi S-37 Super Flanker will stomp the crap out of the F14,15,16,18. It's no contest. During the last exercise with the India AF, the US pilots were absolutely stunned that a "3rd World Country" had aircraft that were not only capable of defeating the F15 & 16 but EMBARASING them.

5. It's hard to believe but the F-22 is actually less fuel efficient than the F-15. It guzzles fuel at a mind-boggling rate.

6. It is 100% physically impossible to load a F-22 or 15 into a C-5. It's cargo hold is only 23 feet across.

KC-10 FE out...