EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) — The Air Force says an F-22 fighter has crashed near Edwards Air Force Base in the high desert of Southern California.

Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ann Stefanek confirmed the crash Wednesday but had no other details.

Stefanek had no information on the status of the pilot.

The F-22 is the Air Force's new top-of-the-line fighter.

Full story from the AP.

 Unfortunately it seems the 49 year old Lockheed Martin test pilot was killed.

Full story at the AP.

I do not like the F-22 but although I dont know the reasons of the crash, the fact an aircraft like the F-22 with so much fame about it in such a late stage kills a pilot is a cause for concern.

 Woa! Wait for those reasons before you get concerned.

And what did the F-22 do to earn your displeasure?

Its just one of those planes that cost millions and are overhyped by its fans in any combat engagement its given even though its had near to no (if not completly no) real combat usage. Its capabilities are mostly speculated nonsense and its too expensive, the USA would be better off spending on JSF than F-22.

With all do respect...I find your comments lame.  Apparently you've never read about the UNCLASSIFIED capabilities of the Raptor or have never seen one fly.  The fact is, there is no other fighter aircraft in the WORLD that can match it's capabilities.  True, I do believe the US is not purchasing enough, but the ones we will end up with will do their job well. ...as far as your concern over the Raptor crashing recently,  it crashed flying at Edwards AFB.  Those pilots are supposed to fly those aircraft to the edge...it's just unfortunate when one fly’s it past the edge, assuming the investigation proves otherwise.

 

lame lol....

 

Ive read a lot of capabilities of the Raptor and have found it vastly wanting, its a far far overcostly aircraft for what it is, and that isnt much but for the sake of not side tracking this thread, why dont we discuss it in the thread below this one? fact remains, its hugely costly, and has not gone up against the better aircraft in the world such as the SU-35 (in the future 37) or the Typhoon. Until it beats them on good odds, I think America should decrease its propaganda for their plane down a bit especially when crashes (not just the ones that take the lives of pilots) have happened a good numer of times. 

I still think your comments are lame...and I'll even rant a bit.  So what if it's costly!  Unfortunately your dream of the Raptor meeting either a SU-35, SU-37 or Typhoon to prove itself will never happen.  The Raptor would "SWAT" them out of the sky before they knew they were being hunted.  That is the reality.  "crashes...a good number of times" What?  For an aircraft to crash twice and claim only one test pilot (God rest his soul and service to my country) in its first 12 years flying is an excellent record.  Guarantee Sukoi will never claim that one...

Lastly,  I am so sick and tired of people like you who knock what America brings to the table...  After all that is what you are doing.  Most are bitter towards what they fear or don't understand.  The bitterness for America these days absolutely floors me.  Never before in history has a nation on God's green earth used its power for the good of people and freedom than America.  It was America's technology that rid the world of Hitler’s and the Japanese tyranny.  I can guarantee America will be there again with its F-22 Raptor to save the lives of millions again...and you won't even have to thank us.

No hard feeling however.  I'm extremely passionate about what I love!  As I'm sure you are...

 

The raptor would swat them out of the sky? lol, with what? its pathetic missle loadout? its not invisible, and its first shot would destroy any stealth it has, and if you think the first missle will be the last on a craft with as many defences as the Typhoon then think again.....the Typhoon has to my knowledge crashed once, and that was a prototype. I swear I see the F-22's flaws and problems more than the Typhoons and I dont even look for them.

 

Its statements like this that make people knock America, its too proud and thinks too much of itself, you go on about freedom when every nation in the world knows almost every time you enter a country with weapons its because you want their resources.  No it wasnt, what a load of rubbish...all America did in both world wars is come in at the end, after hiding at the back of the world doing very little. Every time America blunders into a war at the end they always claim how great tehy were and superior to the countries who fought it from the beginning, despite having countries right in the middle of the War and not having close to the amount of resources America has access to British as well as French forces push the Germans back. Especially the spectaculour amount of British victories.

 Thing is I am passonate, problem is theres many good arguments against the Raptor and not many against the Typhoon, the Raptor is a fairly useless aircraft for todays enemies but even when compared to its allies, the Raptor falls short in the fact of the Typhoon, the Raptor can only carry a pathetic loadout of 6 long range missles to keep its minor stealth advantage...6....most planes of today carry 10+ missles, it has no HOB missles for over the shoulder shots so it would automatically die in a WVR sitation, it has less defences than the superior planes such as the Typhoon and when you take into account it costs as much as what, 2/3 Typhoons? ridiculous....

 The only thing that gives the Raptor anything, is its propaganda. Considering America controls so much of the media, its no wonder how people like you are misinformed on the failure that is the F-22, sure it can beat long range targets of the older series of plane ,but to think its a success when planes like the Typhoon can do that AND much more including vast ground coverage due to its multi-role capabilities AND it costs far greater than any of them is going too far. Is it a good plane? yes, is it worth its cost? no, is it as powerful or as useful as the Typhoon? no...

 It will be interesting to find out what caused the crash, or at least what they were trying to do when it happened. As far as I know, there is always peacetime 'attrition' of aircraft during military flying, be they transports or combat aircraft. Sometimes the causes can be annoyingly 'trivial' things like tools left inside the aircraft, no matter what air force it is.

 

I think that if the F-22 dissuades potential adverseries even by its mere presence or diverts their resources trying to develop counter measures, then it will have succeded admirably

I am still amused by people laming about how expensive F-22 is.

If one stop thinking about the scary number on its price tag, and start calculate the cost of aircraft as an percentage of national GDP, you soon realize an F-22 today is only on pair with an F-15 in the 1970's - arguably the most sophisticated air-superiority platform by the time - and certainly not as expensive as an F-14!

Then take into the account that an F-15, with it's larger production run, still stood at 100m a piece in today's world. Is the choice really that hard?

To judge a combat system by the number of missile it carries to combat...? I won't even go into that, LoL.

If America bought Typhoons instead or ignored the F-22 and followed the JSF F-35 alone as their fighter then it would be a much better choice.

 

You wont go into it because theres no excuse for it, it will be running back to base while the Su-Terminators are swatting them out of the sky because they hold more missles and while the Euro Typhoons and older American craft with more weapons are protecting their sweet expensive little tails as they swing between their legs.

 If I recall correctly, the F-22 stealth is meant for first strike/day hostilities. After that it is supposed to be able to carry other stuff on the outside as well as in its internal bays?

Its a air superiority fighter Jet, its designed to defeat air targets, problem is, in its stealth loadout which is the only loadout theres any point in discussing (because stealth is its only real advantage) it only has a paltry 6 missles for long range, that means that it can hardly defeat many enemy targets even if we do assume each of those missle strikes is a hit.

 

Indeed it "can" carry other things on its wings, i think it has 4 hardpoints, 2 on each wing, 2 are usually used for fuel pods but if you put hardpoints on those wings, its going to lose its stealth advantages, meaing it is stuck to having 6 missles.

You dont have to an expert in anything to realise 6 missles is a little patheitc considering most current aircraft and indeed older have around 10+

 

 

...the F-22's air-to-air load out is 8 missile.  6x 120's and 2x 9's.  All that with stealth, supercruise, the most advanced avionic package in the world and some of the finest pilots in the world.  The problem with your argument is that the Typhoon and Su's are radar hogs.  Those 4 extra missiles help to increase their already HUGE radar signatures.  Those aircraft would have to worry more about SAM's and fighter aircraft. 

Got one more for you...the F-22 can go in advance of a strike package of F-15's, F-16's, F-18's, Typhoons, etc. and relay information to those aircraft all while still maintaining its stealth.  Kind of like a mini AWACS with an attitude and guns.  There is no other aircraft in the world that has those capabilities all in one aircraft.  But your right, the Porsche Cayman is way better than the Carrera GT2...because it's half the cost and holds more cargo.

Great point Ruze...I like it!

Yeh as I said, 6 long range missles, 2 inferior WVR missles not worth mentioning.  And theres no real evidence that ive seen that shows its the most advanced avionics package, the same has been said by the Eurofigher typhoon, only ive been told that personally as well by actual pilots, the Euro also has supercruise and a fair amount of stealth. Also false, their radar sigs are not "huge", their large in comparison to F-22 and JSF but so what? their not stealth planes and they hardly have to worry since Stealth is counteracted by AWACS and other superior radar detection, its by no means invisbility.

 And theres no aircraft that combines an incredible air package, ground package and supercruise etc all in one plane as capable as the Eurofighter for nowhere near the cost, and why would anyone need those paltry advantages of the F-22 when most countries America will be flying with, including America itself have fully capable AWACS aircaft?

 As i said before, F-22 is ridiclously costly for a fairly useless plane, 6 long range missles that will soon be inferior to the long range Meteor missles the Eurofighter is getting in 2012 and its untested stealth against real radar threats, if the Eurofighter can pick up an F-22 or JSF, an AWACS or large ground radar will have zero problem.  While the F-22 is flying for its life back to base because its run out of its wimpy missle loadout the Eurofighters will still be flying strong and countering both ground and air targets with superior ability for a smaller cost.

Which machine would you prefer to be in a real shotting war ? .The one that can't be seen until its on top of you, or the one with two more missiles which don't work on a BVR target because it's stealthy? . The F22 maintains the air superiority edge which the USAF regained with the F15 and F16 after a less than outstanding performance in the early years of Vietnam. The only problem with the aircraft is it's so expensive that even the US cannot afford enough of them .

You must have misunderstood, the Eurofighter has up to 12 hardpoints, can carry cruise missles, long range missles in larger number as well as superior WVR missles that can make "over the shoulder" kills thanks to the Euro technology. And thats not been proven, just assumed, too many people claim the F-22 as even close to invisible but the truth is its not been tested against all the most advanced radars, not that ive seen, if theres a report on it doing this then please show me, until then calling it invisible holds as much practical weight as me saying the same for a Typhoon.  Typhoon can detect JSF and as an extension of that, F-22. If Euro can do it, then huge ground Radars or AWACS will find him easily. Then its just down to the weak weapon loadout of the F-22 to see it as a plume of fire running into the ground.

Entity:

If America bought Typhoons instead or ignored the F-22 and followed the JSF F-35 alone as their fighter then it would be a much better choice.

You wont go into it because theres no excuse for it, it will be running back to base while the Su-Terminators are swatting them out of the sky because they hold more missles and while the Euro Typhoons and older American craft with more weapons are protecting their sweet expensive little tails as they swing between their legs.

 

Same way you can argue that if U.S had adopted a lovely MiG-23 copy then it would be a much better choice! I could almost come up with an argument shouting:" Why those fancy electronics? Why BVR? It is useless! Look at Vietnam! F-15 IS SO EXPENSIVE AND DOING NOT MUCH MORE!"

But F-15 dominated the sky for 30 years. Hard and cold fact.

You ignored the fact that stealth is a worthy technology, combat proven. Past records of F-117 has been outstanding. If you doubt it, read more combat records from 1991 and 1999, numbers tell and numbers don't lie. Is stealth infallible? NO! Is it revolutionary? YES! If stealth was useless as some like to believe, many more F-117s would've went down in those hazardous environments in lieu of only one.

You also ignored the fact that F-22, even if stripped off all its stealth camouflage, is still a better A to A platform. It has more powerful engines, super cruise speed, goes higher, climbs faster, better radar and an excellent self-defense suite - which is exactly what F-15 was 30 years ago. Without its radar and electronics, F-15 still out performs every other war plane in the sky, period.

You don't understand because you don't know how much sacrifice a war plane made for external stores. The evil word is drag. Roughly speaking, an external drop tank loses half of its fuel to the extra drag it induced. Missiles and support pods are pure negatives. An Typhoon or F-15 in A2A configuration (6+2 or 4+2 w/drop tank) has a combat radius 30~40% of its ferry range. You wanna guess how much left with a full load of missiles dangling from its belly? Signature and maneuverability are also affected but the impact on range is already bad enough. This is why I am not even going into that - everyone knows all missile load out is a kind of purely impractical, brochure cover stun, eye-catching maybe, but serves nothing more than advertisement purposes.

Read my earlier post for the cost argument. Affordability is not defined by the price tag alone.

BVR is not useless, first hit kills are useful in any language as are electronics to keep the pilots alive....

 

But thats then, the future foes, Russia and Americas allies all have far superior radar and detection to find stealth than during 1991, when you show me a F-22 on an impressive mission against advanced foes then we can talk how useful stealth is today.

 

No, sorry, but according to the website of the F-22, it seems slower, the Euro also has Super cruise and its radar is trivial since in a real combat sitation AWACs wil be implemented, the Euro has better self defence nad weapons, and soon will have a super long range mach 4 missle in the meteor.

 

You dont understand how much sacrfice a plane has for stealth....a smaller ordinance and a weaker WVR compliment means its going to be tailing it back to base very quickly in comparison to its foes who are more numerous anyway (only 181 F-22) I dont think I even have to list the number of mig fighters and Sukoi etc that the Chinese or Russian forces would have.

 Also take into account the F-22 unless based in allies territory would have to carry fuel to get from America to Europe. Although to be fair, F-22 is more of a home defence plane, if war broke out right now, they would be of little use to the EU as they have to fly from America, the Typhoons however are within range through geographical advantage.

Here's the "no bullsh*t" truth about the F-22 Raptor and the Typhoon, so eloquently put by a fellow aviation enthusiast... "The F-22 isn't a dogfighter and the typhoon was designed precisely for that type of fight. The Eurofighter Typhoon was designed on the principles of the Lockheed Martin/General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. It lacks the advanced avionics, radar sweep, stealth, and long range air to air combat capability that is requisite in an air superiority fighter, and instead focuses on superior transient performance at close range. The Raptor is an air dominance fighter designed to supercruise at untouchable altitudes, use a very powerful radar and scanner system to detect enemy threats below and around it at incredibly long distances, and with a new amraam that has longer range capabilities, engage the threat outside of the enemies weapons envelope. Because it is stealth it is undetectable, or up against the best radars detected too late by threat radar to matter. It is note worthy that the Raptor has a kill to loss ratio that completely dwarfs the typhoon. Only during a dogfight does the Typhoon stand a chance against the Raptor. The Raptor had a kill to loss ratio of 144 to 0 during exercise northern edge Alaska against Eagles, Falcons, and Hornets. And NATO pilots say constantly that they'd rather fly the raptor in combat. These are actual combat simulations not computer simulations. In real life, planes don't fly side by side and wait to count till three and then dogfight. Today, if you lack advanced avionics to engage your enemy beyond visual range, then you're as good as dead. The typhoon has this capability, but not to the degree of the Raptor. In real life the Raptor would beat the typhoon everytime." ...I couldn't have put it any better myself. There is nothing to argue there, PERIOD

A Boeing EA/18-G Growler recently scored a "kill" on the F-22, so it is not completely impenetrable to the right scenario and ability to get within striking distance. The F-22 still has distinct advantages over every combat aircraft now flying.

I was talking to a Marine AV-8B Harrier pilot who had a MIG-25 painted on his aircraft.  I asked him about it, he laughed and told me the story.  On a mission in Iraq he and his wingman spotted a lone MIG-25 on the ground.  Well, they destroyed it and come to find out it was a static display MIG-25 at a park!  They all got a good kick out of that.  LOL.

 

I read about that Growler.  Unfortunately the pilots are pretty quite on how they did it.  It may or not be true...  You know how those NAVY/AIRFORCE guys like to knock each other around.  In any case your right, nothing is 100%. 

Thats not truth at all, first both have advanced avionics so all this rubbish about "the Eurofighter is less advanced" is BS, the only diffrence between them is one is stealth, one is not so stealthy. The Eurofighter has the same range since it uses the same missles so thats that out of the frying pan and then we have the fact Eurofighter uses PIRATE to find stealthy targets.  Stealth is not undetectable, thats a fantasy.....its been detected by Eurofighters as well as other craft, even at long range. Take that info and combine it with the fact AWACS and the huge ground dome radars that we have and it makes the F-22 pretty obselete plane.  Show me the Typhoons kill/loss ration, because tbh ive not seen it myself, ive seen the 144-0 many times but ive also heard it crashing (ala this thread) and being marked as a target many times as pointed out by the guy 2 posts above me.

 The Typhoon has more defences, better defences, manouverability to escape most shots fired by the tiny F-22 loadout and can then simply slow down to get closer to the F-22 as it passes it and shoot a missle into its face from the rear, the F-22 is dead in a dogfight, worthless in long range in comparison to the Euro, especially when Euro gains CEASER radar and Meteor missles...

 That all in all makes it a better plane, not to mention its much much cheaper along with being able to fire cruise missles on ground targets among other bombs.