DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Fast Movers » Sugar-​​Coated Fallout of the F-​​15 Grounding

Sugar-​​Coated Fallout of the F-​​15 Grounding

f-15-hangar.jpg

From this story, it at least appears that my fear of a poten­tial “F-​​15 over­re­ac­tion” to push for more F-​​22s has come true.

From Reuters:

Top Pentagon offi­cials are plan­ning to extend pro­duc­tion of Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-​​22 fighter jet amid con­cerns over the air­wor­thi­ness of the aging fleet it is replac­ing, an ana­lyst with close ties to the Pentagon said on Friday.

“Pentagon insid­ers say the Office of the Secretary of Defense is plan­ning … to con­tinue pro­duc­tion” beyond the 183 F-​​22s due to be deliv­ered by the end of 2011, said Loren Thompson of the Arlington, Virginia-​​based Lexington Institute, noted for links to the Pentagon and industry.

“Policymakers are under pres­sure … because Cold War fight­ers are falling out of the sky due to age,” he added, refer­ring to the sec­ond ground­ing this month of older Boeing F-​​15 models.

Representatives of the Air Force and the Defense Department did not imme­di­ately respond to requests for comment. 

Now, I know this story is shaky since it’s based on com­ments from one per­son. But Loren is pretty tapped in and though is some­times given to hyper­bole, he’s been a very reli­able source of mine over the years. And the Reuters reporter, Jim Wolf, is top notch and wouldn’t have let the story go to print if it wasn’t accu­rate and prop­erly sourced.

Sure, the F-​​22 is a kick ass air­plane, and we can debate the mer­its of the planes and the proper num­ber. But to shoe­horn more of them into the inven­tory by cyn­i­cally ground­ing the fleet they’re to replace as a pub­lic rela­tions ploy to make a bet­ter case, if true, is disappointing.

Now let’s keep our eyes on Congress. If this keeps going, there’s going to be hear­ings with their own parochial histri­on­ics, then the inevitable added money and pro­duc­tion autho­riza­tions. Then the Air Force will finally have got­ten its wish, and the sky itself won’t even be the limit for F-​​22 buys.

(Gouge: NC)

– Christian

Share |

December 3rd, 2007 | Fast Movers | 269039 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/12/03/sugar-coated-fallout-of-the-f-15-grounding/Sugar-Coated+Fallout+of+the+F-15+Grounding2007-12-03+13%3A27%3A22Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « There’s No ‘I’ in UAV | The Downside of End-​​Strength Increases » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. whatMeWorry says:
    December 3, 2007 at 10:20 am

    ” But to shoe­horn more of them into the inven­tory by cyn­i­cally ground­ing the fleet they’re to replace as a pub­lic rela­tions ploy to make a bet­ter case, if true, is dis­ap­point­ing.“
    Do you have any basis to raise this as a con­spir­acy? Maybe Occam’s Razor applies? Those planes are being grounded because the AF doesn’t know the state of its planes and is being cau­tious with the young air­crews lives?
    Besides, shouldn’t the Airforce be press­ing the case for brand new F-22’s instead of fly­ing 25+ year old high per­for­mance fight­ers? Not exactly shock­ing stuff.

    Reply
  2. Stephen Trimble says:
    December 3, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    Most of the F-​​15 fleet is actu­ally much younger than 25 years. And it is shock­ing that any­one — the USAF or Loren — would use that as an excuse to make the case to buy more F-​​22s. Fighters encounter struc­tural issues all the time — the F-16’s wing crack­ing and the Super Hornet’s cen­ter bar­rel flaws, for exam­ple. The F-​​15s will need to mod­ify their for­ward fuse­lages and the longerons and they will be fine.

    Reply
  3. Stephen Trimble says:
    December 3, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    Most of the F-​​15 fleet is actu­ally much younger than 25 years. And it is shock­ing that any­one — the USAF or Loren — would use that as an excuse to make the case to buy more F-​​22s. Fighters encounter struc­tural issues all the time — the F-16’s wing crack­ing and the Super Hornet’s cen­ter bar­rel flaws, for exam­ple. The F-​​15s will need to mod­ify their for­ward fuse­lages and the longerons and they will be fine.

    Reply
  4. George Skinner says:
    December 3, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    Stephen, the F-​​15C/​D pro­duc­tion line closed in 1985. About 1/​3 of the F-​​15 fleet are newer F-​​15Es (pro­duced since 1986.) To say that most of the F-​​15 fleet is much younger than 25 years is some­what inac­cu­rate. The newest F-​​15C/​D is about 21 years old, and most are older. The F-​​15 has been under flight maneu­ver restric­tions for close to 10 years due to fatigue prob­lems around the hor­i­zon­tal sta­bi­liz­ers, and now this prob­lem comes up.
    I don’t think there’s any con­spir­acy here to ground the F-​​15 to jus­tify more F-​​22s — we’re just see­ing oppor­tunism in using a real prob­lem with the F-​​15 to try to win sup­port for more F-​​22s. There’s not even any­thing sleazy about that — it’s just smart polit­i­cal maneuvering.

    Reply
  5. andrew says:
    December 3, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Does it shock any­one that Loren is push­ing for more F-​​22s given that he is paid by Lockheed as a con­sul­tant for issues like that What does sur­prise me is that few peo­ple in teh press ever call him out of the very clear con­flict of interest.

    Reply
  6. DC2 Jennings says:
    December 3, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Regardless of the rea­sons, we should be pro­duc­ing more F-​​22s. The ques­tion is where the money comes from.
    I think it is very adven­t­a­geous of the Air Force to push this issue that has been devel­op­ing for some time. They can show valid­ity to their com­plaints for the past few years in try­ing to get more than 180 F-​​22s.
    DC2

    Reply
  7. doc75 says:
    December 3, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    How much of the orig­i­nal “require­ment” for 182 F-​​22s (which is only a frac­tion of the Air Force’s actual require­ment) was based on hav­ing F-​​15s to aug­ment? Currently, wings that fly the F-​​22 con­sist of two F-​​22 squadrons and one F-​​15 squadron. Sounds to me like some­one (OSD?) was expect­ing Eagles to last longer than antic­i­pated. Stephen Trimble argues that “fight­ers encounter struc­tural issues all the time.” That’s true up until a point. A for­ward fuse­lage sep­a­ra­tion in flight is more seri­ous than find­ing cracks in an inspec­tion that could lead to a fail­ure within sev­eral hun­dred flight hours. There are many more options in the later case to alle­vi­ate the struc­tural issues.

    Reply
  8. AK says:
    December 3, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    I still don’t get why peo­ple *don’t* want to keep f-​​22 pro­duc­tion going. Think 20–30 years ahead, not the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion. At some point either for fatigue life or improved poten­tial adver­saries the f-​​15 needs replac­ing. The replace­ment is already here fly­ing.
    And let japan have some, pos­si­bly US assem­bled only. At such low rates of pro­duc­tion as the f-​​22 has, wouldn’t sell­ing even 50 more be a huge boost to the pro­gram viability?

    Reply
  9. Emastro says:
    December 3, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    How about if Congress makes the USAF buy 200 or so F18E/F’s– they are about half the cost of the F22– That’ll fix ‘em

    Reply
  10. C-Low says:
    December 3, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    “we can debate the mer­its of the planes and the proper num­ber. But to shoe­horn more of them into the inven­tory by cyn­i­cally ground­ing the fleet they’re to replace as a pub­lic rela­tions ploy to make a bet­ter case, if true, is dis­ap­point­ing.“
    Agreed
    I would call myself a strong sup­porter of the F-​​22 and why it should be the replace­ment of the F-​​15 i.e. num­bers that can actu­ally REPLACE the F-​​15 fleet as they stand down.
    But this gives a impres­sion of weak­ness in our argument.

    Reply
  11. Nessuno says:
    December 3, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    I think a lot of Air Force detrac­tors are cor­rect to point out that we prob­a­bly don’t need as many air­planes as they think we do.
    BUT…
    To me the biggest issue is keep­ing the pro­duc­tion line open as long as pos­si­ble. It is utterly insane to let the lines close in 2011 when we have no idea what the threats will be 10, 20, or 30 years from now.
    The F-​​22 is pos­si­bly the best air­plane that will be pro­duced in that time frame, so why on earth let it go out of production?

    Reply
  12. Chris says:
    December 4, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    This is SOP for the Sir Force when they

    Reply
  13. Chuckle says:
    December 4, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    http://​www​.air​force​times​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​0​7​/​1​1​/​a​i​r​f​o​r​c​e​_​r​a​p​t​o​r​_​r​u​s​t​_​0​7​1​1​1​2w/
    to quote:
    Leaky fuse­lage access pan­els at the top of the jet are lead­ing to cor­ro­sion issues in many of the planes. Also, prob­lems with the plane

    Reply
  14. scott says:
    January 13, 2008 at 11:32 am

    The F-​​15C/​D should be capa­ble of remain­ing in ser­vice until 2020–30 time range. It will go long before that because UAVs in the air-​​to-​​air role will make manned fight­ers about as use­ful as a tail­gun­ner.
    for the life cycle issue,
    http://​www​.glob​alse​cu​rity​.org/​m​i​l​i​t​a​r​y​/​s​y​s​t​e​m​s​/​a​i​r​c​r​a​f​t​/​f​-​1​5​-​l​i​f​e​.​htm

    Reply
  15. GuildWars Gold says:
    August 11, 2008 at 7:11 pm

    Initial con­tact this game, I did not very like. Since find good rea­son to release point, I also began to like it. Every day after work, I always go to play this game. Perhaps lit­tle girls will like me, in order to give went to all I like it. I dull play­ing a few weeks, very few speak to peo­ple and I have 26 lev­els and also I earn a lit­tle GuildWars Gold.

    Reply
  16. goonzu money says:
    August 11, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    So I decided to closed my own heart, I played lonely, I gave up to find, put aside feel­ing. I upgrade, take account and earn goonzu money a per­son. I live a lit­tle good; I think I have been really put aside.

    Reply
  17. rappelz gold says:
    August 11, 2008 at 7:18 pm

    I rec­og­nized her is an occa­sional, When I was just upgrade and earn rap­pelz gold. She also just through, and she is a new player, she saw me my num­ber is high. So she asked me how to play. And I said I was a bad peo­ple, I asked if did you not heard in this game. She said she heard, but she did not believe. I smiled. So I took her to play, I told her how to play, how to upgrade.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "Now please tell me where in the Bible Jesus or his disciples...
      DualityOfMan
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage