An excellent piece today from Josh Partlow at the Washington Post…looks like the F-15 problems are getting worse…And USA Today reported a couple days ago that the Pentagon’s comptroller Tina Jonas put the breaks on shutting down the F-22 line.
From the Saturday Post:
Air Force inspectors have discovered major structural flaws in eight older-model F-15 fighters, sparking a new round of examinations that could ground all of the older jets into January or beyond, senior Air Force and defense officials said…
…Current and former Air Force officials said that the grounding of the F-15s — on average 25 years old — is the longest that U.S. fighter jets have ever been kept out of the air. Even if the jets are cleared for flight, they add, it could take six months to get the pilots and aircraft back to their normal status…
…The disclosure of the cracks comes amid intense Air Force lobbying for the purchase of additional new fighter jets. The Air Force wants to replace its aging F-15s with 200 more F-22 Raptors beyond the 183 already approved by Congress and the Defense Department. Senior Defense Department officials have not agreed that the additional planes are needed or supported their purchase. The F-22s, which cost $132 million each, are manufactured by Lockheed Martin, a Bethesda-based firm…
And our boy Winslow Wheeler, who doesn’t suffer fools, has a perfectly reasonable solution: fix ‘em.
…Some outside analysts have said that the F-15 problems can be fixed and that the extra F-22s are unnecessary. “I don’t suspect that the Air Force is lying when it says it has discovered stress fractures in the longerons of the F-15s,” said Winslow Wheeler, an expert at the Center for Defense Information and a longtime opponent of purchasing additional F-22s. “But there’s no big deal about that. Fix it.”
Wheeler said Congress should look into the F-15 issue. In another prominent case, involving refueling tankers, several independent study panels concluded that the Air Force had exaggerated the structural consequences of aging for older planes so that it could make a better case for leasing new ones.
Air Force photos of the damaged beams show clearly visible cracks toward the rear of the fighters’ cockpits. Photos and drawings provided to The Washington Post show cracks in similar locations on both sides of the planes and that the F-15 that crashed had undetected damage behind the cockpit.
– Christian
Cole– your response to the Creech quote clearly illustrates part of the problem and mistrust of many outside the USAF. Clearly the AF supports the ground fighters and joint campaign objectives. Aint that what the F-16 and A-10 do? Yes,there is a predisposition to air to air in the AF, but without control of the air A-10’s become junk littering the battlefield. So in the end aining air dominace is paramount. And gaing that needs a dedicated air to air aircraft, which for the last 25 years has been the F-15. Furthermore it makes sense to make it a dedicated air to air weapon, so that it does that job superbly, agin if air control cant be gained ground attack isnt going to happen.
As a ground pounder comparison, would it make sense to equip a M-1 with a SAM system? Does the fact that the M-1 isnt so equiped show that the Army doesnt support the AF and joint campaign objectives? No. It just shows that the M-1 is damn good at one thing, killing other tanks. Much in the same way the F-15 is damn good at killing other aircraft.
> Pilots can fly an air supremacy UAV from the ground, sans the g-forces
The problem here is how do you maintain contact between satellite and the UAV during the high-g manouvers? How many antennas will be needed? and how much band width? A ground controlled UAV also has its shortfalls.
> But being an ace on the ground isn
DC2,
Agree with most of what you say, but I’m surprised you would think that the F-22 could be modified cheaply (or at all) to be launched from carriers.…which is your implication if you suggest abandoning F-35. And of course there would be no Marine VTOL version (which might be good given the Harrier crash record).
Plus, thought Congress decided against foreign military sales of F-22, and most other countries couldn’t afford it anyway, nor can we afford a crashed one to get into the wrong guy’s hands.
Seems like thousands of F-35s sold to many countries creates economies of scale far superior to a couple of hundred F-22s. Don’t know why Brian etc. think 183 F-22s is a small unsustainable numbers when we have 20 B-2s, which really must create logistic challenges.
As an aside, DC2, just got my annual Social Security future benefits letter and it mentioned not having problems until 2043 which will be OK by me since I doubt I will be around then. ; )
Cole,
I am not saying the F-22 should in any way be launched from a carrier. The F-18E/F does a superb job right now. I have posted about this many times. I don’t think the Navy needs the F-35 and I don’t think the Marines need VSTOL. They can do just as well, even better, launching F-18s from a carrier or land base. And because of the reduction in Navy aircraft, there will always be Marine squadrons deployed on carriers. And as a footnote, the Marines want to go all VSTOL in their F-35 purchase. So if they deploy on carriers a whole new doctrine will need to be developed so that CTOL and VSTOL aircraft can operate together on the flight deck.
Congress has voted against F-22 sales, just as they are wrangling over what to provide our JSF partners. In fact, a lot of countries that have contributed to this partnership are rethinking their needs. Australia just bought F-18E/Fs as a stopgap measure due to JSF delays.
We are currently having issues with B-2 parts availability just as we have had issues with F-117s. Because of the low number purchased, they are becoming harder to maintain. Think about it, what company is going to supply parts (even routine maintenance parts) to support 20 aircraft. And if they did, the price would be outrageous. The same will hold true for the F-22 once production stops in the next couple of years. We need to at least double the number of these aircraft we plan to buy. As a result, we should scrap the JSF totally and have the Air Force buy F-16 Block 60s. The cost savings in the F-16 purchase would pay for more F-22s.
And as an aside to you, I will be 5 years into social security in 2043. It might not matter to you but it matters to me. This mentaility is why we don’t have a problem with our kids inheriting the deficits we are currently creating.
DC2
NTV, the first THAAD will field in FY09 with a second a year later. Should help protect key airbases. SLAMRAAM is funded for a battery in 09 and a battalion in FY11 which should help protect A-10s flying CAS.
Of course C-RAM is already protecting 7 FOBs/airfields as is JLENS and Sentinel. Avengers are a plenty, as are Patriots with missile upgrades coming now that it was merged with MEADS.
So the services have air, ground, and sea air dominance capabilities. This allows risk in numbers of air superiority aircraft that have superior everything and therefore don’t need excessive numbers.
The early F-15s are 25 years old.…not the F-15E. The Apache and Blackhawk both will be around until 2025+ making some of them nearly 45. How old is that BUFF, Chinook, and outgoing CH-46?
If you argue for different stresses on fighters, then you don’t comprehend the aggressive flying occurring in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the many more take-offs/landing to field sites with plenty of brown-out dust wearing components. I can only imagine it given a year of Sinai flying.
I will also argue to spend the money to make a secure data link during UCAV jinking. Since the latter would almost never fly agressively outside of combat…using simulator training instead…so UCAV could last much longer.
Cole, your
RE: We should all accept equal risk so that one service is not suffering disproportionate casualties? As I read and re-read that statement, it would mean that you believe that because the Army (to date) has not been able to lower the risk of the individual infantryman everybody else should live a little more recklessly so they will unnecessarily incur more losses? Sorry, but that sentiment is so manifestly stupid (and I know you are NOT stupid) that I am certain you must want to take it back or rephrase it.“
Yeah it was stupidly worded. The point is that survival and combat effectiveness requires money. The Air Force gets more money. We cited earlier that a stealth fighter was funded while a stealth helicopter costing a fourth as much was not.
While I in no way want to downplay the sacrifices of every serviceman serving…wherever they serve, the fact remains that the Army/Marines are bearing the overwhelming brunt of casualties and deployments in combat zones.
Remember that cost figure for fighter versus helicopter? In Afghanistan, I note that a full 15 of 29 Air Force deaths occurred in helicopter crashes or shoot downs. I note 3161 Army deaths and 1012 Marine deaths in both Iraq/Afghanistan compared to only 75 Air Force deaths. I do applaud those Airmen volunteers. The death toll of 15 for them in 2007 equals the totals for 2006/2005 combined indicating the greater risk they volunteered for.…and as you can guess, most are enlisted men killed by IED attacks. They were for the most part not officers who died because the aircraft they were flying was shot down or crashed.
So forgive me if I make snide comments when I hear the USAF whining that it needs excessive quantities of the absolute best equipment to survive/thrive on the battlefield.…because those costs directly subtract from monies available to help other ground servicemen survive/thrive.
That was my point…for now.
RE air dominance:1. yes, I can name one. The 1967 Arab-Israeli Wars was a clear case of airpower as the dominant force. It would have repeated itself in
“Part of the reason for purchasing more F-22s is that it will drive costs down, both now and later on. If we only purchase 183 Raptors, we’ll have a pricey, boutique fighter with expensive repair needs. The more we purchase, the cheaper they will be to maintain and operate, and thus, the longer we can field them into the future.“
Drive costs down?? By doubling the purchase? Sure you amortize the R&D– but the F22 will still be way over $100 million a plane.
In ten years (if that’s as long as the F15’s will last) we can always buy F35’s (if they don’t cost $100 million plus) or F18’s or something else. We probably will be moving towards UAV’s
I don’t want to bring back Turkey’s or Greece’s f4’S– my point is why can F4’s last 40 years but not F15’s?
Cole, I think you missed my point. I realize the Army has SAM capability, but the waepons you listed THAAD, SLAMRAAM, C-RAM, etc are all standalone single purpose weapons. Much like the F-15v was designed, single purpose. So while the Army has SAM capability they didnt put that capability on the M-1? Why because they didnt want to make the M-1 less capable as a tank killer and in exchange give it some SAM capability. The same goes for an original F-15 the AF didnt want to sacrifice Air to Air capability for some air to ground capability.
AS for stress’s, I didnt bring them into the discussion.
The problem with UAV’s is that they need to be autonmus, or have some human controler. If they are controlled by humans then you run into problem during manuvering during air combat. How do you keep the UAV in contact when its juking and jiving? The UAV will have to have a large number of ending and reciving antennas so that communication can be maintained during the continous manuvering.
Lastly, large number of UCAV’s controlled from the ground will use exstensive band width. This could lead to not being able to operate in an area because of a bandwidth shortage to losing communication from jaming or loss of the satallite.
Now, granted, some of this could be overcome, but in what time line and a what expense? I would suspect, that problems like this are why the AF is going slower on UCAV’s than people want them to.
NTV et all,
I hear ya, but the Army did have the M6 Linebacker that had Stingers mounted on the Bradley…until they removed them in 2006? The Army is also developing the Mid Range Munition that may potentially have an anti-helicopter capability, fired from a 120 mm main gun.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/digits/120MRM.htm
To all, apologize for playing the “whine” and casualty card in my last post. Purple fast movers are essential, and recognize the need for air supremacy, but perhaps you boys will admit that history indicates a major part of that supremacy is catching bad guy air on the ground and keeping them on the ground, or running for cover. Not sure you need more the 183 F-22s, 234 F-15Es, lots of F-16s and F-35s, and a few B-2s and more B-1s to do that, and read that the Chinese jets aren’t impressive.
Also admit to semi-idolizing the C-17, writing a 1991 Armor magazine article about it and the need for lighter Army forces and sending said article to the multiple O-6 PMs of the various tank-sized armored vehicles they wanted to build back then. Heck, the article even criticized Sec of Defense Cheney for limiting the C-17 buy to 120, which fortunately was changed later.
Sounds like you guys probably will end up with more F-22s since I read Congressman Murtha has stated as much. Other things he has said lead me to wonder if the future Army procurement will be the bill-payer.…which is my main fear.
BTW, SMSgt Mac, I read that German historians include the night bombing of Britain from Sept 1940-May 1941 as part of the Battle of Britain. That bombing killed upwards of 43,000 civilians and leveled a million Brit homes, and buzz bombs and V2 rockets later killed another nearly 9,000. British historians focus prior to Sept 1940 when the Spitfires/Hurricanes, as you point out, deterred further daylight bombing…with relatively few aircraft that were equal but by no means superior. ; ) The fact that Brit fighters had more difficulty with German bombers at night corresponds to the reality that threat aircraft would have a hard time shooting USAF aircraft down at night given our stealth, superior radars, and night vision systems.
Thanks for serving no matter what branch you serve/served in.
Well this has been a very interesting topic and I am glad there are others that are concerned. China is no longer backward China, they have 400 SU-27/30’s that are equal or better than any F-15 we have. They are producing the J-10 which is probably better than the latest F-16s we have. They also have thousands of other fighters and have retired most of the obsolete aircraft. During the money drain that is the Iraqi war China has sped forward and are well on their way to becoming the next superpower.
Russia is also rising again and they too are throwing money around, also keep in mind most of their fleet of aircraft did not undergo high flying hours in the 90s and 200s and are in good shape. THey are upgrading everything now.
183 F-22s is not much at all, there needs to be a few hundred more to ensure air supremacy against a nation like China. 183 means only around 100 can be devoted to any one conflict. This money drain that is Iraq needs to stop so we can replenish the military and prepare for future challenges. We cannot afford to kill new equipment acquisitions to pay for an unnecessary war. Right now the USAD is looking at 183 F-22s and maybe 1000 F-35s (yes that 1763 number will drop way down). I think the solution of F_16 block 60s also is a good one and an affordable one.
ok i know this is off the subject. but i am looking for air force insgina form 1967. if anyone can help me please email me at danceqwueen@yahoo.com
thanks
ok i know this is off the subject. but i am looking for air force insgina form 1967. if anyone can help me please email me at danceqwueen@yahoo.com
thanks
In the Beach City is such fearfulness, I am owning many Archlord money in my pocket.
Excuse me. We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us.
Sadler.
I am from Romania and also now am reading in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “If you suffer from the condition known as hyperhidrosis or excessive sweating, then you should really begin by talking to your doctor about the remaining options.“
Thank