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
{ 65 comments… read them below or add one }
Roy, let me guess, you just learned that phrase and now you can’t go 5 sentences without saying it.
Why on Earth would we need to replace every single plane in our inventory with something newer and sexier? We’re involved in not one, but, two low-intensity conflicts and we get even get our forces to focus on that. We have a Navy that wants billions for new destroyers that were designed for a war that doesn’t exist. We have an Air Force that seems to be convinced we’ll be fighting some future war with China instead of getting craft that support the troops in the current war. We have an Army that refuses to field new rifles( Sir, the 5.56 doesn’t have enough stopping power, well, private, you need to shoot them more times). Our procurement procedure is run by a Congress that’s more concerned with making money in their districts(and their own pockets) than serving the military’s real needs. Finally, we have a Marine Corps that doesn’t seem to get much at all. Don’t even get me started on the whole tanker controversy, honestly, how freaking hard is it to find a decent commercial aircraft and slap refueling gear in it, we’re not taking the damn thing to the moon we just need to refuel some planes in the air. Remeber folks, this is the same Air Force that wants to shelve the A-10 at every oppurtunity, even though in today’s conflicts, is one of our most important aircraft.
“Fix it”. I like that. You know how people who fly old commercial jets that start to fall apart in flight “fix it”? They turn them into razor blades and buy new ones as opposed to spending absurd time and money trying to fix 30 year old planes one catastrophic flaw at a time.
irtusk,
Seriously,we’ve known for how long that our air fleet was falling apart? From Cheney to the present,none of our Secretaries of Defense tried to do anything to make sure our aircraft were properly maintained.If you say that the increased flight time since 2001 & the GWOT contributed to the deterioration,then I counter with “Rumsfeld should have seen it coming & done something about it.” Soldiers for the Truth is saying that we’ll have to retire 300 fighter aircraft & we’ll only replace a fraction of that with F-22s & F-35s.Poland,Israel,Greece,Turkey,& the UAE are getting brand new Block 50 Plus/52 Plus/60 F-16s & we are letting our own degrade.The same goes with brand new F-15E Strike Eagles going to South Korea,Singapore,Saudi Arabia,& Israel,but we are doing nothing with our own fleet.To Steve I say that as long as we are going to defend Taiwan,South Korea,& Japan,that we have no choice but to plan for a possible war with China & their new Su-30 & J-10 fighter aircraft.Since this is about the F-15s I’ll stop right there,because I could write a book about whats wrong with the Air Force & our other armed services.I see our nation just fading away & it honestly scares me.
Oh crap,I forgot to mention to poisoned cough syrup.
Roy, i wasn’t commenting on the content of your post, i was commenting on your need to use your favorite phrase in every single frickin post, we get it already
now i’ll comment on the content of your post:
we do have a plan to replace all those planes, it’s called the F-35
it might be a little slow coming, but it’s coming
as for why we don’t buy new build F-15s, every 1 F-15 we buy is almost 2 F-35′s we don’t buy. The F-35 is so superior it’s a waste to buy a more expensive plane that isn’t half as capable
Heh, F35′s, those are light multi-role fighters more akin to replacing the F16. So your math is invalid. Some people here are making it sound like an F15 is a flintlock. It’s still a freaking F15, still one of the world’s top fighters as is the F16. While it’s a shame we let our fleet get to this state, a lot of it can be blamed on waiting for whatever next-gen gee-whiz fighter to come out of pipe-dream stage to reality. While agree it’s important to keep ahead of the Jones’ or the Changs, we as a nation tend to ignore the big picture.
As for fix it, well, that’s seems a bit simplistic, I’m just a plumber, but, I do know anything that’s described as a longitudal spar and main load bearing structure of the airframe, isn’t something that is casually fixed.
What I personally like to see change in light of recent developments, is it may be necessary to plan ahead for this sort of thing for our next-generation aircraft. Maybe we should plan on having to do another production run after x amount of years to replacing aging aircraft. By age I refer to aging effects due to use as opposed to some date on a calendar. Let’s face it, whatever takes to the skies we’re probably going to see for the next 30 or 40 years( I’m willing to bet the B52 buries them all ;) ) I’m quite sure we’ll have the same argument then when afficianados of the elderly F35 and F22(2025 or so) are sparring over the next gen planes and their procurement woes.
1. Roger Tipton is on target,
2. Irtusk nails the fix vs buy equation and,
3. Since Winslow Wheeler’s sole claim to fame is his ‘staffer’ experience, he is manifestly NOT an expert at anything related to defense except perhaps as to how policy sausage is made.
The sinking of big bucks to SLEP the F-15s would only ensure a larger supply of QF-15s for target practice in the coming years.
You are either ‘stealth’ or you are a ‘target’. Ask the sub drivers: they’ve understood the concept for quite a while now.
I would say building more F-22A is the solution. F-15s are aging and it’s like doing a wack a mole fixing a fragile pipe were high pressure of water keeps on creating leaks one after another. You will have to replace the entire “aging” pipe, but that would be at a high price. Build more F-15s? Only if the lines of F-15s (excluding F-15E) has that capacity and still open. F-35s? It’s not going to be availible soon. Air Force should provide graphical evidence of the cracks, and that the damage is permanent if it wants F-22As, showing the cracks revealed by the ultraviolet spectrum.
Am I the only one that sees we’re being caught with our pants down and it keeps getting worse every day?
What flaws are in the F22 that will ground them 5-10-15 years from now?
We need diversity of aircraft. Make a 400 airframe buy on the F-15 to keep it in service as a second day strike/cap platform.
Kick F22 buy up to 600, with the final 100 airframes in low rate production.
Buy more F16 to get the average fleet age below 10 years.
Continue with F35 buys as planed.
Start development of follow on airframes now and keep F22 and F35 production lines open untll follow on aircraft are in full rate producton.
Or say screw it all and spend it on national healthcare when the dems take office next year…..
“But there’s no big deal about that. Fix it.”
God, well, it’s so bloody simple. Just fix it.
The F-15 is older than many of its pilots. Unlike many of those pilots, those F-15s have several hundred hours supersonic, ie at and above 650 mph. Doing ACM. In all climes and places.
They are old men and we will retire them before they hit 50. I honestly cannot see what the fuss is about the F-22. It’s a better plane. Buy it already. Critics, STFD, STFU. You had your chance, now the F22 is in production. Cry somewhere else.
Sorry,I meant retire the F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet(not the F/A-18E/F “Super Hornet”).
Vercingetorix,
I hope that you are directing that complaint to the Secretary of Defense,whose office feels that the Air Force has exactly what it needs today(as reported on Fox News’ Special Report) to fight a war,& to Congress,who decides if we buy more F-22s or not?
irtusk,
this will get me into trouble,but my “cute new phrase” was a jab at the Neo-Con “Artists” running the Pentagon & “advising” the president,that the “Gentiles(or at least this one)” were(was) getting upset over them not taking care of the troops by their(for whatever motive) not giving them proper rifles that worked & body armor that protected,& for allowing our military equipment,vehicles,aircraft,& ships to fall into disrepair.Their motives can feed a lot of conspiracy theories,but the bottom line is that the men & women of our Armed Forces are not getting taken care of.
Vercingetorix,
Our reasoning is that like Whimpy,who will gladly pay tomorrow for a hamburger today,the clamor is to retire today all of(or at least the old ones,which means “all of”) the F-15s,F-16s,F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornets(again,not the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet/EA-18G Growler,but I’m still waiting for the KA-18 Refueler),F-117s,& AV-8B Harriers for more F-22s(to add to the few we already have that have not been,or even approved to be,built yet,or for F-35 JSF that probably won’t come on line for another decade,tomorrow.Meanwhile,little Canada is protecting our airspace with their “old” CF-188(F/A-18A) Hornets.But then,I guess those airframes haven’t been as stressed out as ours have,right?
Why cant we built more F-15E’s? They are still in the air and flying fine. The current A’s-D’s are getting old and to fix them now is just patching up whats likely the beginning of many problems. I’m all for the F-22 but its not needed after the sky is swept of enemy planes. After that the F-15′s/16′s/18′s can play the support roles.
Keep the F-22 lines open in case we get some freed up money later on but built some new F-15′s and or F-16′s since they are being built still.
The F-22 and eventually the F-35 can be the spear but they dont have to be the entire sword, it’ll simply be too expensive.
F-22 is needed for full production, probably about 600 airframes, plus you need to keep the production lines up and open. The notion that we can stretch out the F-15, a 1970′s airframe, while the Chinese and the Russians race ahead with new platforms, is simply absurd.
Good Evening Folks,
A lot of commemnts here, but what is the reals issues.
The F-15′s are worn out. Even if a fix were possabble and there were no congressional hearings and all the Brass in the Pentagon agreeded and nobody tried to fight the program, the F-15 wouldn’t be back in the air for at least five years.
The fix here is a lot more then a sleeve, pop-rivets and duct tape. It’s a complete remanufacture of the airframe. What you would have in 2013 would be a remanufactured 1960′s airplane that would be like using WWI bi planes in the 1970′s, doesn’t make sense.
With 183 F-22 the U.S. has more then enough 5th. Generation fighters to meet any need since no other country has such an interceptor.
The most likely next emeny being Iran who’s top of the line fighters are 58 flyable F-14A, every F-18 jock in the fleet is licking his/her chops to bag one of the antiques, it seems that the F-22 will be under used as it is for at least a generation or even it’s entire operational life.
Lets face it the U.S.A.F. has run out of enemies. China is years away from the J-12/13 and a Russian Mig-35 or Su-39 who knows. Even if both were to be developed it would be unlikely that they would be produced in quanities anywhere near the current 183 F-22 build. It’s time to move out of the Cold War and on to the GWOT, it’s the war we got even though it may not the one we want.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
The notion that the Air Force can just “fix it” is idiotic. If there are failures occuring in one part of an airframe, it’s a pretty good bet that it’s only a matter of time before other failures start happening elsewhere. Combine that with all the other aging components on the F-15, and it’s the equivalent of keeping a 1976 Trans-Am with 350,000 miles on it as your daily commuting vehicle instead of just buying a new car.
Do we have 183 F-22s right now or are you counting F-22s that haven’t been built yet in that total?
How many “honest to God” F-22s do we have at this very moment in time? How many do we have that are in fighter squadrons right now? If we had 183 F-22s right now,then Canada wouldn’t be covering the skies protecting our nation & covering our asses right now with their “old” CF-188(F/A-118A) Hornets.Are we basing our hopes & prayers on the idea that nobody else has anything that can threaten us in the skies? My God,slap yourselves out of this fantasy that “even though we currently don’t have the assets to protect our skies,the ‘enemy’ doesn’t have anything that can threaten us right.” Remember,its the Global War on Terror,so as our president has asked of us,show your patriotism by going Christmas Shopping & stimulating the economy because George W. Bush & the Pentagon has this war all covered by themselves without “national sacrifice” needed.
Do we have 183 F-22s right now or are you counting F-22s that haven’t been built yet in that total?
How many “honest to God” F-22s do we have at this very moment in time? How many do we have that are in fighter squadrons right now?
Presently there are two squadrons of 20 aircraft each. I’m not sure if both squadrons are at 100% of airframes. A third squadron of 20 aircraft will be activated late next year.
Just keep the F-22 production line open so if needed you can build 200 or so more. A +- 400 strong F22 force plus the F-35 should be all the manned combat aircraft you will ever need.
By 2050 (yes that long) when the replacements come along they will be computer flown.
That is if the world still exists and we’re not all gone because of climate change.
I hope that I’m joking,but it would totally suck if we not only had to depend on Canada to guard our skies with their (Not a Super) Hornets,but….we had to ask Mexico to help out with their single squadron of F-5E Tiger IIs.Well,I guess it would be the beginning of the North American Union(from NAFTA),but to possibly be reduced to having F-5E Tiger IIs,from Mexico,protecting us would be a damn shame.I sure hope you guys are right about there not being an Air Force that can threaten us.Right now though,without our F-15s & with a totally insufficient number of F-22s(serving overseas right now I believe),then even “ancient,pre-historic” MiG-19s & MiG-21s,both Russian & Chinese made,could threaten us.
So open up those factories,get Rosie the Riveter on the assembly lines,& buy war bonds,because we are in worse shape right now than we were when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
And somebody please tell me who is going to stop those propeller driven Tu-95 Bears from flying over us any time they like? Ok geniuses,riddle me this,with only 2 active squadrons of F-22s,with one or both currently overseas,what do we have to stop those Tu-95 Bears? What looked totally stupid on the part of the Russians yesterday,doesn’t look so stupid today.
Never fear, Roy – there are plenty of F-16s that can be used for air defense before anybody has to call on Mexican F-5Es. The Canadian CF-18s are being called on because they’re part of the NORAD structure and are deployed in the right locations.
Okay Roy, asking about the squadrons got me digging:
27th Fighter Squadron, 1st Fighter Wing (Langley AFB, VA Active Duty) Fully Operational Capable
94th Fighter Squadron, 1st Fighter Wing (Langley AFB, VAANG) Initial Operational Capable
525th Fighter Squadron, 3rd Fighter Wing (Elmendorf AFB, AK Active Duty) Activated Oct 07
90th Fighter Squadron, 3rd Figher Wing (Elmendorf AFB, AK Active Duty) receiving F-22s since Aug 07
That’s 4 squadrons, 20 aircraft a piece. 1 operational now, the rest will probably be operational by this time next year
Good Morning Folks,
It’s time to turn the F-15′s into beer and soda cans. The are used up, like in worn out, the last fighter with aluminum skin time to hang it up.
Even if a “cheap fix” could be found and so far in all this the U.S.A.F. has been less the truthful, no one has yet proposed one. The operative question would be what mission would a “Duck Tape” patch job F-15 fly and what pilots would be willing to fly an patch up F-15, talk about a dead end career.
The more restructive operational restrictions would make the F-15 useless as a combat aircraft and assuredly keep the F-15 out of the current war zones and any future combat. That leaves DHS missions, chaseing Boeing 737′s around the country what state would want shade tree fixed up F-15′s flaying over its cities?
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
the F-15 fleet in general is far from worn out
while i don’t support buying more, it would be folly to get rid of the ones we have
OK,then we need to keep the F-22s stateside to guard our skies until we have enough to both start sending overseas & continue CONUS Air Defense.
I also thought about F-16s replacing the F-15′s Air Defense role,but they aren’t that much younger than the F-15A/B/C/Ds that are grounded.Heaven forbid,if they start finding cracks & flaws in the F-16,then we’re really up a creek without a paddle.You are depending on 4 Squadrons,80 F-22 aircraft total,to defend our skies,& they will not be able to be sent overseas to fulfill obligations over there.Putin & Russia are getting squirrelly with their Tu-95 Bears & China can use this as an excuse to finally pounce on Taiwan.God help us all if we ever need to ask Mexico to help us protect our skies(with their F-5Es).
Also,the Navy & Marine Corps will have to divert their F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F Hornet/Super Hornet aircraft from carrier duty to protecting our skies(I forgot to factor in Naval & Marine aircraft being able to protect our skies).
> I also thought about F-16s replacing the F-15′s Air Defense role,but they aren’t that much younger than the F-15A/B/C/Ds that are grounded.
yes, but they’re not grounded, so they will be used
> You are depending on 4 Squadrons,80 F-22 aircraft total,to defend our skies,& they will not be able to be sent overseas to fulfill obligations over there.
if a real threat to our skies appeared, say canada started an all-out aerial bombardment of minnetonka, rest assured the grounded F-15s would fly
in reality, there is no problem. if the planes have to fly, they will fly
however there is currently no threats serious enough so they are taking the safe and prudent course
Severely reduce the f-35A buy.
Increase the f-22 buy to 350-500+
Do whatever service life extensions to keep a suitable number of our current ‘legacy’ fighters (f-15/16/18) active. we rebuild every piece of military equipment. fix it.
And if we were really worried about our national aerospace, we could deploy any and all of the squadrons of f-18′s off the ‘off station’ aircraft carriers.
irtusk,
I’m not worried about Canada,I’m worried about a squirrelly nut like Vladimir Putin & Russia or the Chinese.Our disagreements with them cannot be compared with our disagreement with France under their previous adminisration,both Russia’s & China’s threat is far more real & serious.Iran & Ahmadinejad is to Russia & Putin what Mussolini & Italy was to Hitler & Nazi Germany.
Off-topic,but you know that Vladimir Putin is supposed to be touring the Middle East(before Bush does) & he is supposed to be making a “photo-op” visit to their lone Aircraft Carrier in the Mediterranean Sea ala Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” visit to the Lincoln Aircraft Carrier.Now I know that the Russian Carrier might as well be the “Elbonian” Aircraft Carrier out of Dilbert,but someone who goes through all of that trouble to make a high profile public appearance on the “S.S. Minnow” Aircraft Carrier “Cruiser” just ain’t right(in the head),if you know what I mean.
Good Morning Folks,
Well it seems that the first fallout of the F-15 groundings has happened. The boys in light blue have decided to throw overboard 852 Lt’s. (01′s and 02′s) and reassing senior to make due jobs, most with flight pay until retirement.
Letting the old eat the young, that a tradition that the U.S.A.F. may regret in the future. The he** with the defense of the country and the future of the AF, save those retirement checks.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Seems like most people here are drinking the Air Force’s kool-aid. This is all a ploy to justify more F-22s. Simple and plain.
I think it is interesting. I read the comments of the arm-chair “EXPERTS” and want the vomit. Have any of you even bothered to review the design criteria for the F-15. I would bet Congress hasn’t either. The maximum design life of the original design was projected at 10 to 12 years of non-combat use, and no more than 7 to eight years of high g manuvering. These airframes have 2 to 3 times the original design life. It is time to retire them. It makes no difference whither they are replaced with new build F-15 airframes or the F-22. Continuing to fly our current F-15 fleet should be considered criminal. Given the cost/performance differences, the F-22 would be the better choice. However, even with the greater performance of the F-22, we require greater numbers than currently projected by either the Air Force or Congress.
Another example of irrational thinking involves the F-35. We need it to replace the Lawn Dart F-16s. Granted there have been examples of modified F-16s produced and flown, but they were one-off designs that went nowhere. They would have improved the bird and would have extended its life, but since they weren’t bought, the necessary jigs have been destroyed. The problem does not lay with the technology as it is developed. Rather it is in the perception of the public, in general, and Congressional desire to buy votes with ear-marks and public programs that do not mesh with their primary responciblity. national Defense. And its our fault. And it is the fault of the liberal “Can’t we all just get along?” media that they are able to get away with it. The politicians won’t buy new equipment unless the performance is signifigantly greater than what we currently have. Unfortunately, that increases cost! If Congress would replace our equipment before it is hopelessly outclassed, the cost differances between generations would be signifigantly less and we would be better able to meet our commitments. But that isn’t the way this country works anymore. Congress ignores history, and that is why we keep repeating it.
Any fighter designed for only 10-12 years and 7-8 years of high g maneuvering is an excellent argument for UCAV and standoff missiles like AMRAAM, and improved simulator design (to include g-loads) for air-to-air combat. If we are flying at night to exploit our stealth, how will we fight visual close-in air-to-air anyway?
We can’t afford to replace fighters every 12 years. Period end of story.
I thought the LANTIRN on the F-16 worked just fine? We read elsewhere about the Super Hornet F-18 and JAMMING aircraft…the alternative to costly stealth that the Israelis and Navy seem to understand? Why do you need stealth when you can lob bombs from miles away and 20,000′ to support front line troops? Can you live with fewer F-22s and JSF until you perfect unmanned aircraft?
Years ago, Army aviators got caught up in a perceived responSibility for air-to-air combat training. What was ignored was the overwhelming advantage we have in pure numbers, training, armament, sensors, and other platforms that can shoot down aircraft. I would argue that the Air Force can live with signifiCantly fewer air superiority aircraft because the Cold War threat isn’t there anymore.
China/Taiwan ignores the reality that China needs us more as a trading partner than it needs Taiwan.
Merry Christmas to fellow armed-chair quarterbacks everywhere and to fellow Army aviators doing yeoman’s work supporting even more valiant Soldiers/Marines on the ground while we sit safely in our homes…and at 20,000′ or flying UAVs out of Nevada.
the f-15 is supposed to be replaced by the f-22 and the f-35 but if the f-15 is grounded we will not be able to sell the f-15 to other countries to make money and if the air force doesn’t get enough money then they will not be able to make new f-22 and f-35 aircraft.
the f-15 is supposed to be replaced by the f-22 and the f-35 but if the f-15 is grounded we will not be able to sell the f-15 to other countries to make money and if the air force doesn’t get enough money then they will not be able to make new f-22 and f-35 aircraft.But the f-15 has not been grounded yet so right now we are doing all right.
RE:
“Any fighter designed for only 10-12 years and 7-8 years of high g maneuvering is an excellent argument for UCAV ……We can’t afford to replace fighters every 12 years. Period end of story.”
The original comment was 12 years peacetime with ADDITIONAL 7-8 years of combat. For a design life of 20 years or so. That has been the historical basis used for planning design life since about 1968-1970. We are now using 25-30 years planning factors in design. UCAVs are being designed to the same service life criteria: no advantage there – UCAVs are not throwaways.
Excellent arguments but I do have this one question…Why is it that the push is always for additional F-22′s and not to acquire modernized F-15′s? I know nothing about the air side of things so bear with me, but from my armchair, an F-15 with the latest AESA, engines and avionics (taken straight from the F-22 but applied to this warbird) would be a match for the latest fighter scheduled or projected to come from threat countries. The F-15 line is still open and it would seem a rather straight forward upgrade/buildup. Additionally with these new builds being all E class or better fighters, the deep strike mission will be enhanced.
Some good comments.
IMHO the reason America needs more F-22′s than it really “needs” is to maintain some kind of detterent by being able to counter any threat – real or perceived.
Thats the price you have to pay for being the sole superpower – in order to stop potential challengers, you need more than you will really use in a realistic scenario.
We need a bigger F22 fleet so that when half of it is grounded in 2025 with no immediate follow on, the have that is still flying is enough to get the job done.
We’d be screwed if the F-15Es were gronded now.
Some will say we’re not in a big war, but maybe the enemy is just waiting to catch us with our pants down, eh?
I have been doing a little lurking on this site for the past few weeks. Not doing much posting but this is still one of my favorite and hot topics right now.
I agree with Cole on a number of aspects he brings up and it really reflects on what MAC focuses so much on. We are talking about overall dollars here and how taking money to fund one program will take away from other programs from other services.
We need more F-22s just for attitions sake as well as a reduction in maintenance costs. What we do not need is the JSF, which is a drum I have been beating over and over again on this site. The F-22 can do all the SEAD/DEAD that needs to be done just like Cole indicated. From there, you only need 4th or 4.5 generation aircraft to do the job. We do not need and cannot afford two 5th generation aircraft, even for the Navy and Marines to be a part of. Buy more F-16s, even the UAE Block 60 version, they will do the same job as the bomb truck JSF.
Cole brings up a good point about what the Army currently has to field, but that is also being done to support a war and recapitalization of the equipment being used up over there. The Marines have been doing the same for a lot longer and with amazing results. They are just now getting new generation systems like the V-22 to replace very old helicopters.
MAC, if we had an infinite budget we could do a lot of things and I have said this before too. But we don’t so we need to prioritize and realize the constraints we operate under.
I would love for my Navy to have 16 aircraft carriers again, but instead we have to rely on the surge doctrine. I would love to have all of my squadrons on a carrier to be Navy, but we have to augment this force with Marine squadrons due to the amount of aircraft we can afford to operate.
And you can talk about increasing the military budget all you want but nobody is going to support the tax increase that would be necessary for that to happen. Or would you rather get rid of the entitlement programs like social security instead? Because Defense and Entitlements are the largest part of our budget.
DC2
According the the Air Force website the following flyaway unit costs should actually apply:
F-15C 1998 dollars cost $29.9M and would cost approximately $40M in 2007 dollars.
F-16C 1998 dollars cost $18.8M and would cost approximately $25M in 2007 dollars.
F-22 costs $159.9M today.
And it isn’t a matter of interservice rivalries. It is a matter of budget dollars. And even within the Air Force needs, there are other aircraft they have to purchase as well. These guys are now relying on supplemental appropriations to purchase the aircraft they need or manufacturers lobby for, the C-17 is a prime example.
DC2
RE:
“and the cost of purchasing another is only marginally higher than buying another Eagle”
I’m sure it is- I’m also pretty sure that welding some titanium- or heck- steel braces in the F-15 should cost only 5-6 figures a plane (triple that in Pentagon numbers)
If we have to scrap the F15 when nearly a thousand F4′s are still flying in Greece, Turkey, Japan, etc- I’ll join Greenpeace.
Emas, you wanna be Greece or Turkey? I thought not.
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.
Yes, many of the uses we’ll have for our aircraft will be counter-insurgency like we’re seeing today. You could equip a piper cub with the tools necessary to do many of these tasks. But we should not gauge our air power needs on our least technologically advanced enemies. Hell, Grant’s Union army could do a fairly good job against most of the insurgents we now face, that doesn’t mean that we need to dial back the clock to 1863 on our Army gear.
F-15 repairs will not add much to their service life. They’ll still be old, they’ll still need replaced, and they’ll still be gradually surpassed by newer, better fighters. Spend the money on the F-22 NOW. Even if you repair every grounded Eagle, you’ll still need a new plane in 10 years. We have a new one today that is currently being produced. The math seems easy to me.
DC2: My understanding is that those F-15 costs are not accurate. That is what we may have spent for them upon initial purchase, but it is not the cost that would be required once production is restarted. F-22 fly-away cost is totally dependant on how many more are purchased. Some estimates from the Air Force web site indicate that fly-away costs could drop to $116 million if we purchase an additional 100 aircraft.
Very impressive SMSgtMac,
RE: First, Not all F-15s are created equal. F-15Es are primarily air-to-mud with secondary capabilities as a
Brian, I got those costs from the Air Force website. But my point is more towards the need for more F-22s which you and MAC agree with (and Cole obviously does not). However, there needs to be a tradeoff in the process. I personally think the JSF is completely useless (redundant), especially with the ground capabilities the F-22 now has. MAC said it best when he indicated this aircraft will not be used for air dominance, it will be used as a bomb truck with some air to air capability. I fully support ditching this aircraft in favor of F-16 Block 60s. They may not last long in an IADS environment but that is why we have F-22s, B-2s, Tomahawks/ALCMs, UAVs, and soon JASSM. You have the F-16 and A-10 to work in lower threat environments such as what we face right now or actually on the battlefield where CAS is more important than stealth.
I agree with MAC on the defense spending vs. GDP issue. However, we are in a deficit right now and will be looking at social security insolvency really soon. Just like there needs to be an interservice tradeoff on systems, there is the same throughout the government. If the people of this country are willing to pay more in taxes (like that will happen) then anything is possible. Heck, we could all have our cake and eat it too. My Navy would have a shipborne fix wing ASW platform again, 16 carriers, 600 ships, and would be doing normal deployments with their own aircraft on board the carriers. We would even have a few more state of the art subs.
The honest truth is the Army/Marines are bearing the brunt of this war we are currently in. They need the money and resources more than the Navy/Air Force. But we cannot let any of the branches fall behind to support another. There are tradeoffs that must be made, especially with our military systems getting older.
The Army lost the Comanche in favor of a far less capable ARH-70 (I personally would prefer a version of the AH-1 based on the original light attack design). The Navy lost a ton of aircraft and ships with time left on their hulls. The Air Force has just gotten old. The Marines have always done more with less (as a sailor it takes a lot for me to type those words).
But we also have to look at our shortcomings and how they can be fixed. One of those that face us right now is the age of Air Force aircraft and how they will be recapitalized.
DC2
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.
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 :-D Sadler.