Posted on 04/03/2007 3:24:24 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
U.S. Air Force pilots are flying planes so old that some were built during the Eisenhower administration, and still Congress is delaying new appropriations to modernize America's aging fighters, bombers and other military aircraft.
The average age of today's Air Force fleet is 24 years.
Big B-52 bombers, which played a critical role in America's recent efforts to liberate Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan, are over 45 years old.
Worse, many of these bombers rely on KC-135 aerial refueling tankers that are equally as old.
Add to the mix, the U.S. military critically depends on C-130 cargo planes for rapid deployment. Yet these planes -- many built at least 25 years ago - are crippled by serious wing cracks and have been grounded or restricted in the loads they can deliver. Giant tank-carrying C-5A cargo aircraft - about 35 years old - are also parked on runways owing to heavy maintenance requirements.
The bottom line: The United States is fighting the war on terror with an old and rapidly aging Air Force warplane inventory - and there is no quick cure in sight.
The results can be catastrophic.
In 2002, Maj. James Duricy was killed after ejecting from his F-15 when the warplane lost part of its tail while flying over the Gulf of Mexico. The F-15 was about 30 years old. An investigation showed that part of the old aircraft's internal structure had corroded. Eventually, the vertical stabilizers had to be replaced on almost half of the U.S. Air Force's F-15 fleet.
The heroic Duricy was a victim of what military experts call the "weapon systems procurement holidays of the 1990s" – when the U.S. government took advantage of the end of the Cold War, called it a "peace dividend" and didn't appropriate the necessary funds to modernize its aging fleet of military planes.
And the procurement curve of new hardware, particularly in the fighter department, cannot keep up.
According to a recent report in Air Force Magazine, even if the Air Force gets all the new fighters on its wish list - 381 F-22 Raptors and 1,763 F-35 Lightning IIs - for decades it will still have to rely on a record number of older fighters to meet the contingencies of national defense. By sheer necessity, the USAF must lengthen the service lives of its 1980s-vintage fighters - F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s - with substantial structural changes and new state-of-the-art black boxes.
We are not talking about squeezing two or three more years out of the aging fleet, but keeping some of the refurbished warplanes serving until the 2030s - meaning pilots could then be flying jets 50 years old or even older.
But it's one thing to burn through taxpayer dollars to keep vital, albeit old, warplanes in the air - and another to simply toss good money after bad on planes that will not fly.
So argues U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., a member of the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee.
The lawmaker says the Air Force reported spending about $4 million daily and $1.7 billion annually to maintain 330 aircraft "they can't use and are not planning to use."
Included are a mix of ancient KC-135 tankers, C-130 air lifters, F-117 fighters, U-2 reconnaissance planes, and C-5As.
It's not the Air Force brass's idea to nurse along this old iron. Restrictions on retiring the nation's oldest aircraft are written into law -- thanks to some members of Congress who worried that deep-sixing the planes would make bases in their district or state targets for the dreaded base closing process.
Predictably, the old aircraft also provide lucrative jobs for defense contractors.
U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., for instance, lobbies hard for continuation of the effort to modernize the oldest C-5s, which is performed at a Georgia-based Lockheed Martin Corp. factory. The price tag for upgrading each C-5 is about $75 million.
In another example of parochial interests perhaps overriding the big picture, Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee chairwoman Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., has urged retention of the C-5s based at Travis Air Force Base in her district.
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., the ranking member of the Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, has been the most vocal proponent of letting the Air Force manage its own inventory of warplanes.
"Congress has been micromanaging the Air Force," the lawmaker argues. "Several provisions in the 2007 defense authorization law bar the Air Force from getting rid of old planes.
"One requires the service to have a total of 299 C-5s and C-17s available at all times. The Air Force is also prohibited from retiring more than 29 KC-130Es in 2007 and must maintain tankers and F-117A fighters retired after Sept. 30, 2006, ‘in a condition which would allow recall to future service.' These provisions tie up parts that could be used to repair planes in better working order. They also force maintenance crews to care for aircraft that will never fly again." Akin endorses the straightforward plea of Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, the military deputy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, who recently told lawmakers: "We would like permission, as the other services have, to manage our fleet."
In the meantime, the embattled Air Force has had to resort to self-help. According to Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, the service will be downsizing the number of its personnel so it can afford to invest in newer aircraft. On the boards: a plan to cut the ranks by 57,500 airmen by 2011.
The savings from the force reduction will be invested in new aircraft, said Carlson, who explained: "We simply have to recapitalize the fleet to be ready to fight the next war."
Why the drastic measures? The answer can be easily gleaned from some dire numbers.
Today, more than 800 aircraft - 14 percent of the fleet - are grounded or operating under restricted flying conditions. This fact has had an impact on overall combat readiness, which has declined by 17 percent, according to Maj. Gen. Frank Faykes, deputy assistant secretary for budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management.
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review spelled out that the Air Force must have 86 combat wings to do its job. According to USAF officials, it has about 81 combat wings' worth of forces now. To help get up to snuff, the Air Force says it needs, among a host of things, 1,763 F-35s to replace the F-16 and A-10. But the pace at which F-35s will come online is troublesome.
As F-16s pass their planned life expectancy and must retire, the new F-35s won't appear in operational service for another six years. Furthermore, USAF budget documents indicate that the service can afford only 48 F-35s a year over the FYDP (Future Years Defense Program). If that number is not ramped up, it will take about 40 years to buy all the F-35s required.
Meanwhile, the expensive patch-and-fix of the so-called "legacy" aircraft grinds on, and there's nothing simplistic or cheap about it. A good example is the F-15. Even though the USAF will replace a large portion of F-15Cs with the F-22 Raptor, the service will still need to supplement the F-22s with the F-15 beyond 2025. By that time, the F-15 will have been in service for more than 50 years, and those still in the air will be more than 35 years old, according to Air Force Magazine.
Selected F-15s will undergo expensive renovations that include replacing the aircraft's analog radar; installing a new combined Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System; new radios; digital video recorder; new identification, friend or foe systems; and a helmet-mounted targeting system.
Add to the package new Pratt & Whitney engines, new wiring, new ribbing under weapons stations, and tinkering with the flight-control system.
Remember those tank-killing A-10 "Warthogs" that blasted Saddam Hussein's forces in the Gulf War? They've been in the U.S. inventory since 1975.
Some 223 are getting all-new wings, with replaced flight controls, new fuel pumps for the fuel tanks in the wings, and new wiring.
The workhorse F-16s have proved more nettlesome in the service-life extension process. The structural upgrade replaces some bulkheads, wing skins, and other pieces, but there's a built-in limit on remanufacturing. The F-16 is made with large amounts of composite materials, designed for a certain life expectancy.
And even that life expectancy has been pushed beyond the envelope. Originally figured to be flying about 250 hours a year, those deployed to combat have averaged 300 hours per year or more.
All this is reminiscent of that other fungible item consumed in wartime - the young men and women on the front lines, hoping to also get a renovation of sorts by getting to stay home for at least a year before rotating back into harm's way.
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
It would probably cost as much or more to build more B-52s and KC135s as a new design would cost. The C-130 J is basically a new plane - new wings, new engines, new electronics.
“C-130...So the design is 30 years old...”
The first C-130 flew 23-Aug-1954 - 53 years ago. It does everything it was designed to do and a bunch of stuff it was NEVER designed to do. Great plane.
Hey, we could use the old B-52's as transports for House and Senate members.
Wrap them in plastic, strap a chute on them ..... bombs away !!
Our strategic bomber fleet may be old but it still does the job.
I talked to a young AF mechanic this weekend about the ‘old’ planes, he pointed out that they KNOW the craft thoroughly and have de-bugged it. I agree, use the old designs - don’t saddle the force with unproven ‘innovative’ designs until they’ve been vetted!
You said: The B-1 is a beautiful airplane, looks like it is flying 600 MPH while on the ground. BUT, it was designed to drop nukes.. Has a limited capacity in a non-nuke war
My thoughts:
I don’t know about cost/efficiency vs other aircraft, but the B1-B can carry a bunch of stuff other than just nukes.
Snipped this from Wikipedia so I can’t vouch for its accuracy, but in general this jibes with what I remember reading:
Armament: 24 GBU-31 GPS-aided JDAM (both Mk-84 general purpose bombs and BLU-109 penetrating bombs) or 24 Mk-84 2,000-pound general purpose bombs; 8 Mk-85 naval mines; 84 Mk-82 500-pound general purpose bombs; 84 Mk-62 500-pound naval mines; 30 CBU-87, -89, -97 cluster munitions; 30 CBU-103/104/105 WCMD, 24 AGM-158 JASSMs or 12 AGM-154 JSOWs.
As you can see, many of these are conventional weapons.
The same article notes that:
The B-1 is a highly versatile, multi-mission weapon system. The B-1B’s offensive avionics system includes high-resolution synthetic aperture radar, capable of tracking, targeting and engaging moving vehicles as well as self-targeting and terrain-following modes. In addition, an extremely accurate Global Positioning System-aided Inertial Navigation System enable aircrews to autonomously navigate globally, without the aid of ground-based navigation aids as well as engage targets with a high level of precision. The recent addition of Combat Track II radios permit an interim secure beyond line of sight reach back connectivity until Link-16 is integrated on the aircraft. In a time sensitive targeting environment, the aircrew can receive targeting data from the Combined Air Operations Center over CT II, then update mission data in the offensive avionics system to strike emerging targets rapidly and efficiently. This capability was effectively demonstrated during operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
My thoughts again:
Add to that the ability to fly at supersonic speeds, low-altitude terrain tracking, an amazing suite of radar countermeasures and intercontinental range (without refueling) and I can think of a bunch of uses in conventional warfare.
It’s probably not the cheapest way to get things done, but still one hell of a plane on or off the runway.
>>>Big B-52 bombers, which played a critical role in America’s recent efforts to liberate Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan, are over 45 years old.<<<
The B-52 frame and shell is old—the last B52 was completed in October 1962—but the plane has been significantly upgraded over the years with modern electronics and weaponry. It is still a remarkable plane, even by today’s standards. It travels at 650 mph at a ceiling of 50,000 feet, and has a range of 8,800 miles without refueling. It can carry up to 70,000 pounds of bombs and weaponry.
By contrast, the B-17 Flying Fortress used over Europe in World War II had a cruise speed of 182 mph, a ceiling of approximately 35,000 feet, and a maximum range of 2,000 miles (with no bombs). It could carry 4,500 pounds of bombs on what were considered long-range missions of that day of approximately 800 miles.
Someone should tell President Bush that he, and not Congress, controls military spending.
At least they aren’t fueling up Star Fighters, B-36’s and B-47’s.
OTOH, if the Pentagon had any horse sense left, they would buy several thousand McClellan saddles, just in case.
Criminal negligence on the part of congress and the klintoon administration.
Yup. Probably a fossilizing B-52 or KC-135.
...and the phrase ‘slow bleed’ finds another meaning...
Bottom line, (IMHO) Why do we need to reinvent the wheel. Buy more of the same design and call the fleet upgraded. Why go thru the R&D cycle, and perhaps get an inferior product (whitness the Osprey fiasco).
I say:
It isn’t that simple. The drop in procurement devastated the defense manufacturing infrastructure. I worked in the defense electronics area for about 20 years, starting at the beginning of the Reagan defense boom. When first George HW Bush and then the Clintons slashed procurement, the industry was hard hit. Firms who built cheaper communications components were helped by the wireless boom. Those who built both commercial and military switched over to all commercial. Many firms sold or dropped their military lines (the cost of maintaining a MIL-Spec quality system not being worth the small returns from the lower volume) and of course many firms who specialized in state of the art MIL-quality components were gobbled up or went out of business altogether. Our company sold and moved the designs and product line to another state. Unfortunately, since the new owners didn’t retain the existing staff, they found that they were often unable to meet the same specifications. Our highly skilled assembly staff (soldering components 20/1000ths of an inch square under a microscope) and technicians and engineers almost all found jobs in other industries. This didn’t happen in the electronics area alone, its just the area I’m familiar with.
The Air force bought large quantities of spares of the key components we supplied for the countermeasure systems of the F-15E and the B-1B, among others, but I’m sure the shelf life on these are running out, and it would be difficult even today find a supplier to meet the specs we met.
Unless large runs are involved, you also end up with a lot of $900 hammer stories. If you ever heard the details of that story, as I recall, the custom spark-resistant hammer had been bought at a competitive price when originally procured in some huge quantity. When the DOD ordered up a few more, they were faced with legitimate tooling costs that increased the cost to $900 per.
With a new design, you do have the R&D costs, but you can engineer it using what is available now, and don’t have to pay exorbitant prices to tool up for old designs.
Just my 2 cents
Well said. Agree 100 percent, coming from a DE background.
The “$900 hammer” scenario will look cheap soon (actually now) because of supplier contraction starting appx. 1990.
I still see a DC-2 (c-47)flying around here. I also hear there are Catalina PBYs around.
I flew in the KC-135A back in the 70’s and 80’s and most of the aircraft were as old as I was. We called it the “steam jet” because it used 5,581 lbs of de-mineralized water for thrust augmentation to our under powered J-57 engines. At least the “R” model has plenty of power with the new CMF-56 engine. I buried a lot of friends that didn’t make take-off roles because they had a catastrophic loss of power. Boeing makes one hell of an airplane, but it is time for the idiot’s in Congress to pony up some funding or forget about every being able to project “Airpower” anywhere in the world. But then again I’m sure that is the Liberals master plan. The Air Force is currently down sizing their support career fields to buy the F-22 “Raptor” and the F-35 “Joint-Strike Fighter.” Pretty soon the Air Force should be able to anything with almost nothing (a quote from the Jimmy Carter days).
***My 900th thread posted and counting...***
I wish I could start more threads but someone always beats me to it.......So I just set back and snipe.
Yeah, and chances are that .50 cal wasn't made that long ago either!
I don’t think the Navy plans to fight with Old Ironsides today though, would you want to?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.