Posted on 12/22/2007 4:21:30 AM PST by xsrdx
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.
The Air Force's 442 F-15A through F-15D planes, the mainstay of the nation's air-to-air combat force for 30 years, have been grounded since November, shortly after one of the airplanes broke into large chunks and crashed in rural Missouri. Since then, Air Force officials have found cracks in the main support beams behind the cockpits of eight other F-15s, and they fear that similar problems could exist in others.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
The F-15E isn't a fighter. Its an attack aircraft. Replaced the F-111. I know the USAF loves to put an "F" in front of everything, but you have to look further.
The F-15K would be what you would want to look at.
“I would say, “It’s a bargain! How soon can I have delivery of 1000 units?” (After all I am a REPUBLICAN, not a spinless weenie democRAT!)”
Indeed, when it comes to government spending of other people’s money you certainly do toe the fiscally irresponible GOP line.
But that is immaterial, and you completely missed the point.
Well,the F-15K doesn’t have the kind of modifications you talk about.Sure a souped up F-15 makes a lot of sense,but would the USAF buy into it???I am pretty sure that such possibilities would have been discussed long ago.Would it buy something which costs 80 million+ a piece & is still something which exists on paper,while it is trying to get more Raptors??
The "K" does have many of the avionics upgrades I'm talking about, but no it is not close to the total package I discussed. Would the USAF suggest such a thing? No. But after they have the Raptor, more aren't forthcoming, and the F-15 airframes hit a wall, they might consider it.
In any event my point wasn't what I thought would happen, just what I thought was feasible. The Russians have certainly upgraded the basic Flanker into another level of capability.
“Whats everyones opinion of the possibility the AF brass is making a bigger dal out of this to get more F22’s.?”
I’d say you’re right on the money.
“A good question would be to look at a new production model incorporating the F-22 systems, engines and maneuverable thrust”
You wouldn’t even have to do that. Just take the current F-15E/K production line, build a single seat F model optimized for air superiority again with AESA radar and an engine like a GE F414. You could probably even make it fly-by-wire with minimum trouble. It would cost about the same as current Eagles....about $50 million apiece off the line. At those prices we could buy almost 3 planes for every Raptor.
Since the end of WWII entitlement programs have increased to 13% of the GDP while defense expenditures have declined to 4%. It doesn't appear that the F-22's cost will make much difference in that mix.
The F-15 is no Ford ( it was designed more in the genre of a Corvette and critics complained about the cost then) and has a spendid record. But, it is last generation technology in a next generation world.
And the Raptor could probably still kill them by 7 to 1, so to me it isn't a matter of replacing the Raptor, but seeing if that new production could fill some of the mix that would otherwise be Raptors and JSFs. So the question is, what would it bring to the table that the JSF doesn't. Range and payload are probably two, you add the rest to give it a credible self-escort capability against an SU-30 threat.
If a single F-22 can do what 10 F-15s can do, then its a bargain. If it can only do what 2 F-15s can do, then its not a bargain.
I think the logical question is, “Could an upgraded F-15s be more cost effective than new F-22?” For certain missions the answer is yes, for other missions the answer is no. So the question then becomes whether it is cost effective to mix your aircraft fleet to match the mission to the aircraft, or if that is impractical.
“It doesn’t appear that the F-22’s cost will make much difference in that mix.”
Except when you have to argue over absolute appropriations in a DOD budget. What’s the best way to spend $400B? yeah, it would be nice to have some more F-22’s, but it would be nice to pay soldiers more, too, and help catastrophically injured soldiers assimilate back into society, etc.....
Your analysis lacks the lens of politics that is always present within DoD branches, and congress.
But really, you have to give the taxpayer a break at some point.
“If your opposition is running Ferraries, your Ford, patched up or not, is dead meat. “
If you are racing a ferrari against a ford, yes you will win. But you won’t have another ferrari at the track in the next town....because you’re busy, and you only have one ferrari.
“I think the logical question is, “Could an upgraded F-15s be more cost effective than new F-22?””
You are correct. Additionally, there are missions for F-15’s that are not upgrades, F-16’s near end-of-service life......
Everything in our inventory doesn’t need to be an F-22.
The attitude that somehow an older aircraft is not capable is ridiculous.
Un...no.
1966, 1967, 1968, 1969....
Ford GT MkIIBs, Mark IV and Mk II GT-40s eat Ferrari alive.
F-15 Crash Mid-Air
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l5mkV6cV7I&feature=related
“Un...no.
1966, 1967, 1968, 1969....
Ford GT MkIIBs, Mark IV and Mk II GT-40s eat Ferrari alive.”
Ok, I am sure you know what you are talking about - bad analogy......we were really talking about F-15’s and F-22’s, not Fords and Ferrari’s!
The US has postured itself in the past that quality always beats quantity while the Soviets believed that quantity has its own quality. The history of recent conflicts (Arab-Israeli, Persian Gulf and Iraqi Freedom) suggests that the US position was more accurate.
Our soldiers often become casualties primarily because of the "lens of politics" and it's impact on their equipment. The F-15 design is 30+ years old, the airplanes are breaking to the point they can't be used and there are too few follow-on replacements of any type.
Buy new fighters that assure we will win any conflict with minimal casualties for generations to come! This cannot be done with band aids on 30 year old equipment.
“The whole point of this was structurally flawed F-15s which won’t perform in any “town”.”
No the point is whether the money to fix structurally flawed F-15’s is sufficient to scrap them and attempt to replace them with F-22’s.
I say fix them and use them. You say, scrap them and buy F-22’s
Given the order of magnitude difference in the cost of the two options, it’s worth a discussion.
There was nothing in recent wards that even remotely approached F-15’s in capability. No F-22’s necessary.
F-22’s are for more sophisticated foes.
There is nothing wrong with a 30 year old design simply because it is 30 years old. The F-22 design is approaching 20 years old. We all know about the B-52.
We can and do fix structural issues with aircraft all the time. It’s not a big deal.
“Buy new fighters that assure we will win any conflict with minimal casualties for generations to come”
You have to calculate the taxpayer body count somewhere along the line.
Actually,the Russian super Flanker upgrades really show what will happen to a souped up F-15.It will be loved by the export customer,but almost completely ignored by the mother airforce.
How many SU-30/35s has Russia purchased???The only new Flanker variant that Russia is buying in any decent quantity is the SU-34 medium bomber & that too because of the age of the SU-24.The SU-35 in it’s new avtars is an excellent aircraft-probably only behind the F-22 in all round capability,but nobody wants it.They seem content to upgrade their existing fleet & wait for their 5th generation fighter.Pretty similar to the USAF approach.
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.