Flaws may ground older F15's indefinitely

Washington Post via MSNBC ^ | December 22 2007 | Josh White

[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.

[RFEngineer]

“I rather have the Government spend money on F-22 rather than Social programs..... Most of the money should go towards the military anyway...”

That’s not an option, as you well know. So, we fix F-15’s and keep them flying. Maybe even install some of the avionics marvels that ride on the F-22 - they will be every bit as survivable as the F-22 in the proper mission.

They will be much cheaper, too.

[Redleg Duke]

"Pennypinching across the board is the problem, here. These planes are WAY BEYOND their intended service life."

True, but see how much money we saved by avoiding replacing them. Look what we now have...no air defense and the jerks on this forum can just badmouth the Air Force and blame all the generals. It is a win-win.

I hope there isn't a need for a sarcasm tag here.

[Redleg Duke]

"I say replace them all with drones ..."

I say, Get your head out of rectal deflade!

[nevergore]

[Redleg Duke]

"What on earth is our DOD going to do about this mess?"

Let's give the credit where it is due. The bastards in Congress have been screwing with military procurement for years, putting off acquisitions and siphoning off the money for worthless social programs to buy votes.

The bill has finally come due. They squeezed the life out of these airframes and we don't have anything to replace them.

It kind of reminds me of "Atlas Shrugged".

[tanknetter]

They quote a guy from the Center for Defense Information, that is opposed to the F-22, that they should just “fix it” as if it were a simple matter.

I have a simple rule of thumb when it comes to articles on defense matters: the moment I see the jokers at CDI cited I stop reading. I don't recall *ever* reading anything by their "analysts" saying that the US needed to do anything other than keep using existing weaponry ... in ever-diminishing numbers. If this was 1975 they'd probably be telling us that we didn't need F-15s because our F-4s were working just fine and dandy.

Back in college the CDI's cute little hour-long weekly informercial "America's Defense Monitor" was piped into the campus's cable TV system (it came by way of our campus receiving WHUT - which is Howard University's PBS station). I used sit around with my roomate (who was going through USMC PLC) and some of his buddies from the various ROTC programs and play drinking games with the show, because their slant on the material was so predictable. I remember them questioning why the US needed the M1 Abrams, when the M60A3 was working just fine. And why the US needed the M2/M3 Bradley when we had FIELDS full of unused M113s. They really had serious issues with US CVNs ... IIRC one of their guys was a retired USN Admiral, a former CBG commander who would wax on about how he'd run exercises with smaller UK and French carriers in the 1970s (the old Ark Royal and Clemenceau/Foch) and the beheamouth USN carriers were complete overkill.

They invariably worked into the program inferences (if not outright claims) of how Reagan really wanted to start a nuclear war with the Soviets ... and how the Soviets would win.

[Dick Vomer]

Yeah the pilot might have bailed, but he had ice water in his veins and just figured out that going to AFTERBURNERS??? made it fly better.

I hate subs, I hate flying and if I'm going to fight, I want to do it from about a 5-6 ft platform. .... on the ground.

I have to admit after listening to the pilots on History Channel they are always close to the edge when flying in combat and somehow sound pretty calm. In an analytical sort of way. I wonder if that's the temperament that it takes to be a jet jockey or if it's the training.

[KevinDavis]

Sorry this nation should not be defended cheap. In order for this nation to be supreme in the air is that we have to upgrade and have humans as pilots.

[Tarpon]

What’s wrong with you, did you get a drone stuck in your rectal defilade(sp).

[Professional Engineer]

Duct tape, lots and lots of it.

We don't need no steekin' duct tape...

[Seaplaner]

You can't just "swap" that out!

Agreed. Changing longerons can't be easy, and I suspect that what's left will be heavier, weaker, looser, or crooked.

And, you just cant' go digging out the skeleton without screwing something else up.

I like the idea of new F22s. (Just take the money from social programs that don't work or are for illegal aliens.)

[RightWhale]

shortly after one of the airplanes broke into large chunks and crashed

You don't expect that anymore. Usually it is the other way around.

[RFEngineer]

“Sorry this nation should not be defended cheap. In order for this nation to be supreme in the air is that we have to upgrade and have humans as pilots.”

I respectfully object to the entire premise of this statement.

You presume that “more expensive” is always better. You also presume that previous generation fighters are not capable of reigning supreme in the air. You also presume that humans in the cockpit is better under all forseeable circumstances.

I believe you to be incorrect on all of these points for reasons that I have explained in previous posts.

I would be interested in you defending your position on the three points I brought up above.

[RFEngineer]

“Drones are not that effective.. Especially if the satellite connection cut off”

Point 1: Drones/UAV’s, whatever (we’re not distinguishing at this point, and probably should) can be effective autonomously, depending on the mission

Point 2: Satellite connections/other data links, etc. can be quite survivable, and can be undetectable to our enemies.

You can make the same argument in point #2 with the F22 - if you shut down its data links, it’s not going to be as effective as it is with them, and depending on the mission, might even be considered ineffective. That said - it is not an easy thing to do - shut down combat-capable data links, be the platform manned or unmanned.

[Eye of Unk]

Its probably the Weiand version of a 4-71 jimmy blower, it is a small block, big blocks work well with the 6-71.

[GBA]

The F-15E is the fix. The airframe was changed to address these defects.

[sukhoi-30mki]

You would need to modify the airframe & intakes for new engines-same applies for adapting a radar.All those modifications would make the new F-15 costs go up by a factor of around 1.5 times on average.An export customer maybe willing to gobble it up,but what about the USAF??

[Las Vegas Dave]

Ok, I’ll sell you a brand new one for $100M, now what do you say?

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!)

[sukhoi-30mki]

I believe that research tests of an enhanced F-15 with canards & thrust vectoring nozzles were done years ago(probably by NASA-not sure).The Mig-35 is a Mig-29 on steriods.It will still be hobbled by it’s range,weaker radar capacity as well as poorer supersonic performance vis-a-vis it’s new European rivals.You can’t expect a boosted F-15 to do much better.

[SampleMan]

You would need to modify the airframe & intakes for new engines-same applies for adapting a radar.All those modifications would make the new F-15 costs go up by a factor of around 1.5 times on average.An export customer maybe willing to gobble it up,but what about the USAF??

Not necessarily. The F-14 was re-engined without major airframe or intake changes. It really depends on the size of the new engine and whether it is developed specifically for the use or is in existence. The radar has already been changed on the F-15 more than once. Again it comes down to space available versus required. As the F-22 radar is fixed array and the nose section is not larger than the F-15, installation may not require any major airframe changes at all.

The F-15K is very different from the F-15C, but is not 1.5 times the cost. Adjusted for inflation, it is about the same.

I could see the addition of vectored thrust creating a significant R&D charge, but then again maybe not, as it has already been done with the F-15 Active Program.

Again my point would not be to replace the F-22, but to flesh out the force with a Cat 4+ Strike-Attack aircraft that would be equal or better than the SU-30 and Eurofighter.