Posted on 01/11/2008 4:39:08 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Air Force Fighter Fleet in 'Crisis'
By RICHARD LARDNER – 12 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Years of stress on the Air Force's aging jet fighter fleet have led to serious structural problems that could grow worse even after expensive repairs are made, senior service officials said Thursday.
Gen. John Corley, the top officer at Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va., called the situation a "crisis" that would be best solved by an infusion of costly new aircraft rather than fixing jets that are 25 years old.
The mechanical troubles, most acute in the F-15 Eagles used to protect the United States, also have led to a patchwork approach to filling critical air missions at home and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With nearly a third of the F-15 fleet grounded due to a defective support beam in the aircraft's frame, other fighter aircraft, including F-16s and new F-22s, are being shifted from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"It's a rob Peter to pay Paul," Corley said at a Pentagon news conference. "It's unprecedented to have an air superiority fleet that's on average 25 years old."
The Air Force's dilemma has been largely overshadowed by the equally urgent demands from the Army and Marine Corps for new equipment to replace the battle gear worn down by more than six years of war. That changed on Nov. 2 when an F-15C aircraft broke in two during a training flight over Missouri.
The pilot, Maj. Stephen Stilwell, barely had time to eject from the front half of the F-15. His left shoulder was dislocated and his left arm shattered as the cockpit blew apart.
An investigation of the crash released Thursday concluded that a defective aluminum beam in the frame cracked, causing the $42 million jet to disintegrate in the air. There was no pilot error.
More troubling, however, were the findings of a parallel examination that determined as many as 163 of the workhorse F-15s also have the flawed beams, called longerons. The aircraft remain grounded as the Air Force tries to determine how broad the problem is and whether fixes should be made. Another 19 of the aircraft have yet to be inspected and also remain grounded.
In the report on Stilwell's crash, Col. William Wignall, the lead investigator, said that prior to Stilwell's flight, "no inspection requirements existed for detecting a crack in the longeron."
The F-15A through D models were built by McDonnell Douglas. That company merged with the defense manufacturing giant, Boeing Co., in August 1997.
The faulty longerons "failed to meet blueprint specifications," according to the Air Force. No decision has been reached as to whether Boeing might be liable for the repairs, however.
"This is the starting point of answering that question," said Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, a senior Air Force acquisition official. "So now that we have the evidence of what happened in (Stilwell's) case, it will all boil down to what our contractual relationship was with the manufacturer at the time."
Nearly 260 of the A through D model F-15s, first fielded in the mid-1970s, were returned to flight status Tuesday following fleet-wide inspections.
The Air Force's fleet of 224 newer F-15E Strike Eagles do not have defective longerons. Those jets, whose role is more oriented toward ground attack missions, were temporarily grounded after Stilwell's crash, but returned to service shortly thereafter.
The longeron helps support the cockpit and strengthen the jet as it moves through high-stress maneuvers while traveling hundreds of miles per hour.
Corley said even if the longerons in the older F-15s are replaced — a procedure that costs $250,000 per beam — there's no guarantee that other parts won't go bad.
"You may wind up with an airplane that is already so far beyond it's economic service life, that to throw a quarter of million dollars at it to replace a bad part may be a bad idea," he said. "That may be buying way too much risk. We've already bought too much risk because we've bought too little iron over the years."
The F-16, fielded in the late 1970s, is undergoing an extensive modernization program, Corley said. So, too, is the tank-killing A-10, a 30-year old plane used to support troops on the ground.
"This is systemic," Corley said.
The Air Force has fielded more than 90 F-22 Raptors, a stealth fighter made by defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. But these aircraft cost $160 million apiece and the Pentagon has decided to buy only 183. The Air Force has said it needs 381 F-22s and has support on Capitol Hill for a larger acquisition that would keep require tens of billions of dollars.
The F-35 Lightning is another new fighter that is being built but won't be in use for several more years.
Corley said the Air Force does not want to buy more F-15s.
"I flew this airplane 30 years ago," said Corley, an F-15 instructor pilot in 1979 when he was a captain. "It was best of breed at its time. It's not anymore. All options on the table, yes. But is it where I would turn to now? No."
By contrast, the F-22 is a modern plane that meets the Air Force's needs for an air combat jet, he said.
"The hot running production line that the United States Air Force has right now for fighter aircraft is the F-22," Corley said. "That line has the capacity. So you'd have to ask yourself, 'Can I buy F-22s?'"
Much of the blame lies with a Democrat controlled Congress, and with the Clinton administration, failing to properly support the R&D programs. That failure to properly support includes both inadequate funding and poorly defined requirements. The Air Force itself bears some of the blame, as well.
Most of that $161M is amortization for development costs. The per-unit manufacturing costs are lower. If you increase the production run, then R&D and tooling get amortized among more fighters, lowering the per-unit cost, and allowing the per-unit price to go down
But perhaps you CAN use one or more UAVs to fly along WITH the fighter to supplement its missile load with missiles that can be launched from the UAV but guided by the fighter's electronics
The problem is that we may not always be going up against an enemy that doesn't have an Air Force. It takes years to spin up a production line for a fighter aircraft. Once the aircraft reaches early production, you need to develop tactics to take advantage of the aircraft's capabilities. Once you have the first few airplanes and have initial tactics you need to train pilots. The pilot training pipeline for the F-15 was two years long - about eight months of that was in the F-15. That got you a minimally qualified wingman. It took at least another year to qualify him as a flight lead.
We need to have the aircraft in the inventory and have trained pilots at the beginning of any hostilities.
Does anyone else remeber when the C-17 was about to come on line that the C-141s started to be declared unsafe due to wing spar issues. The number of C-17 purchased went up.
Now the F-15s are grounded with 60% now allowed tot fly. Is the Airforce trying to get more F-22s?
That may be a possibility in the future, but I don't think the technology is available today to make it happen in the Air to Air mission. UAVs are pretty good for surface attack missions because the scenarios are less dynamic. There are still a lot of visual cues from the cockpit that are needed in the air to air mission.
Some of the problems that have to be looked at are visually identifying targets. A passenger jet coming out of Iranian airspace looks a lot like a bomber on a radar. The Rules of Engagement require a visual ID on the target before you launch missiles. That turns the fight into BFM/ACM requiring a lot of communications, teamwork, and instant decision making. A UAV doesn't provide the Situational Awareness required to be effective.
The F-15 problems aren't just cropping up. The aircraft has had several structural problems with the wings that have limited the amount of Gs the aircraft can pull for the last 15 years. The airplanes are worn out. They started entering service in the mid to late seventies. The Air to Air mission is a lot tougher on the aircraft than other missions. The airplanes have to make 8G turns and maneuvers that are violent enough to render a pilot unconcious if he isn't properly trained and equiped. The daily twisting and turning has weakened the frame of the plane.
To put it into perspective - If you owned a 30 year old car that had a rusted out frame would you continue fixing it or would you bite the bullet and pay for a new one?
“We are operating a fleet of aircraft to battle the now defunct Soviet Union, except our current enemies are uneducated, third world thugs armed with AKs and RPGs.”
You really need to pay a little more attention to what’s going on in Asia.
HMMM....
I think you are right and I WAS KIDDING (kind of like a conspiracy..)
It should be put into perspective, national security is the governments number 1 job. SS, Medicare, Welfare are all drains on what it SHOULD be spending money on.
I say buy the Raptor’s and cut SS benefits and thank the generations before us who decided to raid the “lock box” in the first place.
SS was always a Ponsey Scheme, no matter who raided the “funds”.
It was doomed to failure that day it was signed into law.
Otherwise, I agree that we fulfill our constitutional obligations and fully fund our military at the expense of social programs.
I remember hearing this song before. It was the wrong tune back in the 60's and it's the wrong tune still.
We had to learn a hard lesson with missile carriers only during the Vietnam unpleasantness,that's why even the F-22 mounts a gun today. Trying to regress to less capable, but numerous, aircraft and putting too much faith in UAV's is a prescription for disaster.IMHO.
Navy & Marine fighters need the backing of the heavy cavalry if they are to take on major trouble makers like Iran or China.
True, but what percentage of those targets were destroyed by bombs dropped by B-1s, B-2s, B-52s versus fighters? They aren't the same thing.
I'm not bashing the AF, I'm just pointing out the fact that the entire air combat complement does not reside with the AF.
Not the same discussion.
More importantly, I think the F-22 and the F-35 will be the last single-seat combat aircraft. Technology is advancing quickly, probably much faster than doctrine. Some of the autonomous stuff being developed by Boeing is incredible.
Perhaps it’s time to go back to first principles: the significant mission of the air force is to put bombs on a variety of targets (strategic and tactical, static and dynamic)target and shoot the bad guy’s airplanes out of the sky. What is the most combat effective way to do this, bounded by logistics and support (including R&D, manufacturing capacity, cost, supportability, etc)?
I think the handwriting is on the wall: manned combat aircraft are on the decline. The mission soon will be more effectively and efficiently performed by unmanned aircraft.
Technology happens and upsets the apple cart: cavalry, coastal artillery, navigators, bombadiers, gunners, reconnaissance, etc.
It is part of the discussion-
Bombers are not the only part of the airforce which will be vital for the navy,the air superiority fighters are as important & increasingly so.The Super Hornet & F-35 B/Cs are just not in the same league as the F-14 WRT modern threats-they will need the F-15 & F-22 to clean up the bad guys.
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.