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?'"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951577/posts
Time compliance technical order inspections have discovered nine other aircraft with longeron fatigue-cracks. Additionally, approximately 40 percent of inspected aircraft have at least one longeron that does not meet blueprint specifications."
Robins team believes last snag cleared in F-15 groundings
A thinning of the longeron at a key stress point - possibly due to a manufacturing defect - may be the root cause of the mishap and the cracks found in the eight aircraft."More than likely it is a manufacturing issue and we have pulled all the Boeing material discrepancy reports," the group commander said. "So far, we have not been able to isolate it to a particular production run or series. The cracks show up in aircraft as old as 1978 and as new as 1985."
Recurring checks had not called for a review of the area in the past.
"It was a 25,000 to 100,000-hour part," the colonel stressed. "So it was not included in our depot and phase inspections. It was designed to significantly outlast the aircraft."
However, the Robins team has learned that a number of factors create additional stress on the component - a splice joint in the two-piece longeron with different material thicknesses coming together, reduced width proceeding from the joint, angle variations and changes in the canopy sill.
"So a large amount of activity occurs in that single spot," Niemantsverdriet acknowledged. "It's like a creek that narrows down, making the water flow faster."
Outsource it to China, DUH!
“The question is not even remotely that simple ... that’s the sort of thinking I expect from the MSM.”
It is that simple and thanks for the insult.
“1) $250K does not guarantee a solution long term”
It promises a short term solution. The cost for a long term solution is most likely higher but still less than 10% the cost of a new raptor.
“2) $161 Mil is the total program cost for each plane, based on the size of the production run. Make more, and the cost per plane drops. Some of that $161 Mil has already been spent; it’s the R&D.”
Regardless its many many times the cost of the interim solution. The raptor is a great plane but the F15 still beats nearly all the competition out there. My point is you don’t need a 160 million dollar hammer for a 10 cent nail. The $10 hammer will sometimes work just as well. The B52 is a good example. The airframe is good and by performing maintenance, adding new engines, and new electronics we are getting a solid weapons system for much less than the alternative.
“We need more Raptors.”
No, we want more Raptors because we all like sexy new things. Need has yet to be determined. The Pentagon in their infinite wisdom doesn’t agree. Just like the other services the Air Force will always want more and better.
You're correct. Our national defense has developed doctrine and assigned missions based on an overall defense strategy. The Air Force has the heavy bombers, the Army has helicopters to support ground troops, the Navy and Marines are equipped to defend the ships and support operations at sea and Littoral operations.
The line between fighters and bombers is kind of fuzzy. The F117 is actually a bomber - it has no air to air capability. The F-16, F-18, and F-15E can be a fighter, surface attack, or close air platform depending on how they are armed for a particular mission.
During Desert Storm, the only aircraft that flew in the most heavily defended areas were the 117s.
The British Tornadoes were used to destroy runways and because of their low-level tactics and munitions, suffered the highest losses per aircraft type. That's the price of preparing to fight the last war and not looking to the future.
Nope. If you include the R&D costs, each of the 184 Raptors we're buying cost well north of $300 million each.
Sticker Shock: Estimating the Real Cost of Modern Fighter Aircraft
F-22A Raptor:
Unit procurement costs: $ 177.6 Million
Program unit costs: $ 338.8 Million (based on the current projection of of 184 aircraft)
It's the unit procurement costs that Japan and Australia are looking at, and comparing it to the Program Unit Costs of around $114 million per F-35 that they will have to pay, and asking why not just buy Raptors. Problem is, their F-35 costs include the R&D costs, whereas IF we were to export the F-22 then some premium for R&D would be added to each export unit, making the F-22 less attractive vis-a-vis the F-35.
It’s a Ponzi scheme alright. It could have been run as an investment fund and actually worked so long as those who didn’t put in up to that point were not included in the payouts.
We should sell to the Aussies and Brits to help bring down the early production costs.
It promises a short term solution. The cost for a long term solution is utterly unknown to you. Unless you're working for USAF or Boeing and personally involved in the problem. And it entirely depends on what you mean by "long term solution". More Raptors are a long term solution. Very long term. And available right now. The line is up and running.
Airframes wear out. The F-15 fleet has been driven very hard, and that's a good thing. But there's a price for that, in maintenance and availability. And that misses the point that the F15, much as I love the bird, is an old design and no longer dominant, as it was in the 1970s.
I'll gladly stand corrected, if I've gotten facts wrong.
If our government ran crime, it wouldn't pay...
We must maintain our supremacy, whatever it takes.
But if it can be done for just $250,000 a unit for a few more more years of service, that’s fine also.
But it’s not my area of expertise, I just know the govt is not an efficient spender.
The F-15 was designed over 30 years ago. Despite upgrades to the avionics and weapons, it's still obsolete. There are many aircraft that are as good as or better than the F-15.
The role of the F15 and the F22 is Air Supremacy. The Russians, the Chinese, the Brits and the French all have airplanes just as capable as the F15 in its prime. The Russians, Chinese, and French have been selling these planes to many countries that we could be fighting in the next 10-20 years.
The F15 can't fly at its full design capability because of cracks in the wings and fuselage. We keep patching them and putting more limitations on their capabilities, but the bottom line is that the F-15 isn't stealthy and is 30 plus year old technology. It's susceptable to newer SAMs and can be spotted at a much longer range by enemy radars. New Fire and Forget Air to Air weapons are a much bigger threat to the F15 than they are to a stealthy aircaft.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
“You got the insult, because you engaged in exactly the flawed analysis that we regularly see from the anti-military MSM and Democrat party.”
I got the insult because you were unwilling to admit we don’t always need what we want. Too many people on here react without thinking and compare their target with DU, Rosie, or some other democrat. That tactic is low class and without merit. Before spending BILLIONS of dollars there should be a solid business case. “The F15 is old” is not an adequate business case to spend BILLIONS.
Some individual airframes need to be repaired or replaced but in many cases new ones could be built for far less. The F15 is still a great airplane and is adequate for many of the missions we face today. Notice the problem doesn’t exist with the E models.
Your analysis is flawed by he shiny paint of a new toy. The Pentagon agreed with my analysis prior to this problem and their revised analysis is pending.
I have a few questions that you might answer.
1. If the AF is “politically jousting”, do they not run the risk of the Pentagon, driven by the bean counters, pushing up and expanding, the various UCAV programs?
2. I read that the cost of the F-22 would drop to about 90 mil., if the orders were in the 250-300 range. Any truth to that?
3. I hear the AF is testing at Nellis, and the Army, in Ca. and KY, expanding the remote flying programs. Specifically, that the AF is using 4 NCO’s supervised by a single flight qualified O-4, and the Army is using 2, supervised by a single CW3, to “fly” UCAV’s. Can this be true?
Thanks
“I’m just pointing out the fact that the entire air combat complement does not reside with the AF.
The ones that can hit their targets do. :)
just kidding
The F-15 is not going away. We are slated to retire approximately half of the F-15 fleet in the next few years as F-22s come online, so it may be that many or most of these F-15s don't get fixed.
However, we are also upgrading the remaining F-15s with the latest AESA radar and other avionics such as the AIM-9X high off boresight missile, and the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System that will keep the basic F-15 airframe viable for the next 20 years.
Boeing Awarded $70 Million Contract for Enhanced F-15C Radar
ST. LOUIS, Oct. 09, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has been awarded a $70 million contract to begin upgrading U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard F-15C Eagles with the APG-63(V)3 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. The upgrades will begin in first quarter 2009.The Raytheon APG-63(V)3 AESA radar combines the operationally-proven APG-63(V)2 AESA software and the revolutionary hardware advances of the F/A 18E/F Super Hornet's APG-79 AESA radar to create a high performance system that is reliable and affordable.
"The AESA radar greatly improves the Eagle pilot's situational awareness, targeting range and accuracy," said Jim Means, director of Proprietary Programs for Boeing Global Strike Systems.
The AESA radar will ensure the F-15Cs continue their combat-proven air supremacy well into the 21st century. The AESA radar also will reduce the cost of maintaining the F-15C due to its improved reliability.
The APG-63(V)3 radar is the latest addition in planned upgrades to the F-15C, which have included a fighter-to-fighter data link, GPS navigation and the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, enabling network centric operations while employing the latest air-to-air weapons.
“The F-15 was designed over 30 years ago. Despite upgrades to the avionics and weapons, it’s still obsolete. There are many aircraft that are as good as or better than the F-15.”
Many? There may be some but I don’t by the many are superior to the F15E.
“The Russians, the Chinese, the Brits and the French all have airplanes just as capable as the F15 in its prime. “
Those are not the only enemies we face.
“but the bottom line is that the F-15 isn’t stealthy and is 30 plus year old technology”
The airframe is 30 years old but the technology inside the is not. The F22 is cool but its not required for every mission. IMO it would be a lot cooler to have that $140 million in the bank than to have more F22s than we need.
As discussed elsewhere the UAVs are taking over many of the air missions. The may be a better and cheaper alternative than plane which cost $161 million each.
Thank you, again. Very interesting.
“You’re right. It is basically a little over one man-year (give or take a little). That is 1 person for 1 year. That’s nothing! (in DoD terms)”
It is chump change and our govt spends this kinda money without even blinking.
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.