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?'"
“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?”
IMO this is a response to those bean counters who are already challenging the need for manned fighters.
What is the Pentagon composed of? Its compoed of officers from each of the branches. While it is political it is no more so than the various branches of the armed forces when it comes to these kinds of acquisitions.
Baloney. Fixing the early model F-15s doesn't buy us the same thing (even remotely) as buying new examples of wholly new aircraft (f-22s). Directly comparing them implies that they do.
I have personal, professional experience with repeatedly fixing, patching, repairing mission critical equipment, all the while accepting reduced capability, compatibility problems, and lack of spares issues.
At some point, somebody has to tell the fix-patch-repair crowd "NO". At some point, wholly new equipment MUST be purchased. Continuing to string the old along invites disaster.
And the replacement program is already well underway. Thus the reluctance to spend huge amounts of money on already near-obsolete Raptors. The F-22 is the USS Missouri/Iowa/Wisconsin/New Jersey of its day - the finest possible example of a dying paradigm.
The next generation of fighter pilots will spend their entire careers at computer consoles in underground bunkers in Nevada.
Exactly.
The Brit MOD compares all their fighters to the F-15C.
It estimates that the advantage of the Typhoon is 1:3.5 F-15s.
It also estimates that the F-22 is 1:7 against the F-15.
That’s a pretty drastic improvement over what was considered to be the best air supremacy aircraft in the world.
Anything less that current/5th generation is just a target.
The F-15C/D is an Air Superiority Fighter - the F-15E is a ground attack aircraft. Fhe C-model is designed to shoot down other aircraft. The ability to maneuver at high Gs and to not be seen are critical aspects for that mission.
Keeping two aircraft (The F15 and F22) in the inventory to do the same mission is expensive. You have to have logistics support for both airframes, as well as trained maintenance personnel and pilots. You would need two repair depots, two training bases, and all the assorted support that goes with each plane. It would be as expensive to do this as to go with the F22.
Actually, in the air to air role, the F-15E is inferior to the F-15C. It’s made as a strike fighter, so the extra weight of the conformal tanks and other improvements lessens its AtoA ability (when compared to the F-15C).
UAVs have yet to be implemented in the air-to-air role and the UAVs we use are all (currently) subsonic. Mostly recon with limited strike capability, even considering the Predator B (Reaper).
We won’t see UAV fighter aircraft for some time. As posted here previously, AtoA is a more dynamic environment and UAVs lack the swivel interface (neck and head) of a human pilot to track a fast moving target.
The advantage of the F-22 is readily apparent.
It’s the quantities that we’re going to purchase that is the problem.
With the current buy set at around 173 aircraft, we’re going to see a F-22/F-15 mix for some time, unless we extend the purchase past 250 (or more).
Simply put, there is no other aircraft or UAV that will fit the F-22 mission and there won’t be for at least another decade or two.
China. I'd bet that is where the Chinese will get theirs. (8^D)
So, maybe we haven't yet reached the "better replace 'em now or we're screwed" point with the early F15s.
Maybe.
I wouldn't know for sure.
But when one disintegrates during routine operations, because a major structural part catastrophically failed due to being worn out, and the entire fleet gets grounded for weeks, you gotta start asking questions.
And yes, a real solution will cost a lot more than the next band-aid. It's always that way.
Sometimes, you can't afford NOT to go for the real solution.
You can’t stop time and I like the way our life is here in the free world. I vote to keep up with the times and to maintain our freedoms with all the newF-22’s and F-35’s that it takes.
From one of your links:
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." "
So there maybe a manufacturing defect but only supposition at this point.
Instead of arguing about buying the F-15 or the F-22, the question should be whether congress ought to be wasting our tax dollars on peanut storage facilities and hippie museums instead of giving our military the best tools available to defend the country.
Wait until China get their military upgrades completed in the next decade.
“Baloney. Fixing the early model F-15s doesn’t buy us the same thing (even remotely) as buying new examples of wholly new aircraft (f-22s). Directly comparing them implies that they do.”
Thats not what I said. I said the F15 can accomplish many of the missions we face. You don’t need a F22 for all missions.
“I have personal, professional experience with repeatedly fixing, patching, repairing mission critical equipment, all the while accepting reduced capability, compatibility problems, and lack of spares issues.”
So do I.
“At some point, somebody has to tell the fix-patch-repair crowd “NO”. At some point, wholly new equipment MUST be purchased. Continuing to string the old along invites disaster.”
Yes, at some point. Are we at that point? Are there other alternatives? Seems the Pentagon thinks UAVs may be a better options for some missions.
“But when one disintegrates during routine operations, because a major structural part catastrophically failed due to being worn out, and the entire fleet gets grounded for weeks, you gotta start asking questions.”
Sure, and notice the E models are fying.
“Sometimes, you can’t afford NOT to go for the real solution.”
The ‘real’ solution may not involve $90-141 million per copy planes that are good for 10 years.
E models are strike aircraft. Not the same thing.
The ‘real’ solution may not involve $90-141 million per copy planes that are good for 10 years.
Good for 10 years? Uhhhh ... OK. I like UAVs. I'm just not that confident in them ... yet.
See also #71 (not mine).
The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought without the F-22.
Exactly.
We seen this in every industry/field.
You review the current tool (software, hardware, aircraft) every year, and every year you realize that it’s failing, but you don’t have the budget.
So, you put a band-aid on it and vow to revisit the idea the next year. The next year arrives and you’re stuck with the same decision.
The F-15C is already outdated technologically and structurally. We can’t push the replacement back any farther because we’re now in the “come as you are” state of warfare. We won’t be re-opening Willow Run to produce B-24s by the thousands. We’ll be flying exactly the aircraft that are operational on day one.
Wars (low-intensity-conflicts) like Iraq and Afghanistan will not be what hands us our ass.
It will be a large-scale engagement like an invation of Taiwan (with accompanying strikes on Japan and US naval interests) that will cripple our nation militarily.
We have to be prepared for future threats, especially in high-intensity conflicts.
For example, both The Army and the USMC have fought for purpose-build armored vehicles like the Cougar for years. Service-leaders and the DOD rejected the plan because they couldn’t envision an occupation like those of today. As a result, we were without suitable vehicles for the first three years. But, we had the time to design, build, budget and buy those vehicles and they’re being fielded now.
If we face a theater-wide war with a country like China, we won’t have the time to talk about building fifth-generation fighters and UAVs. Those are the wars (and tools) that require battle-plans well in advance.
And they'll be flown by the pilots and maintained by the crews that are trained and good-to-go on day one.
The "real solution" to the aging F15 needs to be implemented before the F15s are so worn out as to be useless. There needs to be an overlap period.
The same, of course, is true for the rest of USAF, as well as USA, USN and USMC. They all need to stay current. Freedom isn't free. It's not cheap, either.
Here's one take on F-15 lifetime:
The F-15 initial operational requirement was for a service life of 4,000 hours. Testing completed in 1973 demonstrated that the F-15 could sustain 16,000 hours of flight. Subsequently operational use was more severely stressful than the original design specification. With an average usage of 270 aircraft flight hours per year, by the early 1990s the F-15C fleet was approaching its service-design-life limit of 4,000 flight hours. Following successful airframe structural testing, the F-15C was extended to an 8,000-hour service life limit. An 8,000-hour service limit provides current levels of F-15Cs through 2010. The F-22 program was initially justified on the basis of an 8,000 flight hour life projection for the F-15. This was consistent with the projected lifespan of the most severely stressed F-15Cs, which have averaged 85% of flight hours in stressful air-to-air missions, versus the 48% in the original design specification.Full-scale fatigue testing between 1988 and 1994 ended with a demonstration of over 7,600 flight hours for the most severely used aircraft, and in excess of 12,000 hours on the remainder of the fleet. A 10,000-hour service limit would provide F-15Cs to 2020, while a 12,000-hour service life extends the F-15Cs to the year 2030. The APG-63 radar, F100-PW-100 engines, and structure upgrades are mandatory. The USAF cannot expect to fly the F-15C to 2014, or beyond, without replacing these subsystems. The total cost of the three retrofits would be under $3 billion. The upgrades would dramatically reduce the 18 percent breakrate prevalent in the mid-1990s, and extend the F-15C service life well beyond 2014.
The F-15E was built with a 15,000 hour airframe life in mind from the start. It is also heavier and less maneuverable as a result.
We don't need to repair the F-15As, but the C models will be around for a long time yet. Service Life Extension Programs are not unusual.
Other aircraft have undergone life extension airframe modifications. The B-52s that are still flying are not flying on their original upper wing skins. A-10As have been rebuilt at AMARC. F/A-18As and Bs have hand their center barrel sections replaced.
We need F-22s, and we also need F-15s. It is not an either/or situation, but rather a question of what is the right mix today, tomorrow, and in ten years.
For that matter, the same goes for the F-16. We will be retiring old F-16s as F-35s come online, but we will not get rid of all the F-16s by any means.
How long did the F-100, F-4, and A-7 soldier on with ANGs after they were replaced by more modern aircraft? The last The F-100 retired in 1979. The A-7 was retired in 1991. The last F-4 was retired in 1996, and still flies today with the Japan Self Defense Force. The B-52 (as a type) may see 100 years! It celebrated 50 years in 2002.
If it takes $250,000 to make an F-15C airframe last another 2,000 hours, it's money well spent compared to the couple of million we're spending (and have spent) equipping them with JHMCS, AESA radar, Link 16 data links, and GPS/Ring Laser INS that makes them very capable aircraft in the future.
Absolute front line first day? No. But very useful as second line fighters in domestic intercept and lower level conflicts.
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.