Air Force Might Ground F-15

[nycemt728 49]

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.

The grounded fighter jets do not include 224 F-15Es, which have been inspected and cleared. The E models, used to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are about 10 years younger and have a more robust frame.

The F-15A-Ds, meanwhile, are responsible for defending the United States, including flying combat air patrol missions over Washington, a job now filled by F-16s

This scares me, especially since it it was MSN.com. I mean, I know its obviously not classified but still probably a little too much info out there. I say rotate w/e airpower we need home from the Middle East to keep us safe...time to get our priorities straight!

The full story: Flaws may ground older F-15s

Edited December 22, 2007 by nycemt728

[IzzyEng4 427]

NYCEMT I do agree but it should be public knowledge of the problems since the manufactures are publicly held companies and are funded by our tax dollars. Furthermore, the military has started placing into service the F-15's replacements as far as I know, I'll have to look at the Jane's manual again.

For me being a full military supporter, I personally want to know that out boys and girls have the best equipment made and that if there are flaws I want to know about it. I understand full about this getting out to the enemy but I really don't believe they would announce this in public if they didn't have a plan or replacements in place in my opinion.

[PC_420 28]

Doesn't worry me too much because I am pretty sure the Air Force has already placed in services at least two squadrons of the new F-22 Raptors. <-Way more advanced.

[Guest]

new toys (f-22s) for the air force? yes please. All kidding aside, air frame fatigue is becoming more of a problem throughout the fleet of all our front line fighters. The active war footing is spending a lot of the air frame hours quickly that would normally be spent over many years in peacetime. A lot of hornets are having a titanium backbone installed to help prolong their service life. As taxpayers, be prepared to spend a lot of money on some fighter jets.

[dadbo46 50]

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aka F-35 is on the way. Over a thousand to be ordered domestically and will replace the F-16, A-10, Harrier and older model F-18's .

It only money !

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I don't see how that could be the release of too much information. That is a structural flaw and the aircraft is grounded so it doesn't give any weaknesses away. Unless you meant the combat air patrols, but anyone in and around the DC area knows these are occurring anyway.

NYC I respect your opinion greatly...but I think our priorities are correct and that is air support priorites for our ground troops. The answer to the issues in the air isn't combat patrols. Its proper screening and well trained air marshalls. The Israeli's are the model for airline safety.

[Guest]

Reading this in the media does not concern me-there have been similar articles on other aircraft over the years, like when the A-6 Intruder was trying to be upgraded to the A-6F and then retired. What concerns me is the media saying, "we did an investigation and found that this gate at this airport would be great for a terrorist to get though", etc.

That and the fact that some countries are using our old hardware and doing great upgrades on it for less than our newer aircraft like Turkey with the F-4E 2020 Terminator based on the F-4 Phantom II Vietnam fighter/bomber and the Israeli CH-53E Yas'ur 2025 helicopter upgrade.

[Guest]

An update on the situation. Up to 40% of the F-15s will not be returning to service. This is a pretty huge deal. There is going to be a lot of buckle tightening across the air force to pay for the upgrades and a lot more $200,000,000 F-22 raptors.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/0...15.grounded.cnn

[Guest FFNick]

I'm gonna miss the A-10.

[ddoyle195 8]

What upsets me is we seem to settle for less. The pure mission of the F-15 Eagle has always been air to air combat. The navy decided to replace the F-14 Tomcat with less of a fighter the FA/18 hornet. Even with the upgrades of the Super Hornet that cannot fullfill the tru roll the Tomcat did, and go as fast.

Same story with the F-15 Eagle. The F-22 Raptor is a very impressive aircarft, and very technologically advanced. But in a dogfight how does the F-22 compare to the F-15?

Fighter jets take much more beating on the airframe and structural components than any other aircarft in the aresenal. It just sucks seeing the best dam fighters in the world period being taken out of service, I just hate settling for less.

FF Nick I'm going to miss the A-10 as well, and what kills me in that respect were settling for second best again. No aircraft in the US aresenal can take the pounding the A-10 does from enemy fire and explosives, and no other aircraft can COMPLETELY do what the A-10 does. Ground troops feel much easier knowing an A-10 is loitering in the target area vs. an F-16, or FA-18.

[DCJPells 29]

I'm gonna miss the A-10.

[mfc2257 464]

But in a dogfight how does the F-22 compare to the F-15?

While a big fan of the F-14 F-15 F-16's of the late '70's thru today, a while back a lone F-22 was placed up against five F-15's (at the same time) in an air to air combat electronic training scenerio.

The F-22 was able to defeat all five F-15's.

[STAT213 332]

"Air Combat Command clears selected F-15s for flight"

http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_articl...for-flight.html

Back in the Air!!!

[Guest FFNick]

Nice DCJPells

Who says ugly can't be pretty?

[Guest]

The F-14, although an impressive aircraft, is not necessarily a better dogfighter. Due to its fly-by-wire system, the F/A-18 can do some neat little tricks that are beyond the scope of this forum. The biggest thing we lost from the F-14 is the Phoenix missile and the AWG-9 radar. The two together could track and kill up to six targets at distances in the 80-100 mile range. That was for the antiquated role of knocking down soviet bombers before they could release their cruise missiles on our ships. In todays world, every fighter is now multimission. At the end of their life, the F-14D was one of the better platforms for air-to-ground attack. The cost of maintaining all of those separate aircraft is very high. With the current example, the hornet requires about half the maintenance man hours per flight hour of the tomcat . The F-14 also had close to double the number of parts due to its variable geometry wing. The EA-6B also has a very high requirement for maintenance and that is why it is due to be replaced by the EA-18G Growler.

In the hands of the right pilot, the A-10 is an incredibly deadly weapon. In the wrong hands, it is still very deadly but to our own troops. It would not take much convincing for me to trade a whiz bang hornet for an A-10 with its 30mm cannon.

If you think life is hard on Air Force jets, Navy jets do all the same missions and training but are in a saltwater environment for six to seven months at a time. They get launched into the air by a bar attached to a catapult then they crash into the deck and get yanked to a stop by a tailhook. Navy landing gear is almost twice the size of a similar weighted air force bird's gear for that reason.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I have to say the one nice thing about having the A-10 above your head was that at its slower speeds then the supersonic aircraft you held your breath a little less on any danger close CAS. Next I would have to say the F-18 and the AV-8.

No offense to any of the flyboy pilots, but other then the A-10's we weren't always that comfortable with some of you with your CAS missions. They've gotten much better over the years, but the F-16's definately were not our favorites to know were inbound. Maybe it was home team mentality, but the Navy and our fellow Marine Aviators seemed a bit more accurate at times.

[dadbo46 50]

Air Force Fighter Fleet in 'Crisis'

Associated Press | January 11, 2008

WASHINGTON - 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 Jan. 10.

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?'"

[RescueKujo 130]

Thank you for posting the plane that was my favorite to support during my time in the USAF. The sound of freedom?? not those nice jet engines on a F-15, give me a GAU-8 30mm cannon any day of the week...