# F-15 Breaks Up in Midair



## tomahawk6

The F-15 fleet is grounded pending the results of the investigation. It was a timely accident as the USAF is trying to get more money from Congress to fund more F-22's.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f156nov06,1,6807945.story?track=rss&ctrack=4&cset=true

The aging planes are the nation's most sophisticated front-line fighters.

By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 
November 6, 2007 
WASHINGTON -- The Air Force has grounded its entire fleet of F-15s, the service's premier fighter aircraft, after one of the planes disintegrated over eastern Missouri during a training mission, raising the possibility of a fatal flaw in the aging fighters' fuselage that could keep it out of the skies for months.

Gen. T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, ordered the grounding Saturday after initial reports indicated that the Missouri Air National Guard fighter plane had broken apart Friday in midair during a simulated dogfight. The pilot ejected and survived.

Although the 688 F-15s in the Air Force's arsenal are gradually being replaced by a new generation of aircraft -- the F-22 -- they remain the nation's most sophisticated front-line fighters.

U.S. officials said that the F-15s are heavily used for protecting the continental U.S. from terrorist attacks, as well as for combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, the Air Force officer in charge of military aircraft in the Middle East, said in a statement Monday that he would be able to fill the gap with other fighters and bombers in his arsenal.

But another Air Force official said the F-15 grounding would have a "significant impact" on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "They will clearly have to work hard to pick up the slack," the official said.

The health of the F-15 fleet has long been a concern for Air Force brass, who repeatedly have warned that the two-engine fighter has exceeded its expected life span and is straining under the workload imposed by the counter-terrorism duty.

In addition, Moseley has repeatedly raised concerns that the plane is inadequate for increasingly sophisticated air defense systems being developed by potential adversaries like China and Iran.

"The F-15s . . . they're very capable airplanes," Moseley told a congressional hearing last month. "But against the new-generation threat systems, they don't have the advantage that we had when they were designed in the late 1960s and built in the 1970s."

In May, another Missouri Air National Guard F-15 crashed in southern Indiana during a similar training exercise. That pilot survived as well.

The F-15 that crashed Friday was 27 years old. Of the five different versions of the F-15 currently used by the Air Force, four versions average between 24 and 30 years of age.

The F-15E, the newest version, is only 15 1/2 years old, but it has been grounded along with the other versions because it has a similar airframe.

Air Force leaders have frequently cited the age and obsolescence of the F-15 as the main reason to buy the new, more stealthy F-22, the most expensive fighter ever made.

Critics of the F-22, which was first designed to fight a generation of Soviet MiGs that never materialized, have argued it is an overpriced Cold War relic, but the Air Force says it has adapted the plane to meet more modern threats and missions.

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, a former F-15 pilot who is now the Air Force head of intelligence, said that his son now flies the exact same F-15 aircraft that Deptula flew while based in Japan in the late 1970s.

"They have become serious maintenance challenges as they get older, and now I'd suggest that we may be facing a crisis," Deptula said.

"We must recapitalize our aging fighter forces -- and fast."

Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute who has consulted for aircraft manufacturers, said the accident was probably caused by metal fatigue, corrosion or faulty maintenance.

If maintenance problems turn out to be the culprit, Thompson said, the F-15 fleet could be returned to flight relatively quickly. Similarly, corrosion could be addressed by examining other aircraft for similar problems.

If the Missouri crash was the result of metal fatigue, however, it could lead to a much more extended grounding, since it would suggest that time and intense use of the aircraft since the Sept. 11 attacks have finally caught up with the aging fighter.

"The whole fleet was already flying on flight restrictions due to metal fatigue," said Thompson, noting that a fleetwide grounding is extremely rare, especially for a fighter.

"In this case, the planes that are grounded are supposed to be America's top-of-the-line air-superiority plane," Thompson added. "This is not like grounding some cargo plane. These are the sinews of our global air dominance."

Despite fears over the plane's safety, it remained unclear whether all F-15s were on the ground or would stay there. Lt. Col. Edward W. Thomas Jr., an Air Force spokesman, said that over North America, counter-terrorism missions were being taken over by the single-engine F-16 fighter, but that some F-15s would be on standby during the transition period.

Similarly, an Air Force official said North, the Air Force commander in the Middle East, would keep some F-15Es on hand in case of an emergency.

"They're not going to put their aircraft on the flying schedule, but if they really need the combat capability and you've got troops in harm's way, they're going to launch them," the official said.

According to Air Force officials, Moseley and other senior officers were alarmed after it became clear that the accident in Missouri was the result of the plane simply breaking apart during a relatively basic exercise.

Capt. Bridget Zorn, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Air National Guard, said the pilot had been released from the hospital with a dislocated shoulder and broken arm.

She said investigators were still in the early stages of their inquiry, marking and identifying pieces of wreckage at the site, about 120 miles southwest of St. Louis.

peter.spiegel@latimes.com


----------



## geo

Scarry situation!

A whole generation of fighter & strike aircraft are coming to the end of their useful life... all at the same time (F14s, F15s, F16s)

Consider the fact that the unit cost of any new replacement aircraft will be a pill large enough to choke a horse... not a pretty corner we've painted ourselves into.


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> Scarry situation!
> 
> A whole generation of fighter & strike aircraft are coming to the end of their useful life... all at the same time (F14s, F15s, F16s)
> 
> Consider the fact that the unit cost of any new replacement aircraft will be a pill large enough to choke a horse... not a pretty corner we've painted ourselves into.



Well.....doesnt that problem sound familiar ?


----------



## tomahawk6

Worse is that the F-35 isnt ready for service yet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to mention the replacements are so dam expensive they can't replace one for one. They may have been better off having a front line fighter in the F-22/35 series and new 2nd line fighters withupgraded avionics and engines based on newly built existing air frame designs.


----------



## aesop081

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Worse is that the F-35 isnt ready for service yet.



This just compounds the USAF's problem.  With the F-15 grounded, the F-16 will have to step in and pick up the slack.  This will add more wear and tear on the F-16 and accelerating its retirement with its replacement, the F-35 still not ready for a few more years.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

Think our A/F is in bad shape, read on.

Posted with the usual...

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/old_Air_force/2007/11/06/47113.html?s=al&promo_code=3C81-1



> Eisenhower-Era Planes Still Defend U.S.
> 
> Tuesday, November 6, 2007 12:57 PM
> 
> By: Dave Eberhart  Article Font Size
> 
> U.S. Air Force pilots are flying some planes so old they were built during the Eisenhower administration, and Congress is delaying new appropriations to modernize America’s aging fighters, bombers, and other military aircraft.
> 
> The average age of today’s Air Force fleet is 24 years.
> 
> Big B-52 bombers, which played a critical role in America’s recent efforts to liberate Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan, are over 45 years old.
> 
> Worse, many of these bombers rely on KC-135 aerial refueling tankers that are just as old.
> 
> The U.S. military critically depends on C-130 cargo planes for rapid deployment. Yet these planes -- many built at least 25 years ago -- are crippled by serious wing cracks and have been grounded or restricted in the loads they can deliver. Giant tank-carrying C-5A cargo aircraft -- about 35 years old -- are also parked on runways owing to heavy maintenance requirements.
> 
> The bottom line: The United States is fighting the war on terror with an old and rapidly aging Air Force warplane inventory -- and there is no quick cure in sight.
> 
> The results can be catastrophic.
> 
> In 2002, Maj. James Duricy was killed after ejecting from his F-15 when the warplane lost part of its tail while flying over the Gulf of Mexico. The F-15 was about 30 years old. An investigation showed that part of the old aircraft’s internal structure had corroded. Eventually, the vertical stabilizers had to be replaced on almost half of the U.S. Air Force’s F-15 fleet.
> 
> The Duricy was a victim of what military experts call the “weapon systems procurement holidays of the 1990s” – when the U.S. government took advantage of the end of the Cold War, called it a “peace dividend” and didn’t appropriate the necessary funds to modernize its aging fleet of military planes.
> 
> And the procurement curve of new hardware, particularly in the fighter department, cannot keep up.
> 
> According to a recent report in Air Force Magazine, even if the Air Force gets all the new fighters on its wish list -- 381 F-22 Raptors and 1,763 F-35 Lightning IIs -- for decades it will still have to rely on a record number of older fighters to meet the contingencies of national defense.
> 
> By sheer necessity, the USAF must lengthen the service lives of its 1980s-vintage fighters -- F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s -- with substantial structural changes and new state-of-the-art black boxes.
> 
> We are not talking about squeezing two or three more years out of the aging fleet, but keeping some of the refurbished warplanes serving until the 2030s -- meaning pilots could then be flying jets 50 years old or older.
> 
> It’s one thing to burn through taxpayer dollars to keep vital, albeit old, warplanes in the air -- and another to simply toss good money after bad on planes that will not fly. So argues U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., a member of the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee.
> 
> The lawmaker says the Air Force reported spending about $4 million daily and $1.7 billion annually to maintain 330 aircraft “they can’t use and are not planning to use.”
> 
> Included are a mix of ancient KC-135 tankers, C-130 air lifters, F-117 fighters, U-2 reconnaissance planes, and C-5As.
> 
> It’s not the Air Force brass’s idea to nurse along this old iron. Restrictions on retiring the nation’s oldest aircraft are written into law -- thanks to some members of Congress who worried that deep-sixing the planes would make bases in their district or state targets for the dreaded base closing process.
> 
> Predictably, the old aircraft also provide lucrative jobs for defense contractors.
> 
> U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., for instance, lobbies hard for continuation of the effort to modernize the oldest C-5s, which is performed at a Georgia-based Lockheed Martin Corp. factory. The price tag for upgrading each C-5 is about $75 million.
> 
> In another example of parochial interests perhaps overriding the big picture, Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee chairwoman Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., has urged retention of the C-5s based at Travis Air Force Base in her district.
> 
> Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., the ranking member of the Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, has been the most vocal proponent of letting the Air Force manage its own inventory of warplanes.
> 
> “Congress has been micromanaging the Air Force,” the lawmaker argues. “Several provisions in the 2007 defense authorization law bar the Air Force from getting rid of old planes.
> 
> “One requires the service to have a total of 299 C-5s and C-17s available at all times. The Air Force is also prohibited from retiring more than 29 KC-130Es in 2007 and must maintain tankers and F-117A fighters retired after Sept. 30, 2006, ‘in a condition which would allow recall to future service.’
> 
> These provisions tie up parts that could be used to repair planes in better working order. They also force maintenance crews to care for aircraft that will never fly again.”
> 
> Akin endorses the straightforward plea of Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, the military deputy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, who recently told lawmakers: “We would like permission, as the other services have, to manage our fleet.”
> 
> In the meantime, the embattled Air Force has had to resort to self-help. According to Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, the service will be downsizing the number of its personnel so it can afford to invest in newer aircraft. On the boards: a plan to cut the ranks by 57,500 airmen by 2011.
> 
> The savings from the force reduction will be invested in new aircraft, said Carlson, who explained: “We simply have to recapitalize the fleet to be ready to fight the next war.”
> 
> Why the drastic measures? The answer can be easily gleaned from some dire numbers.
> 
> Today, more than 800 aircraft -- 14 percent of the fleet -- are grounded or operating under restricted flying conditions. This fact has had an impact on overall combat readiness, which has declined by 17 percent, according to Maj. Gen. Frank Faykes, deputy assistant secretary for budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management.
> 
> The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review spelled out that the Air Force must have 86 combat wings to do its job. According to USAF officials, it has about 81 combat wings’ worth of forces now.
> 
> To help get up to snuff, the Air Force says it needs, among a host of things, 1,763 F-35s to replace the F-16 and A-10. But the pace at which F-35s will come online is troublesome.
> 
> As F-16s pass their planned life expectancy and must retire, the new F-35s won’t appear in operational service for another six years.
> 
> Furthermore, USAF budget documents indicate that the service can afford only 48 F-35s a year over the FYDP (Future Years Defense Program). If that number is not ramped up, it will take about 40 years to buy all the F-35s required.
> 
> Meanwhile, the expensive patch-and-fix of the so-called “legacy” aircraft grinds on, and there’s nothing simplistic or cheap about it.
> 
> A good example is the F-15. Even though the USAF will replace a large portion of F-15Cs with the F-22 Raptor, the service will still need to supplement the F-22s with the F-15 beyond 2025.
> 
> By that time, the F-15 will have been in service for more than 50 years, and those still in the air will be more than 35 years old, according to Air Force Magazine.
> 
> Selected F-15s will undergo expensive renovations that include replacing the aircraft’s analog radar; installing a new combined Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System; new radios; digital video recorder; new identification, friend or foe systems; and a helmet-mounted targeting system.
> 
> Add to the package new Pratt & Whitney engines, new wiring, new ribbing under weapons stations, and tinkering with the flight-control system.
> 
> Remember those tank-killing A-10 “Warthogs” that blasted Saddam Hussein’s forces in the Gulf War? They’ve been in the U.S. inventory since 1975.
> 
> Some 223 are getting all-new wings, with replaced flight controls, new fuel pumps for the fuel tanks in the wings, and new wiring.
> 
> The workhorse F-16s have proved more nettlesome in the service-life extension process. The structural upgrade replaces some bulkheads, wing skins, and other pieces, but there’s a built-in limit on remanufacturing. The F-16 is made with large amounts of composite materials, designed for a certain life expectancy.
> 
> And even that life expectancy has been pushed beyond the envelope. Originally expected to be flying about 250 hours a year, those aircraft deployed to combat have averaged 300 hours per year or more.
> 
> All of which means that until scores of new aircraft are procured, many pilots will continue to fly jets that were built before they were born.
> 
> 
> 
> © 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


----------



## Good2Golf

Imagine that, several fleets reaching already extended lifetimes with associated fatigue issue...familiar, indeed.  One could argue that the US is also "profiting" from the "peace dividend" of the late 80's-early-90's -- something that otherwise looks eerily like a "failure to invest in infrastructure" that has the follow-on effect of having huge demands to renew infrastructure at a level of investment far greater than moderate periodic investments in infrastructure.  Many nations have already gone through this.  that these issues are manifesting themselves now in the US is probably due to a number of factors, but most likely to the US not "rolling back" the defence capability nearly as much as other Western nations during the 90's.  The specifics of air power and what the USAF requires today (composition/proportion of capabilities provided vs. required), however, in concert with the much greater lead times in developing technology than existed in the 50's through 70's means that the only systems to replace 4th gen fighters, are 5th gen fighters as a much greater (even for the F-35) than in the past.  That the USAF position is that the F-22 has "adapted" to the changing requirements is good in one way, but one would also have to ask, "Is procuring greater quantities of a high-tech, expensive weapon system the right thing to do?", or should a complementary lower-tech solution that can be used in a number of existing, and projected theaters of operation, and that can be developed in a relatively short time?  This relates closely to the thread regarding the future of the USAF.  The "true blue" boys still seem to have a problem with systems like A-10 (or follow on) or movers or CSAR helo's etc... that "steal the limelight" from....The Fighter!  This is, however, most definitely not an issue on which the USAF holds a monopoly.

G2G


----------



## geo

OMG,  with info like that, there has to be some AF personnel who can't sleep at night....

Someone aughta give them a list of the phone numbers for the Senators & congressmen responsible for hanging on to old birds.... wake em up & keep em awake


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> *The "true blue" boys still seem to have a problem with systems like A-10 (or follow on) or movers or CSAR helo's etc... that "steal the limelight" from....The Fighter! *


 Hence, when the F-15 was being built, the mantra was "not one pound for air-to-ground"....until they saw where the budget was heading. Suddenly gun-tape on some conformal fuel tanks, add bombs, and _voila_ the USAF's lead CAS platform -- even though everyone knew it was crap in that role when compared with an A-10 (or F-16, or Tornado.....). But now that there are no A-10s in theatre, and AC-130s are scarce, Afganistan too low priority and/or not enough tankers to support CVN-based F/A-18s.......F-15Es became a necessary evil. 

And now they're grounded   

At least the French have 3 Mirages here.....to protect the airfield's outer markers  :


----------



## armyvern

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...
> At least the French have 3 Mirages here.....to protect the airfield's outer markers  :



Gawd, they actully let them fly that far? Kind of like a touch-n-go, without actually going. Did anyone bother to tell them it's much cheaper to just keep throwing quarters (sheckels, lira, shilling etc) into the little one-seaters at the mall entrance instead?? Less risky too.


----------



## Good2Golf

JM, unbelievable.....but not surprising.  Hearing the "not one pound, for air to ground" again just gets me going...  Heck, apparently a Su-25 would be more effective than an F-15E on the ground, right about now.

G2G


----------



## tomahawk6

The French told General McNeil that the 3 French aircraft with French pilots is like having a squadron of A-10's. 

Seriously though I dont see a drop off in CAS capabilities. Here is a link to the daily airpower report for CENTAF. CAS ops in Iraq are down I suppose if needed the USAF could transfer A-10's to Bagram.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123075515


----------



## Stoker

Wow that's too bad. When a airframe decides to break up like that its usually pretty spectacular. A few years ago 2 F-18's off Savannah did a mid air in front of my ship. All we picked up were a few fragments. The pilots punched out though and were safe.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> All we picked up were a few fragments



I hope that you were wearing approved respiration protection.  Carbon fibres are not good for the lungs.


----------



## MarkOttawa

There are A-10s at Bagram, Afstan:
http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/2462/A-10s-return-to-Bagram.html
http://www.bagram.afnews.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123066638
http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=16
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/VIDA10C.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Improves%20CAS%20With%20A-10C%20Upgrade

And videos here, probably this year:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7dd_1192721174
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=858_1192985738

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6

The USAF usually deploys for 4 month tours.


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> *There are A-10s at Bagram, Afstan:*


First off Mark, there are NOT A-10s at Bagram. 
Look at the dates of the links you posted: 19 Apr, 31 Aug, 23 Oct, 27 June. As  mentioned, the A-10s were pulled out. They were slated to be back in late-winter, but because the F-15s are currently being employed as massive paper-weights, the A-10s have been ordered back....but they're not here yet. Believe me, I look at the air stack every time an Op may spool up -- which is pretty much daily.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> *The upshot- the guys owning non-Mach 1 airplanes did the best.  The faster the top speed of the airplane (IMHO)  the worse the CAS service (in general) that you are likely to receive*


 I agree D -- and I suspect it's the mindset as much as the airframe (except for #4 -- when you're in a TIC, counting a "pretend CAS" airframe is as useful as relying on an aircraft that's not actually flying). Mind you, if we _are_ playing that game, I want FLYING sharks with fricken' laser beams attached to their heads!!

And for what it's worth, I'm also a big fan of AC-130s....but there aren't nearly enough to go around. The CAOC supports ops in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and you know which team plays Operation OVERLORD and who's playing Operation DRAGOON


----------



## MarkOttawa

Journeyman: My apologies and thanks for the correction.  I took the Oct. 23 date and wrongly assumed (hah!)  current deployment.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> *Journeyman: My apologies .....*


 Absolutely none required.  

...but I think I'm done here anyway.


----------



## observor 69

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13tues1.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print


November 13, 2007
Editorial
Structural Failures 
The recent crash of an Air Force F-15 fighter jet — and the grounding of the entire 700-plane fleet as a precautionary measure — is the latest reminder of the tough military budget choices this country will face for the foreseeable future. Even if American troops were withdrawn from Iraq tomorrow, billions of dollars would still be needed to replenish military equipment, swap aging weapons systems for new ones and rebuild and expand ground forces strained to the breaking point by this misguided war. 

After years of signing blank checks to the Pentagon, the next president and Congress will also have to insist on a serious review of what is truly needed to protect the country from a new generation of threats — and not just line the pockets of contractors and their lobbyists. 

Although the crash in Missouri on Nov. 2 is still being studied, initial reports suggest that the plane suffered structural failure and disintegrated in the air. That F-15 was built in 1980, but some of the planes in the fleet are more than 30 years old. The problem is that the Air Force’s chosen replacement, the F-22 stealth fighter, is both extremely expensive and already out of date — designed originally for air-to-air combat against Soviet style MIG fighters during the cold war. 

American taxpayers have a right to insist that the Pentagon make sounder choices in the future. 

The most immediate problem is digging out from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has borne much of the burden, and it will need a lot of help to replace war-worn equipment and replenish a strained and war-weary force. 

As it has struggled to meet recruiting targets, the Army has had to compromise personnel standards. Last year, 15 percent of recruits needed waivers because they didn’t meet requirements on education, medical and lack of a criminal record. That number has risen to 18 percent so far this year. Meanwhile, a large percentage of West Point graduates — the elite corps from which Army officers are drawn — are leaving active duty as soon as their required time is up.

Exploding health care expenses for returning veterans and what many servicemen and officers see as a crisis of confidence in military leadership add to the challenges going forward. The Navy and Marine Corps also have their own replacement and modernization problems. The Army and the Marines, having carried these wars, deserve to have their needs addressed first. 

The United States has spent a staggering $800 billion just on war fighting since Sept. 11, 2001. President Bush has no plan for rebuilding the force, beyond asking for ever more cash.

The presidential candidates will have to do a better job. They can start by explaining how they plan to withdraw American troops from Iraq and then how they plan to rebuild a military capable of defending this country from a new generation of threats. 

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company


----------



## Bandit1

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> ... and already out of date — designed originally for air-to-air combat against Soviet style MIG fighters during the cold war.



There's always one line in every piece that just makes you chuckle a little bit.... 

Bandit


----------



## JBP

That last line about F-22's being already outdated is just insane........ 

Although they can't use Super Hornets from CVN's, why not make a land-based version of the aircraft somewhat like what we did with the CF-18??? Even though the new Super Hornets are about $60million or so a jet, it's still a lot cheaper than an F-22 and definitely fills the job of air-to-ground as well as air-to-air. It's a proven platform so why not go with it for the interim? It would seem crazy to invest billions into replacing your air force with a jet that's a stop gap until the F-35, but it's a lot better than nothing and it's already in production... I would think if they order a large number of aircraft like that the unit price would go down as well.

Seems like a good idea no?


----------



## GAP

F-15E Strike Eagles to fly again in Iraq, Afghanistan
Article Link

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Air Force is returning F-15E Strike Eagle jets to service over Iraq and Afghanistan after grounding other F-15s, the Air Force said Wednesday. 

The Air Force grounded models of its F-15 fleet after the crash of an older model F-15C this month.

 The F-15s were grounded after a crash earlier this month in Missouri of an older model that disintegrated in flight.

Each F-15E must pass an inspection of critical parts on the airframe before returning to flying missions, Air Force officials said.

All U.S. Air Force 224 E-model aircraft will undergo a one-time inspection of hydraulic system lines, the Air Force statement said. 

The longerons -- molded, metal strips of the aircraft fuselage that run from front to rear -- will also be inspected, according to the Air Force. 

The straps and skin panels in and around the environmental control system bay will also be examined, officials said. 

The Air Force would not say whether the parts being inspected were part of the problem on the aircraft that crashed.
More on link


----------



## CougarKing

Another update on some F15s' being allowed to fly again.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,156302,00.html?wh=wh



> Some F-15s Allowed Back in the Air
> Stars and Stripes | Bryan Mitchell | November 15, 2007
> RAF LAKENHEATH, England -- The Air Force rescinded a grounding order on some of its F-15s Wednesday, sending a fighter jet squadron in Afghanistan back on combat sorties and squadrons in the United Kingdom back onto their training regimen.
> 
> The F-15Es can return to flight after a one-time 13-hour inspection, according to Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Bentley. All other models remain grounded.
> 
> "Some of our planes are flying here," said 455th Air Expeditionary Wing spokesman Capt. Michael Meridith from Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan.
> 
> The latest grounding was ordered last week after the Nov. 2 crash of an F-15C from the Missouri Air National Guard. The crash was the second involving a Missouri Air National Guard F-15 this year.
> 
> The pilot was engaged in a dog fighting exercise at speeds of up to 500 mph when the accident occurred. He ejected safely and suffered minor injuries.
> 
> The order grounded the aging fleet of more than 700 F-15s across the United States and at Lakenheath, where the 48th Fighter Wing is based. The wing has the only contingent of F-15s in U.S. Air Forces Europe.
> 
> It's unclear if the Air Force determined what caused the crash, but officials have acknowledged the plane suffered structural problems and broke apart in flight.
> 
> "They can't give us anything partial from the investigation," Bentley said.
> 
> RAF Lakenheath is home to three F-15 squadrons, which includes approximately 83 F-15s that fly an average of 60 sorties a day.
> 
> During the grounding, pilots and weapons systems officers at the 48th Fighter Wing focused on studying and preparing for the ongoing NATO Operations evaluation while the maintenance crews attempted to work ahead on scheduled overhauls, RAF Lakenheath officials said last week.
> 
> The first F-15 rolled off the McDonnell Douglas production line and launched into the skies in 1972. Upgrades and modifications have significantly altered the aircraft.
> 
> The F-15 is one of the primary aircraft used by the Air Force in Afghanistan to provide close-air support to coalition troops serving across the Texas-sized nation.
> 
> The Lakenheath-based 492nd Fighter Squadron recently returned from a four-month tour of Bagram Air Base, in which it engaged in nearly daily combat sorties and employed roughly 1,000 munitions.
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Japan and Israel also maintain individual fleets of F-15s.
> 
> The move to lift the order ended the longest grounding for the F-15 since 1983, when a defective component found on a fighter jet at Langley Air Force Base, Va., led to a similar long-term grounding, according to the Air Force.
> 
> The Air Force bought its last F-15 in 2004 and has long-term plans to eventually replace the fighter jet with the F-22, which has yet to be deployed on combat missions.


----------



## a_majoor

R215 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> That last line about F-22's being already outdated is just insane........
> 
> Although they can't use Super Hornets from CVN's, why not make a land-based version of the aircraft somewhat like what we did with the CF-18??? Even though the new Super Hornets are about $60million or so a jet, it's still a lot cheaper than an F-22 and definitely fills the job of air-to-ground as well as air-to-air. It's a proven platform so why not go with it for the interim? It would seem crazy to invest billions into replacing your air force with a jet that's a stop gap until the F-35, but it's a lot better than nothing and it's already in production... I would think if they order a large number of aircraft like that the unit price would go down as well.
> 
> Seems like a good idea no?



The F-22's original mission and putative reason for being no longer exists, which is what the writer was trying to convey. There are some issues with the F-22 being used as a strike platform, although there is a theoretical option for an "FB-22", should you have a few billion in your back pocket.

I don't see the "Super Hornet" as anything more than the logical evolutionary end point for the Hornet series of planes. Due to some bad decisions dating back as far as the Reagan administration, the US Navy has more or less run out of airframes due to age and use, and needs something to fill the gaps while the F-35 series comes into production.

While the planes from the "Fighter Mafia" were and are outstanding examples of the designer's art, they are still products of the 1970's, and even if you were to build entirely new F-15's, F-16's or F-18's today, you would not be able to take advantage of many modern material and production methodologies (the entire airframe would have to be redesigned), or advances in various systems (none of these planes were designed around vectored thrust, for example), or even "wants" like supercruise or "Stealth".

The stupendous costs of the F-22 and F-35 are a reflection of a lot of R&D, the inclusion of an incredible wish list of features and the prolonged gestation period (the F-22's genesis was the 1980 era "Advanced Tactical Fighter" program). If the "Fighter Mafia" were still around, I suspect their entry would be a stripped down "hot rod" resembling the F-16XL


----------



## Good2Golf

> ...If the "Fighter Mafia" were still around...


  Hunh?  ???

Not tracking why that's a phrase written in the conditional tense...


G2G


----------



## a_majoor

The "Fighter Mafia" was a small team led and influenced by the late Col John Boyd. They were influenced by Col Boyd's work on air combat manouevres and his theoretical work on "Energy-Maneuverability" as well as concerned by the rapidly escalating growth in aircraft size, weight and cost. (The first two factors weigh heavily in E-M theory).

The F-15 was a result of Col Boyd's "official" work with the Air Force, although the USAF still insisted on many features that added to the size and expense of the airplane. Some, like the large radar array, are clearly advantageous, while others, in Boyd's view, were not. Boyd and the "Fighter Mafia" took E-M theory as far as it would go with early 1970 era technology and came up with a design envelope which General Dynamics turned into the XF-16, while Northrup came up with the XF-17.

A modern day counterpart to the  F-16 might superficially resemble it (look at the LAVI, which was a sort of 1980's interpretation of the design), but with modern materials to make it much lighter and modern aerodynamics to make it more efficient it would be one heck of an airplane.


----------



## Good2Golf

Arthur, tracking now...."F"ighter "M"afia, as opposed to "fighter mafia".  I would say the lower-case version still exists almost everywhere fighter pilots still live and breath.

I'm not sure if I'd say Col. John Boyd was ever part of the "Fighter Mafia"...he had pretty much a hate-hate relationship with the USAF and the USAF didn't really like his style, notwithstanding the absolutely irrefutable validity and value of his E-M work.  The USAF also betrayed him on the F-15...using him for his knowledge on the E-M bit, yet screwing him by perverting his original concept to the point where the Eagle was significantly larger than he ever thought responsible.

The fact that the USAF sent a lone, materiel-background BG to represent the USAF at his funeral in Arlington, while hundreds of Marines showed up to pay their last respects to a pilot they had "adopted in spirit" from another service, speaks volumes of the USAF, and the "Fighter Mafia's" disdain for Col. Boyd.

Those looking for a good read should try Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram 


G2G


----------



## tomahawk6

All models of the F-15,except the E model, are grounded once again.



> upper longerons near the canopy of the aircraft that appear to have cracked and failed



http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/airforce_f15_grounded_again_071128w/

Air Force grounds F-15s — again 

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Nov 28, 2007 17:48:21 EST

For the second time in less than a month, F-15 Eagles are grounded.

Air Combat Command announced today that A, B, C and D-model versions of the fighter would “stand down” for an indefinite period of time.

F-15E Strike Eagles, a larger and newer version of the fighters, are not grounded and continue to fly, ACC said.

Like the ordered grounding on Nov. 3, this decision stems from the Nov. 2 crash of a 27-year-old Missouri Air National Guard F-15C. That fighter broke apart between the cockpit and main fuselage as it flew an air-to-air combat training sortie.

Wednesday’s announcement comes 12 days after F-15 A-D units were told their jets could return to flight as each fighter passed a 15-hour-long inspection. As of today, about 90 percent of the F-15As, Bs, Cs and Ds had passed the inspection.

Air Combat Command spokesmen said the new concern involves cracks in metal supports called longerons near the cockpits. The longerons are metal rails that hold the fuselage of the aircraft together.

The latest decision to ground the jets was based on a metallurgical analysis of the jet that crashed Nov. 2. The investigation drew attention to the F-15’s upper longerons near the canopy of the aircraft that appear to have cracked and failed, ACC said.

Those longerons were covered in general by previous inspections but technical experts with the air logistics center assisting in the accident investigation board have recommended a specific inspection of the suspect area.

The F-15 program office at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Ga., is developing new inspection criteria for the jets. Originally manufactured by McDonnell Douglas, the A-models, the oldest of the service’s F-15s, have been flying since 1975 and were developed to replace the F-4 Phantom and take on the MiG-25. C-models came on line in the late 1970s. The B-model and D-model Eagles are two-seat trainer versions of the A and C planes.

Boeing, which purchased McDonnell Douglas a decade ago, delivered the last F-15 to the Air Force in 2004 and is now working to upgrade some of the older planes. The most recent model, the unaffected F-15E Strike Eagle, entered service in 1989 and is currently in use in Afghanistan.

Variants of the F-15 are also in use by the air forces of Israel, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Japan.


----------



## Bandit1

First - details of the investigation have been released, as well as a computer animation of the crash and a HUD Display/Animation of the crash can be found linked below.

Executive Summary and Computer Animations of Crash

Second - this came through the wire yesterday.



> PRESS RELEASE -- Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Public Affairs
> 
> Release No. 020108
> January 8,2008
> 
> AIR COMBAT COMMAND CLEARS SELECTED F-15s FOR FLIGHT
> 
> LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. - Air Combat Command today cleared a portion of its F-15 A-D model aircraft for flying status and recommended a limited return to flight for Air Force units worldwide following engineering risk assessments and data received from multiple fleet-wide inspections.
> 
> The return to fly order and recommendation applies only to those F-15 aircraft, about 60 percent of the total Air Force F-15 A-D fleet, that have cleared all inspections and have met longeron manufacturing specifications.
> 
> The order and recommendation follows more than two months of stand-down actions after an Air National Guard F-15C aircraft experienced catastrophic structural failure and broke apart in flight during a basic fighter maneuver training sortie in Missouri on Nov. 2.
> 
> "The priority in resuming operations for a portion of the F-15 fleet is the defense of our nation -- America deserves nothing less," said General John D.W. Corley, Air Combat Command commander. "Aircraft inspection results and counsel from both military and industry experts have made me confident in the safety of a portion of the fleet. As a result, I have cleared those F-15s to return to fly."
> 
> Today's decision follows detailed information briefed on Friday to Air Combat Command from the Air Force's F-15 Systems Program Manager, senior engineers from Boeing and the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, as well as a briefing received today from the Accident Investigation Board president.
> 
> The information included an analysis of the health of the Air Force's F-15 fleet from findings from the Nov. 2 mishap investigation, maintenance inspections and actions completed and taken to date as well as historical science and engineering trend data from F-15 fleet management.
> 
> Inspections are more than 90 percent complete. Remaining inspections have primarily focused on the forward longerons. The longerons are a critical support structure.
> 
> TCTO 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.
> 
> Deviations in these longerons will be analyzed at the WR-ALC. The analysis is expected to take approximately four weeks to complete. Once the analysis is complete, ACC will be able to better determine which aircraft will need further inspection, or repair, before returning them to flight.
> 
> A media availability will be held at the Pentagon on Thursday, Jan. 10, to address the conclusion of the Nov. 2 accident investigation and findings to date. Air Force operations, maintenance, and engineering experts will be available to answer questions.
> 
> For more information on today's announcement, contact Air Combat Command public affairs at (757) 764-5007. For more information about Thursday's media availability, contact the Air Force Press Desk at (703) 695-0640.


----------



## tomahawk6

Yep the longerons were not built according to specs.The USAF ought to take the manufacturer to court.
Might be good news though for the USAF's effort to get more F-22's.


----------



## aesop081

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Yep the longerons were not built accorfing to specs.



Source for that ?

I dont see that being said in the above article


----------



## Bandit1

Under the Executive Summary portion of my post, above the article.

Bandit


----------



## GAP

> Inspections are more than 90 percent complete. Remaining inspections have primarily focused on the forward longerons. The longerons are a critical support structure.
> 
> TCTO 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.  Deviations in these longerons will be analyzed at the WR-ALC. The analysis is expected to take approximately four weeks to complete. Once the analysis is complete, ACC will be able to better determine which aircraft will need further inspection, or repair, before returning them to flight.


----------



## tomahawk6

Here's more on the report. 

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=51541


----------



## tomahawk6

Animation without having to dl.
http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/f15cockpit1/


----------



## tomahawk6

An Air Guard F-15 crashed today. Pilot was rescued.





http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327786,00.html

HONOLULU  —  A fighter jet among a troubled fleet of F-15s that recently returned to the skies plunged into the ocean Friday, but the pilot ejected in time and was rescued shortly afterward.

A Coast Guard helicopter plucked the Hawaii National Guard pilot from the ocean. He was taken to a hospital and was listed in good condition.

The pilot, whose identity was not released, had extensive flight experience, said Maj. Gen. Robert G.F. Lee, the Hawaii National Guard commander.

"Our first concern was whether the pilot was OK," Lee told KHON-TV. "I got the chance to visit with him in the hospital. He's terrific."

The pilot said he could not control the plane and started to lose altitude before the crash, according to Lee. That's when he made the decision to eject and parachuted to the water 60 miles south of Honolulu.

The cause of the crash was being investigated. The plane had experienced no problems during a routine training exercise earlier in the day, Lee said.

The crash comes just a few weeks after the Hawaii Air National Guard, which uses the fighter jets to patrol island airspace, resumed flying the jet. The Guard returned 13 of its 20 planes to the air on Jan. 9. The remaining seven were still grounded and were undergoing inspections by engineers.

The Hawaii National Guard's F-15 jets, built between 1974 and 1978, were acquired in 1987 and had never before experienced a crash, Lee said.

The fleet's grounding came after a model broke in two during a training flight over Missouri, injuring the pilot. An investigation concluded that a defective aluminum beam in the frame cracked.

Another probe found that more than 150 of the military's F-15s also had the flawed beams


----------



## karl28

Thankfully the pilot was alright  and hopefully they can find out what led to this crash .


----------



## geo

Methinks that, with this bad "run" of incidents, politicians, MsM and the public will be clamoring for the permanent grounding of the F15... thereby adding pressure for the deployment of something like the new generation of fighters...


----------



## tomahawk6

geo said:
			
		

> Methinks that, with this bad "run" of incidents, politicians, MsM and the public will be clamoring for the permanent grounding of the F15... thereby adding pressure for the deployment of something like the new generation of fighters...



I am sure the USAF will use the opportunity to buy more F-22's. I cant see how they can fix the F-15 without an expensive makeover.


----------



## geo

At this point, I see the F15 as being a doomed product line.


----------



## observor 69

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I am sure the USAF will use the opportunity to buy more F-22's. I cant see how they can fix the F-15 without an expensive makeover.



Why not more F-35 Lightning II vice more F-22?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_22


----------



## tomahawk6

The F-35 is intended to replace the Strike Eagle varient of the F-15. The F-22 is needed to replace the AD varient of the F-22. I havent been a fan of the F-22 because of cost, but being realistic its the only alternative to the defective F-15 air defense models. I cant see how Congress can avoid having to buy another 100 -120 F-22's. With the problems of the F-35 program more F-22's might be needed to fill the strike role.


----------

