| Author |
Message |
|
parrothead
|
Posted: Mar 03, 2007 - 01:04 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: May 11, 2004 - 12:04 AM
Posts: 3280
Status: Offline
|
What's scary is that I'm 30 and most of the jets in the air force are nearly as old as I am ! I don't think many people (present company excluded) realize just how old our air force is. Just think if most cars on the road were that old and the maintenance nightmare of trying to keep a sports car from that period maintained well enough to go out and race hard every time it goes out.
Hats off to the maintainers as they keep the Air Force flying !
Aero-News.net wrote:
Average Military Aircraft Is 24 Years Old
During the Vietnam War, the average age of aircraft used by the US Air Force was nine years. Now, the average age is 24 years... with aircraft such as the B-52H Stratofortress logging in at greater than 40.
"These are geriatric airplanes," said Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, a former F-15 fighter pilot who's now Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
Combat readiness has declined by 17 percent, Maj. Gen. Frank Faykes said at a budget briefing in early February -- due, in part, to "the aging fleet and our ability to get those airplanes in the air."
Today, more than 800 aircraft -- 14 percent of the fleet -- are grounded or operating under restricted flying conditions, he said.
The age issue has alarmed the Air Force leadership, which is pushing against rising budget pressures to modernize and restock the fleet, according to the Wichita Eagle.
"It was a looming crisis," said Richard Aboulafia, an aircraft analyst with the Teal Group in Fairfax, VA. "And now, because of Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a looming disaster."
The Air Force contends it needs to be modernized with state-of-the-art aircraft. Critics maintain that renovating the current fleet will serve the same purpose to which the Air Force counters with the fact that modern, next-generation fighters are what are necessary for the US to maintain air superiority.
This is heavily underlined by the emerging threat of missile and fighter development of countries such as China and Russia. Not to mention the growing nuclear bomb threats of countries such as North Korea.
Deptula's son followed in his father's footsteps and enlisted in the Air Force. He now flies the same vintage F-15s Deptula flew in 1979.
The question is what's going to go wrong next," said the three-star general. "We have never flown fighters this old. If you're driving a 28-year-old car, you can expect some problems. And 28-year-old cars don't go flying around at 700 miles per hour and pull 9 G's."
The F-15 was once the world's preeminent aircraft. The fighter was built to fly at Mach 2.3 but now cannot exceed Mach 1.5 on training missions to avoid over-stressing the aircraft.
Issues surrounding the dangers of flying aircraft past their prime are studied by the Aging Aircraft Research Laboratory developed in 2002 by the National Institute for Aviation Research in Wichita. Lab director Dale Cope said the two most prevalent effects of aging are corrosion and metal fatigue, caused by hour after hour of changing air pressure on the aircraft structure.
Air Force Chief of Staff T. Michael Moseley has made replacement of the 48-year-old Stratotanker one of his top priorities. Boeing Co. and Airbus are competing for the potentially multi-billion dollar contract to build a new tanker fleet.
Congressional leaders such as Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, the chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee, told the Eagle he plans to take a "hard look" at Air Force requests like next-generation fighters such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. But, Democrat-heavy Congress feels that funding troops takes precedence over "costly acquisitions."
|
_________________ No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 21, 2013 - 7:59 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Mar 03, 2007 - 03:50 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 09:08 PM
Posts: 3147
|
|
|
|
 |
|
parrothead
|
Posted: Mar 03, 2007 - 11:39 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: May 11, 2004 - 12:04 AM
Posts: 3280
Status: Offline
|
elp,
Thanks for posting that. It's amazing that we're looking at keeping some of these planes in service for that long. It's like a P-51 that entered service in 1947 fighting in the Gulf War and Bosnia ! It should be interesting to see how the aging of the aircraft will be handled. |
_________________ No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Mar 04, 2007 - 01:27 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 09:08 PM
Posts: 3147
|
I think the F-15Cs can get better MC rates if we wanted to spend money on them ( not in dribbles ).... just that industry likes us to buy new stuff.
We can't even keep C-5 upgrades from going over budget. Not a complex system.
I will watch with great interest as they try and buck rogers upgrade the F-15C without some kind of cost blowout because we now like to do things in low rate production schemes that while make it easy to "pay" for a portion of something that budget year... but really just makes the whole program more expensive over the long haul.
Upgrading the E's will be interesting. At first look it seems kind of simple... Which is probably a danger flag right there. Low rate production the upgrades and it will cost blow out I bet.
A-10...structure upgrades ( Hog up etc ) isn't especially complex, yet... they had to contain cost on that to the point of where they couldn't "afford" to do the engine upgrade. Where "afford" means we have to pay for gold plated disasters like the V-22 Osprey.
Someone educate me... It appears like the F-16 upgrades were managed very well.... ? |
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
parrothead
|
Posted: Mar 04, 2007 - 09:55 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: May 11, 2004 - 12:04 AM
Posts: 3280
Status: Offline
|
|
elp wrote:
I think the F-15Cs can get better MC rates if we wanted to spend money on them ( not in dribbles )....
Someone said that about the B-1 not too long ago, too . Funny how spending money on maintenance before a big problem hits can reduce overall cost - just think about cars!
I think it's also funny just how many times the A-10 has escaped retirement! It's one of those jets that's still simple enough that with the correct demilitarization would probably make a good civilian owned warbird. Somehow, I don't see that happening in the very near future... The funniest thing is that the manufacturer is no longer in business (at least not as the same entity) so they have to outsource the new wings with a new competition, etc. |
_________________ No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
shiz302
|
Posted: Mar 04, 2007 - 10:02 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Dec 25, 2003 - 10:03 PM
Posts: 679
|
| The acft I work on was built in 1988. |
_________________ Ex 16 CC workin 'hawks.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
parrothead
|
Posted: Mar 04, 2007 - 10:31 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: May 11, 2004 - 12:04 AM
Posts: 3280
Status: Offline
|
|
shiz302 wrote:
The acft I work on was built in 1988.
Look on the bright side - if you were on BUFFs, the jet would be older than you !
I miss my 1988 IROC-Z, but it was a maintenance nightmare. I can only imagine how the 20 year old fighter jets are doing!
Kind of funny looking at A-10s at airshows and reading the tail numbers - they were built when Disco was king !!! I wonder sometimes what civilians would do at airshows if more of 'em knew just how old our fleet is... |
_________________ No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Tim
|
Posted: Mar 04, 2007 - 10:40 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Feb 25, 2007 - 10:15 PM
Posts: 601
Status: Offline
|
| Now i feel really old, I'm twice that age. |
_________________ If you're in a fair fight, Your tactics suck !!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
cutlassracer
|
Posted: Mar 05, 2007 - 09:40 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Mar 08, 2006 - 01:33 AM
Posts: 394
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
Look on the bright side - if you were on BUFFs, the jet would be older than you
Not just buff's. Was working C-5 #69-013 today. |
_________________ Torrejon, Homestead, Moody, Osan, Holloman
USAF Crew Chief 89-99
F-16D 90-0794/90-0779
F-117A 83-0807
|
|
|
|
 |
|
cutlassracer
|
Posted: Mar 05, 2007 - 09:40 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Mar 08, 2006 - 01:33 AM
Posts: 394
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
|
| Hit submit to fast. I was born in 71. C-5's older than me. |
_________________ Torrejon, Homestead, Moody, Osan, Holloman
USAF Crew Chief 89-99
F-16D 90-0794/90-0779
F-117A 83-0807
|
|
|
|
 |
|
cutlassracer
|
Posted: Mar 05, 2007 - 09:42 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Mar 08, 2006 - 01:33 AM
Posts: 394
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
they were built when Disco was king
C-5A's were built when LSD was king. Explains alot. |
_________________ Torrejon, Homestead, Moody, Osan, Holloman
USAF Crew Chief 89-99
F-16D 90-0794/90-0779
F-117A 83-0807
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Aussie_Falcon_Freak
|
Posted: Mar 06, 2007 - 12:12 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jan 28, 2007 - 08:32 AM
Posts: 122
Status: Offline
|
Would it be a fair question to ask if it's possible that a bit of complacency set in after the demise of the former Soviet Union regarding aircraft development?
During the Cold War period there was an incredible advancement of avaiation technology in a short period of time, but with the Soviets no longer on the radar, this would no longer be a priority... |
_________________ I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Tim
|
Posted: Mar 06, 2007 - 02:18 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Feb 25, 2007 - 10:15 PM
Posts: 601
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
Would it be a fair question to ask if it's possible that a bit of complacency set in after the demise of the former Soviet Union regarding aircraft development?
I'm sure the RAPTOR guys would probably argue that point. |
_________________ If you're in a fair fight, Your tactics suck !!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Aussie_Falcon_Freak
|
Posted: Mar 06, 2007 - 02:39 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jan 28, 2007 - 08:32 AM
Posts: 122
Status: Offline
|
Oh very true Tim and I assure there was no disrespect intended to those who are developing the next generation of fighter aircraft. I was merely making the point that during the height of the Cold War, the sheer volume of aircraft produced, both production AND experimental was simply staggering...
Just in the late 50s alone the money spent on the development of both the SR-71 and the XB-70 would be almost unattainable these days.. The Valkyrie cost has been worked out that if you divide the total cost of the program by the number of flights of both air vehicles (83) it cost the US taxpayer $11,000,000 every time it took to the air. Just barely short of a $1 billion development price for two planes that never went into service. And this was at 1960s prices remember!!
My point is that when the threat of the Soviet Union loomed, money just seemed to be made much more readily available and for a much wider variety of projects as well... I realize that there are still highly advanced projects such as the Raptor going on, but in those days there would have been 20 times that many projects being worked on at any one time.... |
_________________ I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Tim
|
Posted: Mar 06, 2007 - 02:46 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Feb 25, 2007 - 10:15 PM
Posts: 601
Status: Offline
|
| It would seem that the mind set of those "IN CHARGE" was certainlly to win a war of attrition.Thats why the sheer numbers being mass produced at the time of the cold war. but with that build up we stuble across technology that furthers the next generation fighter. Damn, I sound like I actually have an education. Then again, I could be waaaay off. |
_________________ If you're in a fair fight, Your tactics suck !!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|