Air Force "worn out"

[paulxcook]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/....wornout.ap/index.html

Crap that's a lot of money.

 

[paulxcook]

Maybe this was posted before? I thought for sure someone would care.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

4,000 hrs does not sound like alot of time to me for a plane.

I guess each plane is different. I base this off the time I spent in B-52's. Most of those planes were at 20,000+ hours.

 

[jandrews]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
4,000 hrs does not sound like alot of time to me for a plane.

I guess each plane is different. I base this off the time I spent in B-52's. Most of those planes were at 20,000+ hours.

Me neither, I mean a good part of that just has to be training....4000 hours for hundred million dollars or whatever they cost.....man no thanks.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Huh - I used to work with General Selva when he was the Wing Commander at McChord.

There is no question the AF has a lot of ancient airframes (indeed, the plan is to use the venerable B-52 until the 2050s, making it 100 years old and still operational!). Some of the heavy planes are especially crusty - our AWACS E-3s in many cases rely on electronics that are 40 years old, and there is a whole lot of duct tape on those planes for something with such a large crew and a critical mission.

Part of the issue, of course, is that new planes are just astronomically expensive. The F-22 in particular has a staggering per-plane cost. We appear to be one generation away from relying principally on UAVs for our fighters, so it's hard to motivate Congress to spend untold billions on new F-22s and F-35s, especially when our primary enemies have no air forces at all.

 

[paulxcook]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
4,000 hrs does not sound like alot of time to me for a plane.

I guess each plane is different. I base this off the time I spent in B-52's. Most of those planes were at 20,000+ hours.

I think it has to do with the stress the jets are under. A fighter that makes high-speed turns even in training maneuvers will wear out before a big slow B-52.

 

[paulxcook]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Part of the issue, of course, is that new planes are just astronomically expensive. The F-22 in particular has a staggering per-plane cost. We appear to be one generation away from relying principally on UAVs for our fighters, so it's hard to motivate Congress to spend untold billions on new F-22s and F-35s, especially when our primary enemies have no air forces at all.

Wouldn't the air power of Russia and China be something to keep in mind though? While they're not enemies I wouldn't call them particularly friendly toward the US.

 

[nakedfrog]

Bake sale!

 

[Jeff7]

Yay, they want MORE spending on the military! Wooooo!!!!

I'd so love to see a day when this planet's embarrassingly primitive inhabitants could stop wasting their time and resources on finding new and innovative ways of oppressing and killing each other.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Bake sale!

:laugh:

 

[FoBoT]

they need to get more bang for their buck
maybe they can buy some chinese airplanes, the ones with the lead paint, that are on sale at walmart

 

[MisterJackson]

All I have to add to this thread is that I met a 26 year old hottie the other day. She just moved to the area from Germany and flys C-130's out of a local place here. Pilot, not support crew. God damn she's hot.

That is all.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: MisterJackson
All I have to add to this thread is that I met a 26 year old hottie the other day. She just moved to the area from Germany and flys C-130's out of a local place here. Pilot, not support crew. God damn she's hot.

That is all.

You know the rules.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Bake sale!

:laugh:

We can sell blood and seamen!




































Not mixed together... /Dodgeball

 

[senseamp]

Maybe they can stop blowing money on overpriced contracts and get some real competition into defense procurement.
They locked themselves into a handful of big contractors, and they are getting taken to the cleaners.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Maybe if we weren't wasting billions of dollars in Iraq we could afford to replace some of those planes.

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Maybe they can stop blowing money on overpriced contracts and get some real competition into defense procurement.
They locked themselves into a handful of big contractors, and they are getting taken to the cleaners.

Or procure cheaper designs? I'm sure bleeding edge is disproportionately more expensive than slightly less advanced ones that function just as effectively.

 

[DivideBYZero]

<---P&N

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
<---P&N

Why ruin a good topic? Put it in P&N, and they'll start trying to prove that bush has an F-22 shaped dildo. :roll:

 

[PingSpike]

I don't really get the "designed to last" thing...assuming you have suitable replacement parts available and a solid maintenence schedule, shouldn't it be possible for any machine to last for eternity? I mean, you may eventually replace every part making it technically a different plane altogether, but if you keep fixing its not going to blow up at 4001 hours.

 

[sdifox]

4000 hr on a bomber <> 4000hr on a fighter... you are not doing defensive bfm with a bomber.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Part of the issue, of course, is that new planes are just astronomically expensive. The F-22 in particular has a staggering per-plane cost. We appear to be one generation away from relying principally on UAVs for our fighters, so it's hard to motivate Congress to spend untold billions on new F-22s and F-35s, especially when our primary enemies have no air forces at all.

Wouldn't the air power of Russia and China be something to keep in mind though? While they're not enemies I wouldn't call them particularly friendly toward the US.

China has a long way off to catch up. training is the larger obstacle.

 

[judasmachine]

it's an half-excuse to fast track the JSF and the F-22. i don't mean this is a bad thing, just pointing out a good motive for the complaining.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't really get the "designed to last" thing...assuming you have suitable replacement parts available and a solid maintenence schedule, shouldn't it be possible for any machine to last for eternity? I mean, you may eventually replace every part making it technically a different plane altogether, but if you keep fixing its not going to blow up at 4001 hours.

The issue isn't necessarily the components, but the airframe itself. You can only replace so many parts on an airframe. Some are integral and cannot be replaced.

 

[Agentbolt]

You think we have it bad, there's a country in Africa called The Gambia, it's entire air force consists of one Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot attack jet that's like 30 years old.

Is the F-35 called a JSF? When I was reading about Joint Strike Fighters and Joint Standoff Weapons in World War Z I thought they were all made up, but apparently they're all based on current stuff. I found the Joint Standoff Weapon on Wikipedia but I was never able to figure out what a Joint Strike Fighter was.