Air Force "worn out"

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes, the F-35 is the JSF.

...and we make fun of Canada and it's tank...

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Not a big deal. B-52s and commercial jets from the 50s are still flying and going strong. This is a non-story being turned into a headline in the Pentagons eternal campaign to get more money.

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes, the F-35 is the JSF.

...and we make fun of Canada and it's tank...

Is that true, Canada only having one tank? I thought they put in an order for like 20 Leopard 2 tanks years ago.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes, the F-35 is the JSF.

...and we make fun of Canada and it's tank...

Is that true, Canada only having one tank? I thought they put in an order for like 20 Leopard 2 tanks years ago.

You lose at internet jokes.

 

[Mr Incognito]

I wish someone would impose Article 9 on us. Looks like we need it more than anyone else.

 

[jpeyton]

Requests for more military spending? Big surprise. :roll:

Maybe if we pull out of Iraq and save $180 billion/year we spend there, we can afford to spend more on actual national defense. $3.5 billion/week to play in a sandbox isn't a legitimate use of taxpayer money.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: 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.

And so do I.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's why you run inspections. You use whatever inspection tools to check for cracks, deformation, stress, etc etc, and you make half-life estimates. Those 4000 hour lifespans are based on preliminary estimates. You can run a simple inspection process by inspecting at the 2000 hour mark, and then you re-estimate Is 4000 a good esimate at that point? If you can extend it, go ahead.

It wouldn't make financial sense to retire a fleet of 500 B-52s at the 4000 hour mark just because you designed for 4000 hours. You test and inspect at that point, and if they're still good, you extend the estimated lifespan. If you retired everything when it gets "old," then you would be spending billions getting new equipment all the time.

This is of course just an over simplification of the inspection process, and I'm sure they do very thorough tests to make sure that these aircraft can continue operating.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: 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.

That's why you run inspections. You use whatever inspection tools to check for cracks, deformation, stress, etc etc, and you make half-life estimates. Those 4000 hour lifespans are based on preliminary estimates. You can run a simple inspection process by inspecting at the 2000 hour mark, and then you re-estimate Is 4000 a good esimate at that point? If you can extend it, go ahead.

It wouldn't make financial sense to retire a fleet of 500 B-52s at the 4000 hour mark just because you designed for 4000 hours. You test and inspect at that point, and if they're still good, you extend the estimated lifespan. If you retired everything when it gets "old," then you would be spending billions getting new equipment all the time.

This is of course just an over simplification of the inspection process, and I'm sure they do very thorough tests to make sure that these aircraft can continue operating.

The problem is not that the planes have reached an artificial milestone and will be retired because of it, or that inspections cannot locate worn out components. The problem is that high performance aircraft which have been flown a great deal, above their initial lifespan estimates, require more and more maintenance to ensure airworthiness. The increased maintenance is a two-fold problem.

First, taking a plane down for maintenance removes it from the active inventory so you either need to have more aircraft on hand to perform the same mission (instead of two spares, you need four) or you need to modify the mission (one flight of F-15s vs. two). If you choose the first option, then you play into the second problem (see below). Compound it, actually.

Second, more intensive and frequent maintenance means that your logistical trail is longer and heavier. You need more maintenance personnel and more spare parts. An increase in logistics for maintenance means less airlift or sealift is available for munitions or combat troops. More personnel increases the footprint at a deployed location so you need more security forces to guard them, more food, more housing, etc. All of those people and resources burden logistics.

One other consideration is that even if you can keep the aircraft flying, an airframe that is 30+ years old has the inherent weakness that it was designed without the benefit of the last 30 years of aeronautical engineering. There are limitations to what you can do with the airframe in terms of upgrading the avionics and/or increasing the performance characteristics.

It's easier to illustrate with naval vessels. If you take an older missile cruiser, they had a crew of hundreds (Google...the USS California [nuclear-powered missile cruiser] had a crew of 540). The latest ship class the Navy would like to build is the Zumwalt class, which will have a crew of (Google)...140, and will be immensely more capable (it's a destroyer but with 5,000 more tons displacement than the California). It's probable that the US Navy could have kept the California going until today, but that would mean 400 extra personnel full time plus the loss of the new capabilities which the Zumwalt will employ.

The heavy bombers, especially the B-52, are called "bomb trucks" for a reason. There isn't much to them, and they don't need to be terribly sophisticated. They move a tremendous amount of weight to a point in space and release that weight. Now, with JDAM (GPS-aided bombs), the bombers don't even really need to aim, which begs the question of why we need aircrew in the bombers. I just read today that the Air Force's next generation bomber program includes both manned and unmanned aircraft.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Requests for more military spending? Big surprise. :roll:

Maybe if we pull out of Iraq and save $180 billion/year we spend there, we can afford to spend more on actual national defense. $3.5 billion/week to play in a sandbox isn't a legitimate use of taxpayer money.

True, but then we wouldn't have a big desert shooting gallery to live fire test all of these new weapons!

You don't actually believe all that "bring freedom to the Iraqi people" hogwash, DO you?

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
True, but then we wouldn't have a big desert shooting gallery to live fire test all of these new weapons!

You don't actually believe all that "bring freedom to the Iraqi people" hogwash, DO you?

So you honestly dispute that Iraqis are freer today than they were under Saddam?

 

[Jassi]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
True, but then we wouldn't have a big desert shooting gallery to live fire test all of these new weapons!

You don't actually believe all that "bring freedom to the Iraqi people" hogwash, DO you?

So you honestly dispute that Iraqis are freer today than they were under Saddam?

Freedom without security is worthless. Ben Franklin was right in saying we shouldn't trade freedom for security but a certain level of both is required to live a normal life. Iraq at the moment is not safe for a lot of people and the freedom of the people is being trampled by religious fanatics who did not have the power to do so 8 years ago. This doesn't mean Saddam was not a threat to the people of Iraq but there are a lot of dictators out there (Mugabe....).

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Jassi

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
True, but then we wouldn't have a big desert shooting gallery to live fire test all of these new weapons!

You don't actually believe all that "bring freedom to the Iraqi people" hogwash, DO you?

So you honestly dispute that Iraqis are freer today than they were under Saddam?

Freedom without security is worthless. Ben Franklin was right in saying we shouldn't trade freedom for security but a certain level of both is required to live a normal life. Iraq at the moment is not safe for a lot of people and the freedom of the people is being trampled by religious fanatics who did not have the power to do so 8 years ago. This doesn't mean Saddam was not a threat to the people of Iraq but there are a lot of dictators out there (Mugabe....).

So, you've been to Baghdad recently? Fallujah? Seems like I've read some stories about the current security situation from troops on the ground that paints the picture that normalcy is returning in many, many parts of the country. Plus, in case you missed it, the southern part of the country has been mostly violence-free for quite some time. That's where the Shia are in the vast majority and are no longer hunted and persecuted by Saddam's security apparatus.

Iraq is not going to become a hardline Islamic state because the majority of the people do not want it, and it's not their tradition.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Jassi

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
True, but then we wouldn't have a big desert shooting gallery to live fire test all of these new weapons!

You don't actually believe all that "bring freedom to the Iraqi people" hogwash, DO you?

So you honestly dispute that Iraqis are freer today than they were under Saddam?

Freedom without security is worthless. Ben Franklin was right in saying we shouldn't trade freedom for security but a certain level of both is required to live a normal life. Iraq at the moment is not safe for a lot of people and the freedom of the people is being trampled by religious fanatics who did not have the power to do so 8 years ago. This doesn't mean Saddam was not a threat to the people of Iraq but there are a lot of dictators out there (Mugabe....).

So, you've been to Baghdad recently? Fallujah? Seems like I've read some stories about the current security situation from troops on the ground that paints the picture that normalcy is returning in many, many parts of the country. Plus, in case you missed it, the southern part of the country has been mostly violence-free for quite some time. That's where the Shia are in the vast majority and are no longer hunted and persecuted by Saddam's security apparatus.

Iraq is not going to become a hardline Islamic state because the majority of the people do not want it, and it's not their tradition.

Yeah, and it could all fall to shit tomorrow. Don't kid yourself, normalcy hasn't returned to Iraq...

I wonder how much money we're pumping into the civilian population to keep the peace.

 

[Troll4Hire]

Originally posted by: 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.

But UAVs rely on sattelites and the chineese are good at shooting those down. We still need pilots for when those systems fail.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: 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.

And so do I.

:laugh:

Nobody else caught that?

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
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.

Yeah, how 'bout that.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: 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.

That's why you run inspections. You use whatever inspection tools to check for cracks, deformation, stress, etc etc, and you make half-life estimates. Those 4000 hour lifespans are based on preliminary estimates. You can run a simple inspection process by inspecting at the 2000 hour mark, and then you re-estimate Is 4000 a good esimate at that point? If you can extend it, go ahead.

It wouldn't make financial sense to retire a fleet of 500 B-52s at the 4000 hour mark just because you designed for 4000 hours. You test and inspect at that point, and if they're still good, you extend the estimated lifespan. If you retired everything when it gets "old," then you would be spending billions getting new equipment all the time.

This is of course just an over simplification of the inspection process, and I'm sure they do very thorough tests to make sure that these aircraft can continue operating.

With a design for 4000 and an average age of 8000, we've run into risks.

Fighter airframes aren't just like cars or a microwave. It's a upwards of 70,000lb block of highly sophisticated metal and composites pulling upwards of 9+Gs (That's 630,000 lbs of stress for you) that are mostly unrepairable. Overhauling and rebuilding an airframe would be pointless because you're basically pulling hundreds of miles of wire, disassembling the aircraft, building a brand new one, designed from 30 years ago and in the end, you'd have the same cost as building an entirely new jet but with the shittiness of a plane from the 70s.

Th Air Force knows what it's doing, they're not just pulling figured out of their ass.

Our F15s are designed for 4000 hours. The engineers anticipated 4000 hours of stress and flight. We found it aged better than we thought and increased the limit to 7600 hours for the most stressed to 12,000 hours for the rest of the F15 fleet.

Now because of the political wrangling, we cant afford to replace the F15 with newer jets and we've extended it to up to 18,000 hours.

The problem? F15s breaking apart in flight because of the old airframes. Late last year to early this year, all F15A-E in the American fleet were grounded and most in the foreign markets were recommended to be grounded because one of our damn airplanes split in half mid flight!

Airframes age, they become unairworthy, we cannot afford to not replace them.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123086851

This "stand-down release" order brings the total number of cleared A, B, C and D-model F-15 aircraft to 429. Nine aircraft, however, will remain grounded due to cracked longerons, the critical support structures that run along the length and side of the aircraft.

The F-15s were first grounded after a Nov. 2 mishap when an F-15 C assigned to the Missouri Air National Guard broke in half due to the failure of the upper right longeron. Based on data recovered by the accident investigation board investigating that mishap, and from engineers at the WR-ALC, aircraft were found to have cracks in their longerons, which resulted in the grounding of the entire fleet until appropriate inspections and evaluations could be accomplished.

It's a legit request for more money. If it wasn't a training incident, but a routine flight over middle eastern airspace, we'd be looking at another son coming home in a box, especially since looking at this we could have had 10 failures very soon instead of just one if we hadn't acted as quickly and throughly as we did and inevitably, all 400+ would have fallen out of the sky,