RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,159762,00.html

So what's the cost of replacing the beams? Surely it's cheaper than all the new 22's.

While I'm all for the upgrades, I don't want to see a skeleton force until the new birds roll out of the factory.

As a former F-15 A/B crew chief, I know first hand the problems created by first of all a 30+ year old aircraft, and second of all young ego-centric fighter jocks with G-happy reflexes. If I had a dollar for all of the "Over-G" special inspections that I was involved in, well you know.

The Air Force's decision to only order 183 F-22's was premature to say the least. We are now paying for it. This is a very difficult situation. I believe that we need to increase the number of F-22's and in the meanwhile, locate all of the older birds with high hours on the airframes and create special inspections to address this problem. There are programs, such as MSIP that can be modified to include this fix. I wouldn't want to be in the company of the top brass on this one!

Over Gs are always a problem with any fighter and sometimes trainers. The problem with replacing longerons is that it keeps 30 year old airplanes in service. The F-15 A/D is fine for Homeland Defense but is being outclassed by the newer Russian fighters. Like the F-4, the early F-15s are ready to become beer cans.

There are lots of reasons the Raptor costs so much. One of them is the reduced buy. Whether the folks in the "Puzzle Palace" like it or not, numbers do count. Yes, one Raptor may well be able to kill six opponents and never be seen. Now divide 183 by 18 and you get 10 as in squadrons. How long do you believe that 10 squadrons can handle all the possible commitments without the people falling apart? Our current deployments pretty much demonstrate that the answer is "not very long".

The F-35 is coming up to replace the F-16. Perhaps this little problem with F-15s will get sufficient attention to get that program rolling faster also. Then there is the question of the ability of the industrial base to support al of this.

The problem with the F-15 longerons is sending a lot of stuff down hill.

F-35 COST NOW 100 MILLION EACH.
F-22 ESTIMATED 270 MILLION EACH.

Sounds like someone is trying to pass the buck here. You dont use something for 20+ years and over 6000 hours and then when it finally has a catastrophic failure, call it a defective part.

Thats like driving your car 500,000 miles and then blaming the manufacturer when the struts fail or a wheel falls off

quote:

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said it may make more sense to retire the older F-15s rather than fix them. Due to their age, another part could fail even after the longerons are repaired.

"This is an aircraft that was designed during the Nixon administration," Thompson said. "It doesn't seem sensible to be making fixes so late in the game."

"A defense analyst" who just happens to be contracted by the Air Force to plug the F-22, I suspect.

The F-15 is a good airplane...but as technology increases, this aircraft becomes more and more like a dinosaur. Stress and metal fatigue, combined with corrosion in these areas that are seldom inspected, will always have a catastrophic effect over time.
I work at a P-3 depot level maintenance facility, and I can tell you, old airplanes keep me on the job. We are doing so many upgrades and changes to fix problems with age, that it would almost be more cost effective to have a new aircraft built from scratch. The problem comes when the new aircraft cannot do the job as effeciently as the old aircraft could.

"A defense analyst" who just happens to be contracted by the Air Force to plug the F-22, I suspect.[/QUOTE]

It's not really about money per sae...it's about safety, and about mission capability. If the airframe can't hold up under the stresses of combat maneuvers, then replace it with an upgraded model. Think about it...

quote:

Originally posted by XShipRider:

quote:

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said it may make more sense to retire the older F-15s rather than fix them. Due to their age, another part could fail even after the longerons are repaired.

"This is an aircraft that was designed during the Nixon administration," Thompson said. "It doesn't seem sensible to be making fixes so late in the game."

"A defense analyst" who just happens to be contracted by the Air Force to plug the F-22, I suspect.

Actually, he is correct. We spend much time/money/manpower fixing the F-15s to gain what, another 5 years or so of usage before other airframe issues develop? The F-15 design does indeed date to the late 60s with the first one flying in 1972 and initial IOC being reached in 1975.

The bird has had an outstanding service life and has performed brilliantly, but when it is worn out, it is worn out. This is exactly the same decision that had to be made with the C-141. We were having to spend, spend, spend just to keep them airworthy by fixing corrosion, windoe post cracks, delaminated panels, T-tail cracks, etc.

When it is time, it is time.

It was't a USAF decision to only buy 183 F-22s, it was at the Pentagon and Congressional levels. The USAF has said all along that 381 was the minimum number.And even this is reduced from the original porjected buy of 750.

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:
Sounds like someone is trying to pass the buck here. You dont use something for 20+ years and over 6000 hours and then when it finally has a catastrophic failure, call it a defective part.

Thats like driving your car 500,000 miles and then blaming the manufacturer when the struts fail or a wheel falls off

They're calling it defective because it failed to meet specs. It would have failed had it been checked right when it came off the factory line.