Usaf Suspend F-15 Operations

[Luig]

I reckon our RAAF would be happy to have the new Super Hornets now?

http://rnzaf.proboards43.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=world&thread=1194210585&page=1

USAF Suspend F-15 Operations
USAF and Japan have now both Suspended all F-15 Ops due to the aircraft that fell apart in flight from just behind the cockpit.

These Articles both from Bloomberg.com

Air Force grounds entire fleet of F-15s after crash; Includes combat flights over Afghanistan
The U.S. Air Force has grounded its entire fleet of F-15s -- including those that were flying combat missions in Afghanistan -- after one of the fighters crashed last week in Missouri.

The (Springfield, Mo.) News-Leader reports that the pilot ejected before the $40 million jet crashed Friday in a wooded area of central Missouri. "No one on the ground was hurt but the pilot suffered a dislocated shoulder, broken arm and minor cuts while landing," the paper says.

The Air Force says the crash involved a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C. As a result, the service says more than 700 planes have been grounded.

"Obviously that pilot in Missouri didn't get into that aircraft thinking it would come apart on him," Douglas Birkey of the Air Force Association tells The Washington Post. "Each day you push out the age of the fleet, you're coming closer to a cliff. That F-15 went off a cliff."

The planes have been in use since 1975.


CNN says F-15Es will be allowed to fly over Afghanistan in emergency situations, but routine combat missions are prohibited until investigators get a handle on the cause of the crash. U.S. Navy fighters will fill the gap in Afghanistan, according to the all-news network.

Bloomberg News reports that Japan has grounded its fleet of 200 F-15s pending the outcome of the investigation.

The Honolulu Advertiser, a fellow Gannett newspaper, notes that this isn't the first crash of the year: In June, an F-15 from the Oregon Air National Guard crashed in the Pacific Ocean on a training mission. In the same month, one of the jets crashed near Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. And in May, an F-15 went down in southwestern Indiana during training.

Boeing, which manufactured the planes, says its helping the government with the investigation. "We're working with them. We're certainly at their disposal," spokeswoman Patricia Frost tells the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "We want our customer to know that we're there."


Japan Grounds F-15 Jets After U.S. Crash, Suspension (Update1)

By Kyunghee Park and Masumi Suga

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Japan's air force grounded its entire fleet of Boeing Co. F-15 jets after a crash of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C fighter on Nov. 2 prompted the U.S. to suspend use of the aircraft.

All 200 F-15 fighter-bombers at Japan's Air Self-Defense Force were rested starting Nov. 4 after receiving the U.S. notice, defense ministry spokeswoman Yukiko Takahashi said in a telephone interview in Tokyo today. No decision has been taken on the duration of the ban, she said.

The U.S. Air Force yesterday grounded its fleet of more than 700 F-15 fighter-bombers, including those flying missions in Afghanistan, citing concerns about ``airworthiness.'' The suspension was expanded to bases in England, Hawaii, Japan and the Middle East.

``Boeing has offered its assistance to the U.S. Air Force as they investigate the mishap,'' Boeing spokesman Mark Hooper said in an e-mailed statement from Hong Kong today. ``It would, however, be inappropriate for us to comment on an on-going investigation.''

In Asia, Boeing has F-15s in operation or has completed sales in Singapore, South Korea and Japan, Boeing said.

Air-to-Air Fighter

The U.S. Air Force said in a press release on Nov. 4 it was suspending only ``non-mission-critical flight operations,'' while a safety board determines the cause.

The F-15, introduced in 1975, is the primary U.S. air-to-air fighter. The aircraft is part of the aerial arsenal of F-16 fighters, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, B-1B bombers, aircraft- carrier-based F-18 fighters and drones supporting ground troops in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

F-15 deliveries to Japan's air force started in 1980 and the the fleet was upgraded in 2004, defense minister Takahashi said. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. was the main contractor for the aircraft, the company said on its Web site.

Japanese police is investigating Mitsubishi Heavy's plant near Nagoya, central Japan, after an F-2 support fighter crashed at the airport on Oct. 31. The factory builds and maintains the aircraft for the military.

Mitsubishi Heavy, Asia's biggest aerospace company, closed down 1.4 percent to 565 yen, the lowest in more than nine months, in Tokyo. The stock has advanced 4.4 percent this year, compared with a 6.3 percent decline in Japan's benchmark Topix Index.

Singapore Fighters

Singapore ordered 12 more F-15SG jets from Boeing last month, exercising an option when it placed an order for the first 12 in 2005. Calls and e-mail queries to Singapore's defense ministry weren't immediately returned.

South Korea's air force, which ordered 40 F-15Ks in 2002, held discussions with Boeing and said there will be no change to the plan, according to a spokesman today, who declined to be identified.

South Korea will take delivery of 30 jets by the end of this year and the remaining 10 in 2008. Engines made by General Electric Co., the world's biggest maker of jet engines, are used in the jets.

In May South Korea said it will review a plan to buy 20 more jet fighters from Boeing, purchases required to step up defense capabilities. The 20 will be in addition to the 40 jets the Asian country ordered in 2002.

Keep Alive

The South Korean order five years ago allowed Boeing to keep the F-15 in production until 2008, four years longer than planned. The 30-year-old fighter had been considered almost obsolete after losing out to newer planes in late 1990s.

Singapore bought F-15SGs to replace a squadron of A-4SU Super Skyhawks. Singapore's Air Force flies Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-16 Fighting Falcon, Northrop Grumman Corp.'s F-5E/F Tiger IIs and McDonnell Douglas Corp.'s A4SU Super Skyhawks.

The U.S. is phasing out the F-15 with the new Lockheed Martin Corp. F-22 fighter. The Pentagon has limited the Air Force to buying 183 of the new aircraft instead of the more than 300 the service says it needs.

[darren.crick]

They are lucky they have the funds and sense to have different types to cover for situations like this...

assume for a second we didnt choose the super hornet and only had JSF and they had a problem like this... the fleet would be grounded.

while a second type costs more (alot more I would assume), these problems are minimised...

besides I bet the US Navy are using this for some milage!

[Warhawk]

I agree with Daz,..two types are "Sensible and Flexible"

Given our large coverage over the "wet" parts of Asia Pacific, two engines make sense too(Original F/A-18A selling point)

Besides, the number games are still being played, and a recent problem with a swing wing bomber some five years ago concerning aging wiring in fuselage tanks caused that airfleet to be grounded,..thank God we had the F/A-18A/B to pick up the ball. :D

I can think further back when a certain pointy Delta were nearly shedding wings, we had Machies with 7.62 Gatling Guns and those Sidewinder equipped Swing Wing Aircraft to fall back on.

Mind you, I think between then and the previous late fifties and the early sixties, we had only one fighter type in the RAAF, but inclusive to the RANFAA,..three types if we include the big piston fella

Back in the early Fifties, we had that blood sucking Fighter and the firey thing that falls from Space as our two main fighters,.....add a few Wild Horses and again those Big Navy five bladed Piston Fellas

I can even go back to those Primary Intercepters in Mark 8 Form that suffered terrible Cooling pipe problems, and the RAAF had to relie on those "old" Curtis Monoplanes that were deemed old before Pearl Harbour.

Thank goodness we have two.

Come to think of it though, expanding on the fifties comment,..we've only had one fighter type in service when we went to the Hornet. Up to 1984,..the Navy always punched above their weight!!

So what's the different ordering 100 F-35s???? Nothin

Gawd,..I've been converted!!! Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Gordy :o

[darren.crick]

I wonder how many times since 1984 a hornet lost an engine and recovered safely as a result of its second one??

I know of at least one fire which damage a hornet engine (or damage caused a fire) either way the aircraft was saved.

wonder how many more losses we would have had as a result and possible deaths.

I agree single engines not a wise option for us... but other than the F35 what are our two engine options....

what has changed to make them go away from this multi engine selling point...

[Rod Farquhar]

Engine reliability of the current generation of engines has undoudtedly got a lot to do with things. If you can fire a frozen chook through an engine at full power without it flying to pieces they must be doing something right.
Rod.

[darren.crick]

but having two of them helps...

[Luig]

Gordy. To what have you been converted?

[Warhawk]

Well,..converted to single engine champion now.

Wonder whether there are any cats allowed near the Chook Tests? Seems a waste eh!

These days, power and agility don't rack up against situational awareness and network centric. Sure the Indos will have 12 SU-27 and SU-31s,....but then numbers game come in,..can't be every where and watching their sixes all the time,..that's where stealth and and "you can't see me" til I fire.

From what I hear, there won't be too many aircraft that escape a AMRAAM fired over the horizon , targeted by a sensor fused F-35 or F/A-18F via a 320km ranged Radar painting AWAC Wedgetail out of harms way.

Mind you the Ruskies do have anti AWAC Missiles,...but speed and kinetics don't mesh or mix when there's ample warning from Radar > 150kms

I've said enough, except that the F/A-18F is the perfect choice given whats about and with what money we have in the pocket. It builds on 23years of great RAAF Hornet Ops.

Gordy :)

[Luig]

Well, perhaps we will be adding the Super Hornet G model "Growler" to the mix at some stage that will help with defences and targetting. No one seems to mention the capabilities of the Super Hornet and how they can be networked to help the existing Hornets.

Still don't understand why single engine is better than double engine ops considering what has been under discussion. An engine failure in a single engine jet means the loss of that jet. NO? Or am I missing something.

However having two engines means that the likelihood of an engine failure is increased - no matter how reliable the engine - but at least the aircraft may be able to get back on one engine.

[gordon]

No I don't think u are missing anything Luig. Under operational circumstances 2 engines are better than one. After all I've never heard of a frozen chook being a front line weapon with our opposition. ;)

Also back in the time of picking a Mirage successor the RAAF's option was the F-15 yet another 2 engined fighter.

I think the F/A-18F is a good choice and maybe just better than the F-35 and adding a F/A-18G to the mix would be impressive.

Gordon

[Warhawk]

Actually I thought I had mentioned the Network stuff,..."These days, power and agility don't rack up against situational awareness and network centric. "

I think the basic point is in this day and age of technology Boys, there's a whole lot of "more" under the skin of a F/A-18F then meets the eye or told,....and a lot more then a F/A-18E/F Mark 1.

Air war has changed from the days of ground hugging to go under the radar coverage of the enemy,..today its high and wide with electronics and technology.

The US Navy has voted with its feet by retiring the "Any time Baby" F-14A/B and D , the Viking, and soon the F/A-18A/A+/B/C/D in the active Carrier Wings. The US Navy and her Pilots "LOVE Her",..the F/A-18F

This Bird is currently, after the F-22A, THE CURRENT BEST multirole Fighter on the sales lot today.

And from what I've read, on the current owners who haven't lost an air battle since Wake Island, they consider her worthy of being named "Top Gun"

Signed
Gordy "McDonnell" "Boomer" Boeing (No shares held,.honest!)

I bow out now,.ever gracefully,.. :rolleyes:

[Luig]

My apologies, my previous post was not clear. The reference to 'not discussing networking' etc. was not to this forum but in relation to the ongoing silly debate on TV and in the media about 'how bad the Super Hornet is and why don't we get Raptors tirade'.

Seems no one has informed these guys (according to one interviewee on Four Corners) about just exactly what the Super Hornet can do. I don't claim to know this myself, I can only rely on the web and aviation magazine articles.

Please please please 'powers that be' inform these anti Super Hornet guys just what a good aircraft it is. Thanks. :blink:

This post has been edited by Luig on Nov 10 2007, 07:48 AM

[Demon50]

I've read this discussion with interest - ie one vs two engines but the original post was about : -

"USAF and Japan have now both suspended all F-15 Ops due to the aircraft that fell apart in flight from just behind the cockpit."

Nothing mentioned about one or two engines or whether the engine(s) were at fault.

Seems like a structural issue to me.

[darren.crick]

I took the discussion this way mate when I suggested that the USAF having more money and types was better off than us...

[Warhawk]

Update: Not really a choice now

Oui, has anyone heard of the latest 5th Generation Russian Fighterisk

T-50 , aka F-22isk.

AESA, Thrust vectoring, FBW, supercruise and something that makes RAM Absorbing a thing of the plus by having a Plasma Pulse/Screen overall the aircraft.

The development of the later Plasma Screen was courted prior to the collapse of the Soviet Empire and tested on a SU-25 with some good results. That was 1989.

Propaganda Clap Trap? Who knows,...but the pic I saw of her reflexs a anorexic F/-22 Prototype design with fuselage channelled weapons recess holding all of the AmRAAMisk missles. Engine nozzles per "round" thrust vectoring types on the Su-33.

Prototype building, with first flight next year.

Maybe we're all wrong now, and since the F/A-22 is in production, why not leap frog to it, or if no one can see each other,...maybe we're back to square one.

The future RAAF Fighter decision is definitley out for a rethink after this one

Gordy ;)

[darren.crick]

Well if its being trialed it'll be a few years before it is produced and then they will have problems and fix them, make better versions and some time after that they will have an export version...

we wont be up against it tommorow thats for sure...

[Luig]

Well, well, well: (F-22 looks like s good buy from a used airframe dealer)
From Defense News.
Design Flaws Force Changes to USAF Raptor
By BRUCE ROLFSEN

With a price tag of $130 million per F-22A Raptor — $330 million including research and development costs — critics wonder why millions more will have to be spent to fix corrosion problems and design flaws on some of the 104 stealth fighters delivered so far by manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

Leaky fuselage access panels at the top of the jet are leading to corrosion issues in many planes. Also, problems with its core structure — particularly the forward boom, which supports the plane’s weight and must endure the stresses of high-G maneuvers — must be fixed.

These are among the latest in a series of problems for the Raptor as it moves from developmental test jet to operational fighter. Another problem, overheating avionics, was fixed in the last year.
An additional 79 F-22As will be added to the U.S. Air Force fleet over the next few years, bringing the total number to 183. On Oct. 31, the Air Force stood up a second operational F-22 squadron at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, the fourth overall.
None of the latest structural or avionics issues has grounded the fleet, said Brig. Gen. C.D. Moore, who oversees F-22 upgrade and sustainment across the Air Force as commander of the 478th Aeronautical Systems Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. He logged about 100 hours as a Raptor test pilot before taking the Materiel Command desk assignment.

Despite the problems, Moore said the most recent F-22 appraisal by the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center rated the jet as “suitable” for maintenance in real-world situations. In other words, most problems can, as a matter of course, be fixed by local base maintenance squadrons, and the fighter is not breaking down regularly.

Moore said he expects that as Raptors get more flight hours and are flown day to day on a wider range of missions, unexpected problems will arise — what he calls “known unknowns.” But he continues to think the service made the right calculation in having the Raptor ready for combat, rather than waiting for the jet to be perfected.

Philip Coyle, a former director of the Defense Department’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, points out that the Air Force has spent two decades trying to get the F-22A right and meet the high expectations set for the fighter. The dilemma is not a lack of time to find and fix problems.

“What you see now is poor design and reliability,” said Coyle, now a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank that is often critical of how defense projects are managed.

Quality assurance is also an issue. A potential metal-fatigue problem in the front of the jet’s fuselage should have been caught before 91 aircraft were built, he said.

Coyle worries that the F-22A problems are being repeated with the F-35 Lightning II, which is intended to replace the F-16 and A-10 as well as Navy and Marine Corps fighters. Though a test version of the F-35 has been grounded for several months, the jet’s builder, Lockheed Martin, is seeking Pentagon permission to fly fewer test hours. Cutting test flights “is always a sign that the aircraft is in trouble,” Coyle said.

Fixing the Problems

The four largest aluminum access panels will be replaced with titanium panels much less susceptible to corrosion, Moore said. Each set of new panels will cost about $50,000.
In addition to the leaking access panels, there have been concerns about the aircraft’s core structure.

A year ago, Air Force Times, a Defense News sister publication, reported that F-22A structural problems could cost $1 billion to fix. But after further tests, the Air Force now estimates the fixes will be in the millions, although a final estimate for labor and parts has not yet been calculated, Moore said.

The biggest concern is the jet’s “forward boom,” which Moore compared to a backbone, supporting the weight of the plane. The Air Force learned that the titanium used in the forward boom of 91 jets had not been heat-treated and strengthened to service specifications.

Later tests concluded that the titanium in the forward boom is strong enough for the jet to meet its requirement of 8,000 flying hours, Moore said.

The Raptor had a different problem with the aft boom. Engineers were worried that the rear section of the jet, as designed, could not meet the 8,000-hour requirement, so they designed an aluminum reinforcement, called a “doubler.” That was added to the production line, but repairs to 41 earlier jets will have to be made at either the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, or at Lockheed’s Palmdale, Calif., plant. Moore could not estimate the repair bill other than to say labor costs would be higher than the cost of the parts.

The repair depots also are replacing on 60 jets some lugs that help attach the Raptor’s wings to the fuselage. Again, the concern was that the lugs could not withstand the strain over the Raptor’s life span.

[Warhawk]

I wonder whether they had this problem with the original stealth plane,..Bristol Boxkite,..fabric loss that is? Lol

Abstract reality thought by GRB

"Lets face it, we've never had really the best fighter on the front line,(maybe except the Mirage in the early-mid sixties period)...but the Super Hornet is a natural bridging path for a Classic Hornet to be imbedded in the "Nest"; As she has all of the trick stuff.

Much like 1942-1945 in PNG, let the Yank P-38s shoot down the enemy, while our P-40E/K/M/Ns support the Ground Huggers.

Guess the comparison will be "now", let the Yank F-22s zip up the SU-27/30s, while our F/A-18C/Fs support the hearts and minds of our Ground Huggers of today by dropping a JDAM on the next roadblock or rampid monkey colony in their path."

Yikes
Gordy :blink:

[gordon]

Gordy I think that is about the size of it. We are becoming more and more reliant on the Yanks and the bastards won't sell us the F-22 so they can provide the cover. After all our contribution in Korea and conflicts since has been ground attack or bomb truck support. Even the only time we deployed our fighters (Hornets) of recent it was in a bomb truck mode. Historically since WW2 that has been the RAAF's role.

Also the comments about the network-centric battlespace put the F/A-18F is a good position as well. They are a very good plane and will mould well with our curent assets.

Gordon

[Warhawk]

Hi Gords,

Actually I think they would, per the latest signing of the Australia-US Defence Trade Pact on 05/09/2007 in Australia. Its a election year, if not I dare say, as Labour suggested a year ago, and visit the F-22 showroom. We just got to ask for a quote, faint, get up off the floor and pay. I think 24 would have been the number, in all coincidence.

Just whether its short of the highly sensitive technologies transfers allowed, per the US, Interenational Trade in Arms Regulations, is another matter, but basically put, means, along with the UK, Canada and "little old us" the "Core never turned enemies since 1812" allies can basically buy anything off the US production lines.

It'll mean that our companies can freely talk, discuss, and exchange any military technology, short of any "Black" program, without US Government approval.

This Pact places us up there, and by comparison on a F-35 Level, means countries like Japan and Israel can only buy export stealth "GL level" versions of it whereas we get the "Fairmont Ghia ESP" version of the aircraft.
Only difference between the USAF and ours is the markings and the scarf around the RAAF Pilot's neck. :D

Otherwise, we wouldn't be getting the AESA F/A-18F Mk2, the best Multirole Navy aircraft in the world. (One must remember the F/A-18F is basically the same design and technology age in most parts as the F-22!)

That all aside,..yes Mate, we're getting a damn good peice of hardware that will fit into our network centric airforce, along with Wedgetail, Drone and Spacebase future systems.

No one mentions that we're getting the pointy stuff too,..AIM-9X and heaps of other trick stuff. The best they have.

Something is heating up

Best
Gordy

[Luig]

...Must have been this that was heating up...

From the US Navy Times.
F-15Es flying again over Afghanistan
By Erik Holmes - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Nov 15, 2007 14:30:00 EST.

F-15E Strike Eagles are flying again in the war zone, but nearly 500 A, B, C and D models remain grounded.

Air Combat Command is returning its 224 F-15Es to flight 10 days after the entire fleet was grounded for safety concerns following the Nov. 2 crash of an F-15C.

There is no word when the other F-15 aircraft will return to flight, said ACC spokesman Maj. Tom Crosson.

On Sunday, Gen. John Corley, ACC commander, ordered the F-15Es back in the air after each one passed a safety inspection, according to an ACC statement.

All of the F-15Es deployed to Afghanistan with the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing are now back in flying status, said wing spokesman Capt. Michael Meridith. The last aircraft at Bagram Air Base was cleared for flight Tuesday, he said.

Crosson said the inspections will check the aircraft’s hydraulic system lines; longerons, which are molded metal strips running from front to rear of the aircraft fuselage; and straps and skin panels in and around the environmental control system bay.

The inspections are being conducted at all four F-15E bases: Seymour Johnson, N.C.; Eglin, Fla.; Lakenheath, England; and Mountain Home, Idaho.

Similar inspections will be performed on the non-E model F-15s, Crosson said, but there is no timeline yet.

“The F-15 is vital to the defense of our nation and to joint forces serving in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility,” ACC officials said in a statement. “However, we will not rush the F-15E fleet back to flight. Safety is an essential focus. ... We are determined to complete a thorough evaluation of the F-15E fleet before their return to flight.”

The entire F-15 fleet of around 700 aircraft was grounded after a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C broke apart Nov. 2 while conducting a training flight over southern Missouri.

The pilot ejected and was hospitalized overnight.