F-22 now critical to survival of USAF

[MKSheppard]

Link

Air Force may shrink its F-15 fleet

Dozens of the older fighter jets, which are used to protect the U.S., may be permanently grounded because of suspected structural flaws.
By Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 9, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force will probably order dozens of its F-15 fighter jets permanently grounded because of crucial structural flaws, significantly reducing the number of planes available to protect the United States, officials said Tuesday.

After one of the jets broke apart during a simulated dogfight in November, Air Force officials grounded the entire F-15 fleet, nearly 700 planes in all, fearing such a defect. The newest versions of the fighter jets were allowed to resume flying shortly afterward, but 440 of the older model F-15s have remained out of service.

The Air Force plans to allow about 260 of the remaining grounded planes to return to duty today. But about 180 more will remain idle because of suspected structural flaws.

"Many of them may never fly again," a senior Air Force officer said. The officer, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because results of the investigation are not due to be made public until today.

Long the nation's most sophisticated front-line fighters, the F-15 are gradually being replaced; many are up to 30 years old. The Air Force still relies on F-15s to protect the continental U.S. and to fly combat missions abroad. Newer model F-15Es are used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and were the first of the grounded planes to resume flying after the mishap in November.

The problems with the F-15, Air Force officials argue, have increased the need to purchase more F-22s, swift and stealthy but expensive new fighter planes. Air Force officials characterized the grounding of the F-15s as even more serious than if the Army had to take a large portion of its battle tanks out of service in Iraq.

"This is grave; we've had a heart attack," said a senior Air Force official. "Two hundred of our air superiority aircraft are on the ground, and we are acting like it is business as usual."

An investigation of the Nov. 2 crash shows the F-15 that broke apart over eastern Missouri had a fault in a crucial support component called a longeron, a structural beam that serves as part of the spine of the aircraft. F-15s have four longerons around the cockpit.

Air Force officials have not yet learned how a defective beam came to be installed in the plane, which was manufactured in 1980. But Air Force officials emphasized that the age of the airframe, combined with the faulty part, puts the older F-15s at risk.

"This airplane broke in half because of a fatigue crack," the officer said.

The Air Force has found cracks in nine of about 180 planes that remain grounded, but it thinks more have faulty structural beams.

The newer F-15Es are used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 440 older fighters -- models F-15A through F-15D -- are used for domestic patrols.

Since the fleet was grounded, the Air Force has used F-16s for patrols. Starting today, the Air Force will use a combination of F-16s and F-15s.

On average, the F-15s are 25 years old and have encountered other structural problems that have forced redesign programs.

Another senior Air Force official said the problems with the F-15 showed an "enhanced imperative" to purchase additional F-22 aircraft. The Air Force has said it needs 381 F-22s, although the Pentagon has approved the acquisition of only 183.

"We have to examine not only if we need the full 381 aircraft, but do we need them faster?" the Air Force official said.

The F-22 has cost billions to develop since it was conceived in the 1980s and remains a controversial plane. Critics have long charged that it is overpriced and was designed for a Cold War threat that no longer exists.

But Air Force officials say the plane is required to retain control of the air and protect American ground forces.

Skeptics of military spending have accused the Air Force of using the F-15's problems as a justification for purchasing more F-22s. The Air Force, these critics contend, should do more to examine whether the F-15s can be effectively repaired.

But in an interview, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he thought the Air Force faced genuine issues because of its aging fleet. Gates said that replacing the fleet of in-air refueling tankers should be addressed first but that new fighters are a legitimate need.

"The Air Force's top priority has to be the replacement of the tanker fleet, but I think the notion that the Air Force is somehow pumping up the F-15 problem, I just don't believe that for a second. I think it's a real concern," Gates said.

Air Force officials said they thought some of the F-15s that remained grounded might be able to return to duty after repairs. But some senior officials have raised questions about how effective the F-15s will be after they are fixed. Some officials believe that repairs to stiffen the aircraft could reduce its capability as a fighter plane.

"Do you try to patch a 25-year-old airplane that has been patched and patched and patched?" another senior Air Force official asked. "After the repairs, it will not be the same aircraft it was before."

julian.barnes@latimes.com

Times staff writer Peter Spiegel at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., contributed to this report.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It kind've already was that way, given the F-15E wasn't going anywhere and the F-22A was not going to be in the hilariously high numbers the USAF originally wanted.

Fortunately, the Raptor kicks all kinds of ass, so the possibility of facing it alone should be a good deterrent. More so than hundreds or F-15s.

[FedRebel]

So all we need is for the wing spar assembly on a certain bomber to fail and for a nerd to hack into NORAD...

I wonder what language I should put the smart bet on learning...really fast

all that comes to mind is Russian or Mandarin.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If the BUFF dies, we simply make NB-36s and NB-70s.

Like I dreamt of, of course.

[Stravo]

Let me ask a silly non-military person question. In light of how expensive the F-22's are is there a negative to ordering a second tier fighter similar to the F-15. A far cheaper but still lethal fighter that can sort of be a "filler" fighter so that instead of a squadron of F-22's we can field say 3 squadrons of this cheaper fighter relegating the F-22 to an elite fighter status with this second tier cheaper fighter a "go to" work horse.

I know we as a military always want to fly the best and most awesome fighter but given that the F-15 is over 30 years old and still a front line fighter in some countries and obviously still considered a good enough fighter for us to field in large numbers why not order up a small fleet of modernized F-15 like clones.

Does that no sense from a military standpoint for some reason? Or if we positively need to have a killer plane how about a second tier F-22 "lite" not so many stealthy expensive features but with the same kind of lethality or at least better than most 3rd world militaries will ever field.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The F-35: It's what's for dinner. I mean, for intermediate future fighter craft.

[MKSheppard]

The F-35: It's what's for dinner. I mean, for intermediate future fighter craft.

It's also a piece of shit; flies lower and slower than the F-22; they cut back on supercruise to save money.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Then why did you make it, you silly Yanks (no, no, BAE Systems not involved, no siree)? I wanted F-22A Lite, but now I have to deal with it being suckier than a five dollar whore? No dice.

Make it work, or we're going to have a couple dozen Raptors for all of CONUS and maybe an F-15 to go and fight terruhrists.

[MKSheppard]

Let me ask a silly non-military person question. In light of how expensive the F-22's are is there a negative to ordering a second tier fighter similar to the F-15.

Second Class Battleship Fallacy.

Link

I won't bother reposting Stuart's commentary here; but a F-15SK doesn't give you 1/10th the capabilities a F-22A does.

[MKSheppard]

Then why did you make it, you silly Yanks (no, no, BAE Systems not involved, no siree)?

Blame Clinton. "Oh hey, the Navy, Air Force and Marines all want a new plane? Screw you guys, you have to do a joint program, it must be VTOL, AND CTOL in one!"

[Admiral Valdemar]

I liked the idea of a non-'60s era VTOL CAS craft, but trying to make it all fit in one air frame was a tad, shall we say, dumb. The plane isn't even out yet and already we're having issues with what it's meant to do and how it can possibly replace all the awesome planes going out of service in the coming years.

The best thing about the USAF was a plane for every mission, not the lame RAF's "You can have a Tornado or a Harrier. Jaguar? Sorry, they got put down".

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

The F-35: It's what's for dinner. I mean, for intermediate future fighter craft.

It's also a piece of shit; flies lower and slower than the F-22; they cut back on supercruise to save money.

Wasn't the F-35 supposed to be like a replacement to the F-18?

And why the hell is it so crappy? What did they remove from it?

I'm genuinely curious because I love AF airplanes.

[Beowulf]

There's no point to a cheaper air superiority fighter than a F-22. It'll still cost nearly as much per unit as the F-22, but won't fair anywhere near as well in battle. In other words, it's going to have a lower kill ratio.

The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter. It's a strike fighter. It has air to air capabilities, but it's mission is not to clear the skies of enemy aircraft. It's mission is instead to perform tactical bombing missions.

Different missions, different planes. You can have one perform the other's mission, but it won't do it as well. The F-22 can't tote 2000 lb bombs internally. The F-35 isn't as good at the air to air role.

[Kane Starkiller]

Wasn't the original plan to have 750 F-22's but then got scaled back to 180 or so? No wonder they are in deep shit. And since the individual unit cost shoots up when the order is scaled back how much money is saved in the end compared to loss of capability by scaling the order back by factor of 4.

[Admiral Valdemar]

No one in Congress "gets" economies of scale. Ask anyone who loved Seawolf about that.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

economies of scale

Translation into laypersonese: 'The damn program is still gonna cost $BUDGET$ + $OVERRUNS$ whether you buy a single $OBJECT$ or a thousand; we'll just massively crank up the price for each the more you cut back your order.'

An individual weapon system is cheap; its RDT&E program is not.

[MKSheppard]

Different missions, different planes. You can have one perform the other's mission, but it won't do it as well. The F-22 can't tote 2000 lb bombs internally. The F-35 isn't as good at the air to air role.

F-22A is a superior ground attack plane. It can fly faster, higher, and further; which leads to longer ranges for guided bombs:

Dropping a JDAM from a F-22 cruising at Mach 1.6 at 50,000 feet gives you a 34.7~ mile range.

Meanwhile, the F-35's top speed is listed as....Mach 1.6+

[Admiral Valdemar]

We should've put the cash into a dedicated multi-role UCAV system instead of trying to make a halfway useful F-22 clone.

[MKSheppard]

We should've put the cash into a dedicated multi-role UCAV system instead of trying to make a halfway useful F-22 clone.

Won't work. Look at loss rates of UCAVs in benign threat environments; and without fun things as the bad guys jamming your datalinks....

[Admiral Valdemar]

I guess the Super Harrier is also out then. If the F-15s had more life in them, could've at least got a better UCAV programme set-up, we all know the USAF and any other Western air force is looking to them for future support one way or another.

This is annoying. So much money and it's all squandered.

[MKSheppard]

If the F-15s had more life in them, could've at least got a better UCAV programme set-up

I'm afraid you don't understand; the only thing UCAVs are good for is "go here, kill everything that moves". Basically, bigger, longer ranged reusable versions of existing smart weapons. What, you think that Comrade Hu is going to let us use satellite uplinks to control our UCAV swarm from Arizona in a war against China?

Ho ho ho silly man, he just began shooting down our communications satellites with ASATs.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

How much will it cost to even ramp up the F-22 program?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm afraid you don't understand; the only thing UCAVs are good for is "go here, kill everything that moves". Basically, bigger, longer ranged reusable versions of existing smart weapons. What, you think that Comrade Hu is going to let us use satellite uplinks to control our UCAV swarm from Arizona in a war against China?

Ho ho ho silly man, he just began shooting down our communications satellites with ASATs.

The UCAVs I envision would be autonomous when need be and not something coming into service for a while yet. The idea of having UCAV wingmen isn't far fetched today, but a fleet of them being controlled from afar is not a good idea. The Predator and Reaper units are one thing and I'm under no impression they make anything more than police units in contested zones rather than full fledged combat units.

It would be nice, alas, no super AI for us yet.

[Sea Skimmer]

There's no point to a cheaper air superiority fighter than a F-22. It'll still cost nearly as much per unit as the F-22, but won't fair anywhere near as well in battle. In other words, it's going to have a lower kill ratio.

Indeed, new built F-15Es go for around 80 million while the flyaway cost of the F-22 is around 130 million. F-15s can't beat F-22s even given 12 vs. 2 odds.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You can't make the maths any simpler. So why do the rich, white middle-aged folk in Washington, D.C. not grasp this fact? They're quite happy funding the LCS, and not something that actually has far more relevance today and urgency in deployment.