Is The Air Force Broken?

Broken-Wrench · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:37 pm **Posts:** 1197

approximately 40 percent of inspected aircraft have at least one longeron that does not meet blueprint specifications.

Deviations in these longerons will be analyzed at the WR-ALC. The analysis is expected to take approximately four weeks to complete. Once the analysis is complete, ACC will be able to better determine which aircraft will need further inspection, or repair, before returning them to flight

RickH · **Posted:** Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:56 pm

Sorry, Bill. Must have missed your reference as I was reading down the thread. Bill, I do the same thing when I run across the different magazines. I only buy the ones that have either an article on a subject I'm particularly interested in or an article dealing with CF stuff.

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:31 am

EDowning wrote:

In "What We Need" there is a description that I found thought provoking. The B2 weighs 150,000lbs with no ordnance, fly away cost was $2 Billion each. That's $870 an ounce acquisition cost. Gold was @ $400 an ounce when they were built.

So?

The Manhattan Project produced two atomic bombs which, if you do that math, cost $6,510.42 per ounce. The price of gold in 1944 was $35 per ounce.

If that is what the right combat capability costs, than what difference does it make? If you need the capability, then whatever the cost is "worth it".

When P-51s were sold surplus in the 1950s, they cost less per pound than a good steak.

Jet Mech · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:44 am

What cost per ounce do you put on Human Lives? What is acceptable cost to save one human life in war.

Programs like the B-2 cost alot, due to limited units produced. Look at what is would have cost to make two dozen B-17's or B-24's, but if that was all Congress would fund, your stuck with it.

Problems with the aging fleet of military aircraft are due to Congress not giving enough money to but what is needed when they are cheap, and streaching out the purchases which makes the cost higher. New technology costs more.

What was the cost of the first PC compaired to the cost of one today. Mass marketing and use drives the price down. Limited use keeps the cost high.

I am retired MSgt from USAF, I worked on A-7's and A-10's. They wanted to get rid of the A-10, because it was a limited role use aircraft. It did one job, but really well. Now they can't get enough of them in combat areas because of how well the do that one lousy job of ground support, but the "Good ole boys, fighter club" in DC didn't like them and wanted to get rid of the slow ugly airplane. (Sorry Randy, not all figher jocks are bad), Now they are in a race to upgrade them and keep them for 20+ more years.

Kurt

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:52 am

In a war like Afghan or Iraq has become, where there is no air opposition, and the need is for ground attack or support of ground troops, is the A-10 the ideal or best plane? Why is a F-15 or F-16 used to bomb a target like a house or small building? Does the F plane carry bigger or more sophisticated guided bombs? Which can survive best against ground anti-aircraft fire? How well can an A-10 survive if there was modern jet aircraft opposition ? Thanks, I don't know too much about this part of it.

RickH · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:11 pm

Bill, the A-10 was designed to survive down low in a high threat environment while the F16 and F15s kept the skies above them clear of the bad guys. The A-10's primary mission was to stop the Soviet tank hordes from running over Europe. When DS I came along the fighter mafia in the Pentagon was on their way to phasing the A-10 out of the inventory. Then it was allowed to show it's stuff, the A-10 did its job so well that all plans to retire it were scrapped. Lockheed just received a 2 billion dollar contract to rewing the fleet. As Kurt said " now they can't get enough of them ".

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:23 pm

The reason the F-15 or F-16 is used is simple - they had the ordinance available at the time the mission is needed. The A-10 may have been a better fit for the mission, but wasn't available for whatever reason. It's kind of like the strikes the other day in Iraq. Why were B-1Bs and F-16s used? Well, the B-1Bs could deliver the quantity of JDAMs to a large quantity of targets and the F-16s were used to mop-up. They wanted the F-16 because the F-16 is equipped to self-launch the JDAM. The A-10A may have been a better fit for what they were doing, but it can't use JDAMs and LGBs are in short supply. When the A-10Cs start proliferating, you'll see them more on those sort of operations because they can use the JDAM and their 30MM cannon is better for such operations.

It's all a matter of putting the right ordinance on the right target at the right time. As long as those items are accomplished, most planners aren't picky about what airframe is actually carrying out the mission, just that the desired effects are achieved.

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:21 pm

Everybody brings slightly different tools to the fight. No single aircraft is the perfect fit for all instances.

Jet Mech · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:49 am

Tales from the fighter side, from what I have heard when working on the A-10s, the pilots said it can fly so slow the bad guys (in this case F-15s and 16s) cound not keep up with them. AKA fall out of sky at such slow speeds. Tactics in dog fight was dive for dirt, hit the deck, when dumb enough to be chased, then drop all speed brakes and watch the bad guy in back overrun the A-10, which then poped nose up and raked the bad guy with 30 mil guns. I have seen video's where they got a confirmed kill on a F-14 during war games in Korea. About the time the DS kicked off the A-10s were coming out of a mod to install the AIM9's on the bird. That gave them a little stand off self defense in the air.

The T-Bolt was great down and dirty, but not the best bomb carrier due to lack of fancy electronics needed which the fast jets have. Remember that the bombs were an after fact capability added to the plane.

Broken-Wrench · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:37 pm **Posts:** 1197

I was in Boston at the Barnes and Nobel and I saw Combat Aircraft but it Didn't have any cover that said the Airforce was Broken? maybe it was an old issue.. What issue was that?

RickH · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:44 am

Just got this in my email; T2Ernie posted in the F-15 thread;

Quote:

January 16, 2008

AFA members and Congressional Staffers, many of you have commented favorably
on the "elevator speech numbers" I sent you.
It's January ... so here are some revealing data on the "State of the Air
Force."
Fighter Aircraft - average age: 20 years; average flight hours 5400+
Bomber Aircraft - average age: 32 years; average flight hours 11,400+
Tanker aircraft - average age: 44 years; average flight hours 18,900+
C2 Fleet - average age: 22 years old; average flight hours 32,000
ISR Fleet (excluding UAV) - average age: 30 years old; average flight hours
18,000

Key Groundings/Restrictions
F-15A-D - 163 of 441 are grounded for structural issues
B-52 - 6 are grounded - past due PDM grounding date - authorized a one-time
flight to the bone-yard.
EC-130 - 2 of 14 are grounded due to center wing box cracks
C-130E - 3 are grounded and 13 are restricted due to Service life and wing
cracks
KC-135Es - 26 of 86 are grounded due to engine strut corrosion.
AC-130U - 4 of 17 are restricted due to lack of 30MM weapons
B-2 - entire fleet is restricted due to windshield bolt hole cracks
C-5s - 39 of 108 are restricted due to crown skin restrictions (weight
limiting)

Additionally:
219 of 223 F-15Es have training restrictions due to vertical stab structural
issues
Majority of Block 25/30/32, block 40/42, and block 50/52 F-16s need
structural modifications
All 356 A-10s will need new wings and new aircraft skin - many have landing
gear issues ... and all need new engines.
C-130Hs have Center Wing Box issues
C-32As have bulkhead structural issues.
Looking across the FYDP - between 2008-2013 - the Air Force will divest
itself of 749 aircraft and procure only 698 aircraft (260 of which are
UAVs).
To give you the idea of the scale of all of this:
When the AF grounded its 600+ F-15 fleet, it grounded more aircraft than the
entire F/A Navy. The F-15s it presently has grounded equate to a bit more
than 3 aircraft carriers of aircraft.

The 356 A-10s that need renovations equates to more aircraft than the fixed
wing USMC

The Air Force has about 5800 aircraft ... and presently about one-third are
either grounded or restricted in one way or another
The central important part of this data is that this is not a third-world
Air Force ... And the question we should ask ourselves, why don't we fund it
to ensure our children and grandchildren are safe and secure?
2nd Subject -
Chief of Staff White Paper - Gen Moseley published an exceptional White
Paper ... which lays out the strategic foundations for the Air Force of the
future. If you haven't seen it, you can find it on the AFA website:
http://dailyreport.afa.org/NR/rdonlyres ... 358B0C4B34
/0/CSAF_white_paper.pdf
My favorite quotes in it are:
"No modern war has been won without air superiority. No future war will be
won without air, space and cyberspace superiority." Page 2.

"With the oldest inventory in history, battered by 17 years of continuous
combat, the Air Force's ability to fulfill its missions is already being
tested." Page 2

"... our reliance on assured access to space will increase exponentially."
Page 8

"The Air Force is smaller in December 2007 than it was in December 1941."
Page 10
For your consideration.
Mike
Michael M. Dunn, Lt Gen (Ret)
AFA President/CEO

Warbird Information Exchange

Is The Air Force Broken?

Who is online