Aging Aircraft In The Us Air Force Options

[commcart]

Interesting article from The Mercury News published today details some of the hardships the US Air Force is currently facing in its aging fleet of aircraft:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...cs/16796920.htm

Be sure to draw your own conclusions as this is in the ?Politics and Government? section of the news.


Anthony

[MikeS]

I curious to know how all you former pilots feel about the article. The article makes sense to me. I'm driving an 11 year old car, and its starting to cost me a lot of maintenance. Surely the Air Force has done some kind of cost analysis to determine the cost of maintaining an aging aircraft and the cost of the new fighters. I know the new fighters are expensive, but how much are we spending replacing aging parts on the current fighters? I require an education in aviation - help me out, please.

[McGyver]

Just like with your car (and mine)... it's all about usage and budget. If the vehicle wasn't designed to last more than a few years... be thankful if you have gotten 10 or more out of it... If it's something that's built to take a beating and last several years... whether it's a pickup truck or a B-52, then it's certainly worthwhile to keep it running... or flying... as long as you need it in the role it plays or is still capable of. Naturally, as things age, it's always a good idea to keep a closer watch on how they are performing. I recently had to let my Ford Probe I had for the last 16 (at least) years go during the later phases (reassembly) of an engine rebuild... I discovered that underneath the body undercoating that the framework and floorboards were rusting out... one good bump and the whole thing would have buckled. I only found that out when a sheet of undercoating fell off the underside as I was moving the car over a bit to jack it up a bit higher. That led to the inspection and the ultimate junking of the vehicle. (I already had a van to replace it)

I think the same thing applies to aircraft or just about anything, really... if it still fufills the role required, why replace it as long as it's working?
On the other hand, if the role or need changes... now you have a decision to make... Take electronics... Do you replace that TV now or wait til later (2009, Folks... that's when all of TV is supposed to go digital and your old analog units shouldn't work any more) If it's still working... hang on to it (you'll need it to watch those old VHS tapes with anyway!) ... for at least a little while longer or unless you have a budget for a new one.

[MKopack]

I think the same thing applies to aircraft or just about anything, really... if it still fufills the role required, why replace it as long as it's working?

In some ways, I agree with you, in some ways no. There can be a very fine line between 'working' or not, especially when it comes to aging aircraft. While we all like to see these aircraft flying for airshows, we actually depend on them to fulfill a much more serious role.

Several years ago the AF lost a KC-135 in a ground pressurization accident (literally blew the tail off from the pressure bulkhead). In the end it was an accident, but what would have happened had the investigation revealed a real problem - something unexpected - perhaps causing an unflyable condition amongst a large portion of the fleet? Suddenly it's a lot more difficult to deploy. This isn't just a 'perhaps' either, it's happened: nearly 20 years ago (God, I feel old sometimes...) we received an immediate action TCTO (inspection) from TAC to perform NDI (non-destructive investigation) tests on our 7-8 year old A/B Viper's wings, looking for cracks. The TCTO called for any aircraft with cracks over a certain length (in a particular position) to be grounded for wing change - we found cracks out of limits in 70+% of our fleet of 100+ birds, many on both wings. Thankfully, the good people at GD came up with a fix, otherwise we would have been out of the flying business for a long time. A hundred plus wing changes, just at our base, could have taken the larger part of a year to complete - and that is once the factory could build them.

For more fun Viper stories from the 'old days',
I invite you to visit the Lucky Devils in the Gulf War at:
http://www.lucky-devils.net

Mike Kopack
___________________________________
Phantom Productions Aviation Photography

USAF F-16A/B/C/D Crew Chief
56TTW/63TFTS MacDill AFB '87-89
401TFW/614TFS Torrejon AB '89-91 / Doha, Qatar '90-91

[Dave Hederich]

This is what is referred to in journalism as an "evergreen" story. That is, the same story can be re-written and published over and over, year after year, because, to one degree or another, it's always valid.

Another evergreen story about military aviation is the one talking about "troubled" aircraft development programs. Duh! Name one development program of any complex product that has been completed without problems. By definition, every development program is "troubled" to one degree or another.

These always make good stories because they involve taxpayer dollars, and taxpayers always get indignant when they think government is wasting their tax dollars. The stories are usually written in a formulaic manner. They focus on the problems but do not fully explain all of the details that would allow people to make reasonable conclusions for themselves.

The older your get, the greater the feeling of deja vu you will have when these stories pop up again and again about yet another generation of older or newer military aircraft.

For laughs, try a Google search for troubled aircraft development and be prepared to see a lot of familiar names.

[McGyver]

For laughs, try a Google search for troubled aircraft development and be prepared to see a lot of familiar names.

...Like "Osprey" ?

[Dave Hederich]

Osprey? Obviously. Along with the Heinkel He 177, F-102 Delta Dagger, Eurofighter, F-111, Avro Vulcan, P-51, B-29, B-36, Hawker Hunter, Gloster Javelin, De Havilland Sea Vixen, F-22, Saab Gripen, F4F Wildcat, Messerschmitt ME 410, F-105, Nimrod MRA.Mk 4, etc., etc., ad infinitum (to name but a few).

[commcart]

As a follow-on to this subject, the Air Force Association magazine has an article explaining how the Air Force will extend the service lives of some A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s to keep some of them flying into the 2030s:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2007/0307force.asp


Anthony

[HackerF15E]

Yes, the airplanes are getting old and break more frequently today than they did yesterday. The jets are even inventing new ways to break that the maintenance guys (and the tech orders!) have never heard of before.

Well, the reality is that for the vast majority of the missions the USAF is being called upon to execute these days, what we have is adequate. What we have is woefully inadequate for many other possible military needs of the future. Once we start having to face the "Wall of Flankers" and double-digit ex-Soviet SAMs, then things look a lot different.

For all its problems, I'm a big fan of what the F-22 brings to the table. The problem is, it's bringing it to the table 10 years too late, thanks to Congress.

[Corky]

Interesting discussion thread. Especially liked the comment about the "jets inventing new ways to break". The later years of the Tomcat were very "interesting" in that regard.

Aircraft procurement has always been "troubled", mostly because it is mired in politics (and always has been, since the $ is controlled by Congress). The latest generation of procurement follies, though, are different in that we're talking about aircraft that wind up costing more than 100 million dollars. Sure, they may (may..) bring in some excellent tactical or lift capability, but certainly not 100 million dollars worth. The cost increases force the military to roll back the buy to the point that they just don't have enough assets. Witness the B-2. 1.5 BILLION dollars for an aircraft? Seriously. So we have 12 of them that will fly for some time and probably never be employed as designed.

Take the Osprey, for another example. Really neat idea to replace the lift capability of the CH-53. Too bad that the limitations inherent in the design preclude it from from conducting real-world troop inserts into a "hot" LZ (high decent rate/tactical insert). The answer? Well, we'll just not do those and land where it's safe......and make the grunts walk to the battle.

F-35; single-engine, single seat, multi-mission strike fighter. 100 million bucks. Sure hope that engine doesn't quit. The thing may be too expensive to risk it getting shot at........

From the Cheap Seats,
Corky

[hercules]

As for my experience in the F-16 (over Iraq), I could not agree more that our fleet is completely (95%) archaic. Good thing our current AOR is as well... Our training tries to make up for it, and does an adequate job, but only when compared to our current global requirements. If those requirements were to expand, I believe we would need a vast amount of new equipment and training. Our forces are ready to do the job, and deserve the best there is to accomplish the mission. We have the important part -smart and innovative forces- and just require the budget to catch up with our global initiatives. I am sure our awesome crew-chiefs out there would agree.

[MKopack]

As for my experience in the F-16 (over Iraq), I could not agree more that our fleet is completely (95%) archaic. Good thing our current AOR is as well... Our training tries to make up for it, and does an adequate job, but only when compared to our current global requirements. If those requirements were to expand, I believe we would need a vast amount of new equipment and training. Our forces are ready to do the job, and deserve the best there is to accomplish the mission. We have the important part -smart and innovative forces- and just require the budget to catch up with our global initiatives. I am sure our awesome crew-chiefs out there would agree.

Sixteen years is a long time in aircraft development and the same Block 30 Vipers that I maintained during Desert Storm are still flying combat missions over Iraq today. Yes, the aircraft have been upgraded since I crewed them at Torrejon and Doha back in the late 80's and early 90's, but tactical combat aircraft live a very hard life.


USAF F-16C block 30 #87-0241 from the Lucky Devils in the hangar at Doha, Qatar - 1991. [Photo by MKopack]


USAF F-16C block 30 #87-0241 from the Colorado ANG ready to launch at Balad AB - 2006. [Photo by Chickenlegs]
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item36387.html

Mike

3.7 million pounds of ordinance, 1303 sorties, 42 days. The 'Forgotten 1000'.
Visit the Lucky Devils in the Gulf War at: http://www.lucky-devils.net

[commcart]

CBS affiliate KTVT-11 from Dallas has an article on the aging fleet of aircraft with Air Force Chief of Staff Moseley. The text and video report by correspondent Robert Riggs is here:

http://cbs11tv.com/seenon/local_story_088130708.html


Anthony