Our miltary aircraft are falling apart, litterally...........

Navy grounds 39 P-3s over faulty wings

By Chris Amos - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Dec 19, 2007 7:31:37 EST

The Navy on Monday grounded 39 P-3 Orion anti-submarine patrol planes — nearly one in four of its inventory — because of concerns that a structural defect could cause either of the aircraft’s wings to break off in flight.

The grounding was the result of engineering analysis and computer modeling and was not caused by any actual structural failures, said John Milliman, spokesman for Naval Air Systems Command.

Navy engineers looked at several factors, Milliman said, including the number of hours a particular aircraft has flown, the maneuvers it performed while in flight, the altitude the aircraft have operated at and the climate in areas where it has been based in determining which aircraft should be grounded and which should be kept flying.

Milliman said each grounded aircraft will be flown to a repair depot in Jacksonville, Fla. Those that can be repaired will be out of service for between 18 and 24 months. Those that can’t will be retired.

Navy officials have not determined how much the repairs will cost or whether retired aircraft will be replaced, he said.

Navy officials will rotate P-3s from other parts of the fleet to replace the 10 grounded aircraft that are currently deployed, and commanders plan to ensure that each squadron can meet all of its operational requirements.

The Navy has 161 P-3s. Their average age is 28 years old; the oldest aircraft is 44 and the youngest 18. Milliman was unable to say whether the age or flight time of the grounded planes was greater than that of the P-3 fleet as a whole.


http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/12/n ... g_071217w/

I guess we are seeing the benefits of modification programs and initial good design. The Gooney Bird will probably fly forever and some B-52s have been around a long time. The Goon probably due to outstanding design and good old 'brute force' construction and the Buff due to mods.

I love the short sided viewpoints of congress... save millions of dollars today because down the line when the crap hits the fan and costs hundreds of millions(if not billions) to repair/replace equipment, those politicians are unlikely to be in office to face the consequences.

Aircraft like the B-52, KC-135, P-3, etc... can, of course, have their life extended via upgrades and part replacements but that doesn't make it a good idea. The amount of maintenance time for every flying hour on those aircraft is ridiculous.

Chris,
I think it is expressed as a ratio of flight hours/maintenance hours. IIRC that was the factor that killed the B-58. The maintenance was very intensive for each flying hour. BUT.. sometimes 'special' mission aircraft types are kept going because they are unique in their capabilities. I guess I am curious as to why the F-117 was so short-lived. I haven't read anything about why the program died.

It is expressed as a ratio... since I wasn't using an exact number as an example though I chose not to express it as such.

As for the F-117 retiring... I read somewhere that the F-117 is rather maintenance heavy at this point in its career, requiring a fair amount of work to keep a plane mission ready 24 hrs after it flies. Plus, money not spent maintaining those aircraft can be utilized in purchasing a better aircraft. The mission can be filled by various other USAF assets.

I remember seeing that ratio between the F-14 and the F-18 at the end of the Tomcat's career. The difference in mx hours required was just silly.

Budgets are weird. Some aircraft are bought with a logistics tail and the manufacturer maintains the supply of parts. Analysis of how many of what parts is a real chinese-puzzle. That is sometimes determined by a 'lead the fleet' airplane that is deliberately flown as much as possible and parts are monitored very carefully. Other times the parts list is based on history of a particular module. Having said all that, sometimes failures are the 'real' determinant of parts needs. The F-15 structural problems would be a good example. That is the up-front development view. As airplanes age-the Budget is mostly for maintainence. Usually the initial procurement of a new bird is a budget item for X numbers. The real point is that Procurement Money and Development Money are separate budgets. It all comes out of the same pot-The DoD budget which is divided up by the services and any given year a new set of "wants" is laid out by the services and in effect compete for Tax Dollars. While it is correct that maintenance costs are a factor they are really 'separate' dollars in the budget. It is pretty rare to see one of the services provide an offset to buy something else they want. More often than not if an item is proposed as an offset it is just taken at the DoD level and the service providing it still has to compete for the budget separate from their offset.
It is all 'smoke and mirrors' and 'ignore the man behind the curtain'