I just came across this on the Air Forces main website and did a bit of searching for more info. Luckly the pilot got out with only minor injuries, its the second crash at the 131st FW this year:
http://www.kctv5.com/news/14496109/detail.html
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld ... 6698.story
Air Guard F-15 Crash
-
reconmercs
- MAIW Veteran
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 19:55
- Version: FS9
- Location: KRDU
1980 model F-15, man those things are getting old.
-Mike G.
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
-
ronniegj
I'm no maintenance expert, but, I note that the previous lost was attributed to a jammed cable, and one that had recently been serviced and was known to be good.
In an a/c that is nearing 30 years old, it is likely that multiple subsystems that bare a great deal of stress during their lifetime are nearing 'must fail' points (metal fatigue, rotting rubber, plastics undergoing molecular changes leading to disintegration, etc).
Seems that such an a/c needs to be stripped down to the bare frame and all new stressed items replaced with new. Likely that is just too expensive for the government to fund right now, so these a/c are becoming ticking time bombs ready to take the life of the crew and groundlings over which they fly.
Some of the designs we have created are so good that their usefulness can continue for periods long beyond their original intended lives. Look at the DC-3, B-52, C-130 and 707's as prime examples. Only thing is you gotta invest in complete overhauls from time to time.
One such facility that did that sort of thing in San Antonio, operated by the USAF, was axed a few years ago by Base Closure and Re-Alignment &@^$#$, is just one of the reasons why we are going to have more and more such problems as time goes by.
The Pol's have f**ked us royally in the effort to rob Peter to pay Paul, saving a little now, but eventually costing much later on (what do they care, they will be retired, with their fortune made (stolen?) by the time the bill comes due).
Sorry, kinda lost it for a moment there!
Ron
In an a/c that is nearing 30 years old, it is likely that multiple subsystems that bare a great deal of stress during their lifetime are nearing 'must fail' points (metal fatigue, rotting rubber, plastics undergoing molecular changes leading to disintegration, etc).
Seems that such an a/c needs to be stripped down to the bare frame and all new stressed items replaced with new. Likely that is just too expensive for the government to fund right now, so these a/c are becoming ticking time bombs ready to take the life of the crew and groundlings over which they fly.
Some of the designs we have created are so good that their usefulness can continue for periods long beyond their original intended lives. Look at the DC-3, B-52, C-130 and 707's as prime examples. Only thing is you gotta invest in complete overhauls from time to time.
One such facility that did that sort of thing in San Antonio, operated by the USAF, was axed a few years ago by Base Closure and Re-Alignment &@^$#$, is just one of the reasons why we are going to have more and more such problems as time goes by.
The Pol's have f**ked us royally in the effort to rob Peter to pay Paul, saving a little now, but eventually costing much later on (what do they care, they will be retired, with their fortune made (stolen?) by the time the bill comes due).
Sorry, kinda lost it for a moment there!
Ron
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
Look at the DC-3, B-52, C-130 and 707's as prime examples. Only thing is you gotta invest in complete overhauls from time to time
I think you may have understated the case a bit. These airplanes all underwent pretty major mods for airframe/engine/avionics updates over the years. Every model required engine changes over time and in the case of the B-52 major structural mods to hold the fuselage together. It was essentially a rail-road rail. The key statistics for when to retire an aircraft is "mean time between failures" and also "maintenance hour vs flying hour ratio." Another factor in deciding to ground a type permanently is a mission-capable replacement aircraft. You also need to look at the number of total "survivors" by type. We are down to 76 B-52s and those are the "youngest" off the production line. I don't know the totals for the others, but I don't think any of them are flying in major numbers compared to the original production output. I know there are a lot of smaller Airforces flying the Gooney Bird and perhaps the 707 but they are no longer in major airforces AFAIK.
I think you may have understated the case a bit. These airplanes all underwent pretty major mods for airframe/engine/avionics updates over the years. Every model required engine changes over time and in the case of the B-52 major structural mods to hold the fuselage together. It was essentially a rail-road rail. The key statistics for when to retire an aircraft is "mean time between failures" and also "maintenance hour vs flying hour ratio." Another factor in deciding to ground a type permanently is a mission-capable replacement aircraft. You also need to look at the number of total "survivors" by type. We are down to 76 B-52s and those are the "youngest" off the production line. I don't know the totals for the others, but I don't think any of them are flying in major numbers compared to the original production output. I know there are a lot of smaller Airforces flying the Gooney Bird and perhaps the 707 but they are no longer in major airforces AFAIK.
GZR_SACTARGETS
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
An example of growing Obsolete-and one solution
From the "Early Bird" 5 Nov 07
Strategic Airlift On Artificial Life Support
By Jim Saxton
When there is a conflict in some far-off place and the decision is made for the United States to intervene militarily, it is vital that our troops and their supplies and equipment get there fast. For this, a modern airlift fleet is essential. But some in Congress do not understand this and have created "artificial barriers" to providing the airlift necessary to accomplish efficient, rapid, and safe deployments.
The Pentagon's strategic airlift strategy, we have been told, will require "300 capable strategic aircraft" to ferry our military personnel and their equipment to various future theaters of conflict.
Today, there are two possibilities as far as those airlifters are concerned: the C-17, the most modern and by far the most capable; and the C-5, an aircraft first built in the 1960s. Assuming 300 airlifters will do the trick — which some doubt — let's examine the possibilities.
Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne recently testified at a House Armed Services Committee hearing that the current plan is a result of congressional pressure and a statute passed by Congress that prohibits retirement of the old, less capable, C-5 aircraft. Therefore, working within Congress' parameters, if 111 of the 300 required airlifters are C-5s (the entire old fleet), the Defense Department can only buy 189 C-17s, after which the assembly line would be closed.
We would be in great shape if all of these platforms were "capable strategic aircraft." But they are not. In reality, half of the C-5 fleet can't fly safely. That forces the versatile C-17 to be flown much more than ever anticipated, hence wearing them out more quickly. And remember, Congress passed a law stipulating none of these 40-year-old, incapable C-5 aircraft can be retired.
There is an ongoing program to modernize old C-5s. As originally planned, the program was estimated to cost between $5 billion and $8 billion. After a lengthy study, however, the Air Force concluded that the cost could be as high as (are you sitting down?) a whopping $17.8 billion. After hearing this, the contractor cried foul, claiming the cost would "only" be in the neighborhood of $12 billion.
Mr. Wynne, who has no enthusiasm for modernizing all the older airplanes in the C-5 fleet, told Congress the entire modernization program (111 C-5s) would give us the "equivalent of 10 additional airlifters." That's a huge price to pay for such a small increase in capability. While Mr. Wynne believes 30 C-5As, the least capable in this old fleet, should be retired, Congress has blocked that option.
The useful life of the modernized C-5 airframes has been projected as 25 years. However, experts believe that time frame is little more than wishful thinking. After a decade of use, the fleet is expected to become extremely costly to maintain.
In addition to exacerbating the Air Force's budgetary problem, this plan jeopardizes the deployability and readiness of the rest of the Armed Forces. It will cause us to search for other airlift alternatives in the future, when there may not be any alternatives readily available. Already, we are forced to use Soviet-built Russian aircraft to transport mine-resistant "MRAP" vehicles to the Iraqi theater to protect soldiers from improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
So there you have it. Congress has force-fed the Pentagon a plan that costs the American taxpayer untold billions of dollars and leaves us with an inferior strategic airlift fleet, while closing down a production line that has turned out the best airlifter in the history of aviation.
There is a solution. Congress can include language in the fiscal 2008 Defense Authorization bill that will enable the Air Force secretary to retire the oldest and least capable C-5s. In doing so, we will enable the Air Force to plan for future airlift needs in a way that focuses on the best planes for our military — and not on congressional restrictions.
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Republican, is ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives' House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. His district includes Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base, a tanker and airlifter base designated as the Air Mobility Center of the East Coast. McGuire is home to C-17 airlifters, KC-10s and KC-135 tankers.
Strategic Airlift On Artificial Life Support
By Jim Saxton
When there is a conflict in some far-off place and the decision is made for the United States to intervene militarily, it is vital that our troops and their supplies and equipment get there fast. For this, a modern airlift fleet is essential. But some in Congress do not understand this and have created "artificial barriers" to providing the airlift necessary to accomplish efficient, rapid, and safe deployments.
The Pentagon's strategic airlift strategy, we have been told, will require "300 capable strategic aircraft" to ferry our military personnel and their equipment to various future theaters of conflict.
Today, there are two possibilities as far as those airlifters are concerned: the C-17, the most modern and by far the most capable; and the C-5, an aircraft first built in the 1960s. Assuming 300 airlifters will do the trick — which some doubt — let's examine the possibilities.
Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne recently testified at a House Armed Services Committee hearing that the current plan is a result of congressional pressure and a statute passed by Congress that prohibits retirement of the old, less capable, C-5 aircraft. Therefore, working within Congress' parameters, if 111 of the 300 required airlifters are C-5s (the entire old fleet), the Defense Department can only buy 189 C-17s, after which the assembly line would be closed.
We would be in great shape if all of these platforms were "capable strategic aircraft." But they are not. In reality, half of the C-5 fleet can't fly safely. That forces the versatile C-17 to be flown much more than ever anticipated, hence wearing them out more quickly. And remember, Congress passed a law stipulating none of these 40-year-old, incapable C-5 aircraft can be retired.
There is an ongoing program to modernize old C-5s. As originally planned, the program was estimated to cost between $5 billion and $8 billion. After a lengthy study, however, the Air Force concluded that the cost could be as high as (are you sitting down?) a whopping $17.8 billion. After hearing this, the contractor cried foul, claiming the cost would "only" be in the neighborhood of $12 billion.
Mr. Wynne, who has no enthusiasm for modernizing all the older airplanes in the C-5 fleet, told Congress the entire modernization program (111 C-5s) would give us the "equivalent of 10 additional airlifters." That's a huge price to pay for such a small increase in capability. While Mr. Wynne believes 30 C-5As, the least capable in this old fleet, should be retired, Congress has blocked that option.
The useful life of the modernized C-5 airframes has been projected as 25 years. However, experts believe that time frame is little more than wishful thinking. After a decade of use, the fleet is expected to become extremely costly to maintain.
In addition to exacerbating the Air Force's budgetary problem, this plan jeopardizes the deployability and readiness of the rest of the Armed Forces. It will cause us to search for other airlift alternatives in the future, when there may not be any alternatives readily available. Already, we are forced to use Soviet-built Russian aircraft to transport mine-resistant "MRAP" vehicles to the Iraqi theater to protect soldiers from improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
So there you have it. Congress has force-fed the Pentagon a plan that costs the American taxpayer untold billions of dollars and leaves us with an inferior strategic airlift fleet, while closing down a production line that has turned out the best airlifter in the history of aviation.
There is a solution. Congress can include language in the fiscal 2008 Defense Authorization bill that will enable the Air Force secretary to retire the oldest and least capable C-5s. In doing so, we will enable the Air Force to plan for future airlift needs in a way that focuses on the best planes for our military — and not on congressional restrictions.
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Republican, is ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives' House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. His district includes Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base, a tanker and airlifter base designated as the Air Mobility Center of the East Coast. McGuire is home to C-17 airlifters, KC-10s and KC-135 tankers.
GZR_SACTARGETS
-
Ford Friendly
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 823
- Joined: 08 Jul 2007, 22:15
- Version: FS9
Air Force grounds F-15s in Afghanistan after Missouri crash
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/05/f15.gr ... index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/05/f15.gr ... index.html
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
Good Story. Sounds like a 'non-routine' crash. Probably a major investigation and then recommendations for a fix. Structural failures require a lot of inspections-As you would know!Ford Friendly wrote:Air Force grounds F-15s in Afghanistan after Missouri crash
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/05/f15.gr ... index.html
GZR_SACTARGETS
"The cause of the crash is still under investigation, but Air Force officials said it was a structural failure and the plane broke apart in flight."
Not good. So have they grounded the entire F-15 fleet?
Not good. So have they grounded the entire F-15 fleet?
-Mike G.
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
Basically... I believe only deployed F-15E aircraft can fly in emergency situations such as defending ground troops.MIKE JG wrote:"The cause of the crash is still under investigation, but Air Force officials said it was a structural failure and the plane broke apart in flight."
Not good. So have they grounded the entire F-15 fleet?
Japan has also grounded their F-15 versions.
This is what happens when congress continues to shrink the available money to the military. I'll be surprised if we don't have KC-135s falling out of the skies before congress and GAO finally settle on a new tanker. It will probably be(and rightfully so) the same plane they originally tried to pick before the GAO got involved forced the USAF to go back to looking at offers. Same with the CSAR-X aircraft. USAF makes a selection, GAO tells them it's wrong and airmen are stuck on antiquated aircraft while the beaurcrats debate the proper method for taking offers.
Precisely why I have no love for any politician these days. None of them do the "right thing" any longer, they only do what's necessary to get re-elected.
-Mike G.
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
-
VulcanDriver
- MAIW Staff
- Posts: 4575
- Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 20:58
- Version: FSX
- Location: EGHH
-
Garysb
- MAIW Developer
- Posts: 2814
- Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 19:33
- Version: FSX
- Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid ... b=1&news=1VulcanDriver wrote:BBC News reports all USAF F-15s grounded indefinitely.
John
BBC report
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
It Disintegrated?: The Missouri Air National Guard F-15C that crashed Nov. 2 possibly disintegrated during flight, reports the Washington Post. The Air Force grounded its entire F-15 fleet the next day, pending results of the accident investigation. It is flying the fighter only for mission critical operations in Southwest Asia and there the air component commander is using other aircraft for regular patrols, leaving the F-15s on "ground alert." According to Josh White of the Post, initial findings from this latest accident revealed that the fighter "broke apart behind the cockpit while in flight." This is the second recent F-15 accident suffered by the Missouri ANG's 131st Fighter Wing at Lambert-St. Louis Airport. The Air Force has yet to release the accident report on the two-seat version F-15D that crashed in May, but the Post reports that a steering cable failed. The Air Force flies some 700 F-15s, averaging around 20 years old-the Air Guard average age is 28 years. Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Bentley told the Associated Press this week that the fighters are grounded indefinitely.
From AF Daily Report 7 Nov 07
From AF Daily Report 7 Nov 07
GZR_SACTARGETS
-
ronniegj
Well, I guess the demo team won't be making this one after all!
http://www.rangerwingcaf.com/Ranger/Air ... m=&ucat=3&
Maybe they'll be able to get one of the other teams there in time.
As an aside, "W" will be arriving later today to host Angela Merkle (spelling?) of Germany out at the ranch. He will also be jumping around for a couple of engagements in the near area, so who knows what you might see if you went out there?? (AF 1, Marine 1, German 1, etc) He uses KCNW (TSTC Waco Airport) for his comings and goings.
If your in the area of Waco, TX this Saturday, 10 Nov, 10AM to 5PM you might want to check it out. Free admission and the weather is predicted to be good that day (high 70's to low 80's and partly cloudy) so it should be very pleasant. 25,000 plus were there last year.
Ron
http://www.rangerwingcaf.com/Ranger/Air ... m=&ucat=3&
Maybe they'll be able to get one of the other teams there in time.
As an aside, "W" will be arriving later today to host Angela Merkle (spelling?) of Germany out at the ranch. He will also be jumping around for a couple of engagements in the near area, so who knows what you might see if you went out there?? (AF 1, Marine 1, German 1, etc) He uses KCNW (TSTC Waco Airport) for his comings and goings.
If your in the area of Waco, TX this Saturday, 10 Nov, 10AM to 5PM you might want to check it out. Free admission and the weather is predicted to be good that day (high 70's to low 80's and partly cloudy) so it should be very pleasant. 25,000 plus were there last year.
Ron
-
globemaster
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 12 Jul 2007, 17:17
- Version: FS9
- Location: Grantham, Lincolnshire
-
matias
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 09 Oct 2006, 03:00
- Version: FS9
- Location: Fresno, California
Here in Fresno we have been sending rotating pairs of F-16s up to Portland to fill in for the grounded eagles who are based there and responsible for homeland security/air defense. So as of right now the F-16 squadron based in Fresno is responsible for the entire westcoast from canada to mexico in the air defense role.
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
A Second Grounding & Canadian Help!
A Second F-15 Stand-down: According to a news release out of Tyndall AFB, Fla., Air Combat Command has directed a second stand-down of the F-15 fleet-this time, just the A, B, C, and D models. Maj. Gen. Hank Morrow, head of 1st Air Force at Tyndall, said that the USAF F-15s supporting the Continental US NORAD Region will remain on alert, but he has various other aircraft to launch, as necessary. Just last week, ACC boss, Gen. John Corley, had released the A-D model F-15s for flight, following individual aircraft inspections, even as he said the investigation into the cause of the Nov. 2 F-15C crash would continue. On Nov. 27, ACC's work with the F-15 depot-Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia-revealed "possible fleet-wide airworthiness problems," according to an ACC release. Metallurgical analysis of the mishap aircraft has revealed that metal rails that hold the fuselage of the aircraft together may have cracked or failed. That finding, coupled with manufacturer simulations that show potential for "catastrophic failure," has led the ALC and accident board to recommend a more detailed inspection of the upper longerons near the canopy on each F-15.
Among Those Other Aircraft: The Canadian Pressreports that Canadian CF-18 fighters supplemented USAF aircraft earlier this month by flying NORAD air defense patrols over the Alaskan coast during the first grounding of USAF's F-15 fleet. (See above.) Those CF-18s have now returned to their home base in Bagotville. Quebec. An official with Canadian NORAD operations declined to go into numbers of aircraft or other specifics, saying, "We really don't want to say very much in case they're called on again.
From Air Force Daily Report 29 Nov o7
Among Those Other Aircraft: The Canadian Pressreports that Canadian CF-18 fighters supplemented USAF aircraft earlier this month by flying NORAD air defense patrols over the Alaskan coast during the first grounding of USAF's F-15 fleet. (See above.) Those CF-18s have now returned to their home base in Bagotville. Quebec. An official with Canadian NORAD operations declined to go into numbers of aircraft or other specifics, saying, "We really don't want to say very much in case they're called on again.
From Air Force Daily Report 29 Nov o7
GZR_SACTARGETS
