F-15 Grounded; A glimpse of the future for the F-22 as well?
Mike Dennis
see F-15's finally having serious structural issues. When it takes 10-15
years to field a modern fighter, one has to wonder if this is going to be a
permanent pattern. How long will it take to develop the F-22's replacement
(UCAV or otherwise)? When you factor in the extremely small fleet size of
the F-22, I think we could reach the end of service life much more quickly
than the Eagle has.
I guess the one saving grace for the F-22, like the F-16, is that the flight
control computer can extend the life of the airframe by limiting the pilots'
ability to break the airplane. Of course, there's the commensurate loss of
capability that goes with that--but it buys some time.
Mike
Hawkeye
records and check the aircraft after a major accident and turn it into
doom for the F-22 program amazes me. Next time you board that airliner
to fly where ever, think about is this one really safe or have the
mechanics been putting band-aids on major issues? Are they pissed over
contract negotiations? Did Joe forget a wrench inside the jet?
When a cargo or passenger aircraft are stood down for safety issues,
it gets a quick word. When a fighter or bomber under goes the same, it
is a major catastrophe. Don't expect doom for the F-22 because the
aging F-15 is getting tired and showing its age. This incident could
be found to be a localized incident. Stuff happens.
How many years did the C-5 fly without the ability to operate its rear
cargo door or carry its intended capacity because of wing issues. Move
over how many years has it been since those issues were addressed.
She's still plugging away, but steadily declining.
Part of the reason there are fewer F-22 than F-15 is the mission has
changed and the capabilities have improved. The F-15 started life as
an air superiority asset then evolved into a ground strike platform.
The F-22 has shown that it too can drop small bombs (again better
capability in a smaller package).
Even you'll undergo changes in capacity if you haven't already.
Systems begin to decline, capacities diminish because of internal
structures weaken. Does this mean future generations are also doomed
for failure? Probably not, their smarter, faster and better that we
were.
Ed Rasimus
>How you can take a precautionary safety stand down to review the
>records and check the aircraft after a major accident and turn it into
>doom for the F-22 program amazes me. Next time you board that airliner
>to fly where ever, think about is this one really safe or have the
>mechanics been putting band-aids on major issues? Are they pissed over
>contract negotiations? Did Joe forget a wrench inside the jet?
>
>When a cargo or passenger aircraft are stood down for safety issues,
>it gets a quick word. When a fighter or bomber under goes the same, it
>is a major catastrophe. Don't expect doom for the F-22 because the
>aging F-15 is getting tired and showing its age. This incident could
>be found to be a localized incident. Stuff happens.
>
I'm not sure that the original post was a prognostication of Raptor
doom so much as simply pointing out that the F-15/16 have performed
remarkably for longer than their predicted lifecycle based on the
prior generation.
They've done so through extensive weaponry updates and modernization
programs. They are still very effective and as you eloquently pointed
out in the section of your rebuttal that I snipped, the grounding is
nothing much more than an evaluation of current condition and
determination of what needs to be done to insure continued operational
capability.
What is being pointed out is that Raptor's development to operational
cycle has been much longer than anyone initially anticipated and there
is little apparent noise about RFP or concept development about a
follow-on tactical air vehicle. I'm sure (at least I hope) that there
are some closed door sessions in the bowels of a number of buildings
in which the latest iteration of a "fighter mafia" is bouncing ideas
off of rubber-room walls.
>
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Ken S. Tucker
...snip agreeably
> Part of the reason there are fewer F-22 than F-15 is the mission has
> changed and the capabilities have improved. The F-15 started life as
> an air superiority asset then evolved into a ground strike platform.
> The F-22 has shown that it too can drop small bombs (again better
> capability in a smaller package).
IIRC the F-15 & 16 developements were based on
"Vietnam experience" ... dog fighting skills, and
the cold war.
Hope we're not planning to fight the "last war".
Ken
Hawkeye
believe than many of the promises made about what the manufacturers
could do was done by promise everything we'll deliver what we can when
we can. Over promise under deliver. Secure the contract and hope for
additional money to offset our shortcomings.
As our 'global' economy continues to evolve as well as the military
bonds between us and our allies, we'll start to see the role as a
supplier of military equipment reverse more and more. Our front line
combat aircraft will be designs from our allies. The trainer markets
has already swung that way, and as budgets continue to tighten we'll
see more emphasis placed on cross usage of systems. The Raptor might
be the last all American fighter deployed. The future fighter platform
that will replace the Raptor might well come from Sweden or France.
They may be assembled here but they will be 'their' design.
There is always someone who is thinking ahead towards the future. The
what-if factor is what drives them. Where would we be if those types
weren't working...say for the phone companies envisioning individual
portable phones...ala the cell phone?
We may reach or have reached a point where we take a backseat to
development of a whole program, but contribute to it never the less.
Let someone else come up with the platform, we'll just stick our
gismos and weapons into it. Let someone else do the hard and expensive
part for a change.
Ed Rasimus
Whoa. If we were fighting the last war in -15 and -16 development we'd
have been seeking another multi-role platform that the crews did all
the missions it was capable of.
Some differences:
1. F-15A and follow on C both dedicated as A/A platforms with
significant stand-off weaponry developed specifically to avoid getting
to the merge.
2. Training shifts to mandate rather than prohibit dissimilar air/air.
3. Purchase and application of fully instrumented training ranges like
ACMI.
4. Data integration and battle management with AWACS and fighters.
5. Focus on stand-off A/G delivery rather than automation of
traditional dive-bomb methodology.
6. Development of all-wx/day-night capability.
7. Aircrew specialization by roles.
8. True tactical employment capability for strategic bomber platforms.
9. Development of GPS aircraft, weapons and tactics.
10. Focus on joint operational capability for missions like ground
troop support--think A-10 JAAT.
11. Development of bare-base concepts and equipment for rapid
deployment.
12. Reorganization the MAJCOM structure--even to the extent of
illuminating the twin saints of SAC and TAC.
The equipment changed, the doctrine changed and the pace of change has
continued to change.
Most assuredly there was no attempt to make Desert Storm look like its
predecessor war and remarkably Iraqi Freedom didn't recreate Desert
Storm.
Mr.Smartypants
> With the USAF flying the oldest inventory it's ever had, it's no surprise to
> see F-15's finally having serious structural issues. When it takes 10-15
> years to field a modern fighter, one has to wonder if this is going to be a
> permanent pattern. How long will it take to develop the F-22's replacement
> (UCAV or otherwise)?
Who cares? You are already defeated. Your military is abrogated to a
foreign power to fight it's perpetual war........and those of you who
don't go into the army as cannon fodder will go into labor camps.
Kyle Boatright
"Hawkeye" <gvo...@new.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1194373827....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Your right about the time from concept to production on the Raptor. I
> believe than many of the promises made about what the manufacturers
> could do was done by promise everything we'll deliver what we can when
> we can. Over promise under deliver. Secure the contract and hope for
> additional money to offset our shortcomings.
>
To refute this point, I will argue that the military is forever changing its
requirements. Even seemingly minor changes require a tremendous amount of
engineering, tooling, and testing work by the manufacturer. Why? Because
there is no "extra" space in a modern fighter or attack airframe and when
the military changes spec's, usually it causes a domino effect, requiring
numerous systems to be reworked to accommodate a fundamental change to one
system.
Beyond that, funding and schedule are always issues. Congress loves to take
a program that would cost "X" dollars per year over "Y" timeframe and
stretch the program. Then, it costs "X-" dollars per year over "Y+"
timeframe. This inevitably raises costs and extends the length of the
program. Extending the length of the program gives the military more time to
dream up changes in the program.
<<much snippage>>
AirRaid
F-22 was supposed to enter service in the mid-1990s. It didn't happen
until a decade later.
If the Cold War had continued, the F-22C would be entering service
now, and all if not most of the F-15 fleet would be retired (except
perhaps for the Strike Eagle).
As of the late 1980s, the USAF was originally going to get 750
Advanced Tactical Fighters, be it F-22 or F-23. then in the early
1990s the F-22 program was cut to 650 aircraft. Then it was cut
roughly in half that (300-400), and as of now, there will be well less
than 200 planes made.
seems like we need a huge geopolitical change, a new cold war with
Russia and/or China, so that the Air Force can get a significant
number of F-22s and start developing (or speed up the development of)
a replacement. probably not going to happen though.
Hawkeye
http://hawkeyeshobbies.com/gallery1/album04/DSC01559?full=1
http://hawkeyeshobbies.com/gallery1/album04/DSC01558?full=1
The Merlin would have long legs, operate a high altitudes, swooping
down to strike its prey. It is stealthy, fast, heavily armed, capable
of multi role missions. Whether laying mines to anti satellite, air to
air, air to ground or recce ops, the Merlin will do it all. Platform
variants for single seat, two seat or four seat suite.
Yeah its all hypothetical, but this is where the fiction of today
becomes the reality of tomorrow.
Tiger
"Who cares? You are already defeated. Your military is abrogated to a foreign power to fight it's perpetual war........and those of you who don't go into the army as cannon fodder will go into labor camps."
Defeat my ass.
Mr.Smartypants
It's already happened.
Bob Matthews
Don't ask, don't tell.
Cheers
==bob
>
Harry Andreas
"Mr.Smartypants" <anyb...@canada.com> wrote:
The only thing thats happened is that a troll got loose.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
Steve Hix
"Mr.Smartypants" <anyb...@canada.com> wrote:
This is going to come as a massive surprise to a lot of Iraqis in Anbar
and other provinces, Coalition military in country, and most of al Qaeda
in Iraq, for starters.
Perhaps you missed the memo, among other things.
AirRaid
> The F-22 Raptor replacement would likely be the F-75 Merlin.
>
>
> The Merlin would have long legs, operate a high altitudes, swooping
> down to strike its prey. It is stealthy, fast, heavily armed, capable
> of multi role missions. Whether laying mines to anti satellite, air to
> air, air to ground or recce ops, the Merlin will do it all. Platform
> variants for single seat, two seat or four seat suite.
>
> Yeah its all hypothetical, but this is where the fiction of today
> becomes the reality of tomorrow.
YF-75 Merlin, heh, that's pretty cool.
Mr.Smartypants
wrote:
> In article <1194432583.467026.285...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Mr.Smartypants" <anybod...@canada.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 12:47 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> > > >"Who cares? You are already defeated. Your military is abrogated to a
> > > >foreign power to fight it's perpetual war........and those of you who
> > > >don't go into the army as cannon fodder will go into labor camps."
>
> > > To Quote John Wayne & Buddy Holly: "That will be the day" :-P
>
> > > Defeat my ass.
>
> > It's already happened.
>
> This is going to come as a massive surprise to a lot of Iraqis in Anbar
> and other provinces, Coalition military in country, and most of al Qaeda
> in Iraq, for starters.
Al Qaeda is a myth used by MOSSAD/CIA to cover up their staging of
911.
Coalition military? what's up with that? It's supposed to be a NATO
mission isn't it?
Or did you change your story yet again?
Matt Wiser
>
I think the troll just revealed the nature of his (pathetic) mind; by injecting 9-11 conspiracies,
his world view has been shown for all to see. Even if one strapped him in front of the History
Channel documentary debunking such nonsense, he'd maintain it. Then he deserves a
spell in a padded cell, with a straightjacket, medications, and 24/7 medical supervision.
grantla...@yahoo.com
I see you old clowns are still deep in denial. Sad, really. I guess
it's tough to teach an old dog new tricks. You're a dead man walking,
UZA, straight toward the abyss. The global mind knows well what has
happened to you poor saps, who did it, and how you might get back on
your feet. I hope y'all have heard of Ron Paul, but maybe that's
hoping too much.
Cheers,
Grantland
Grantland
Sorry 'bout that. Of course you support RP. Soon youa'll be able to
sneak out of the closet, eh? Once we fix those scairy commissars.
Grantland
Grantland