Another Ancient Military Plane Grounded

This article was just posted on a Google military aviation group. I thought
some of ya'll might like to read it.
Scott Wilson

Robins team believes last snag cleared in F-15 groundings
19-12-2007
By Gene Rector -
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE --
After a tedious, highly detailed process much like crime scene
investigation, Robins Air Force Base engineers believe they have cleared the
last technical hurdle affecting the nation's F-15 fleet. Older models of the
supersonic fighter have been grounded three times - the latest happening
Dec. 4 - following the Nov. 2 crash of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C.
The last two stand downs have affected only the F-15 A through D models,
about 450 aircraft. The newer, heavier and more robust F-15Es - 224 aircraft
- were returned to flight Nov. 11.
The investigation has focused on upper cockpit longerons near the canopy
area. To this point, cracks have been found in eight aircraft - all F-15Cs.
Officials zeroed in on that area after eye witnesses to the crash said the
jet appeared to separate immediately behind the cockpit during normal
training maneuvers. The pilot ejected with only minor injuries. Col. Stephen
Niemantsverdriet, 880th Aircraft Sustainment Group commander at Robins, said
cracks have been found in both the right and left upper cockpit longerons of
the eight aircraft. He said 97 percent of the fleet has been inspected.
Longerons are metal rails that run horizontally and hold the fuselage
together.
The Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins is the worldwide manager of
the Air Force's F-15 fleet, providing resupply, periodic overhaul and
engineering oversight for the premier, but aging air superiority weapon
system. The F-15 first entered the Air Force inventory in 1975. The latest
model - the F-15E - joined the force beginning in the late 1980s. The fleet
averages 25 years of service. Robins engineers have issued eight inspection
orders to flying units since early November -the latest at midnight Dec. 15
- identifying areas to be inspected and the techniques to be used. "Based on
our review and interaction with Boeing and the accident board, we believe we
have captured and mitigated all the risks," Niemantsverdriet indicated.
"We're just at the point of getting the airplanes flying again, although
that decision will be made by Air Combat Command and other using command."
McDonnell-Douglas, the original manufacturer of the F-15, was purchased by
Boeing some years ago. A thinning of the longeron at a key stress point -
possibly due to a manufacturing defect - may be the root cause of the mishap
and the cracks found in the eight aircraft. "More than likely it is a
manufacturing issue and we have pulled all the Boeing material discrepancy
reports," the group commander said. "So far, we have not been able to
isolate it to a particular production run or series. The cracks show up in
aircraft as old as 1978 and as new as 1985."
Recurring checks had not called for a review of the area in the past. "It
was a 25,000 to 100,000-hour part," the colonel stressed. "So it was not
included in our depot and phase inspections. It was designed to
significantly outlast the aircraft." However, the Robins team has learned
that a number of factors create additional stress on the component - a
splice joint in the two-piece longeron with different material thicknesses
coming together, reduced width proceeding from the joint, angle variations
and changes in the canopy sill. "So a large amount of activity occurs in
that single spot," Niemantsverdriet acknowledged. "It's like a creek that
narrows down, making the water flow faster."
The inspections call for a thorough review for cracks in the longeron and a
check for prescribed thickness. "We're looking at a good portion of the
longeron - about 30 inches - and we're checking thickness at about 90
different locations. For an aircraft to be released to fly, there must be no
cracks and the thickness must meet production tolerances," he said. If
thickness issues crop up on crack-free aircraft, Boeing - at the request of
Robins - will conduct fatigue life analysis to see if the aircraft can be
returned to flight. Replacement longerons will be manufactured at Robins.
Niemantsverdriet said a production order has been placed for 15 with an
anticipated 120-day lead time. "We believe we can accelerate that," he said,
"although one of the limiting factors will be availability of material." The
Robins commander had high praise for his engineering team, the
non-destructive inspection lab on base and technicians on the center's
maintenance line who have assisted with validating and verifying inspection
orders before they were released to the flying units. "My hat's off to our
engineering team and the people who have given us a very significant amount
of support," the colonel stressed. The team may be able to enjoy Christmas
if nothing else emerges. "We pushed extremely hard over the weekend to issue
what we believe will be the last (inspection order)," Niemantsverdriet
pointed out. "They deserve kudos for all the hours they have put in that
have brought us to where we are today. They've done a great job."

On Dec 20, 7:26*pm, wrote:

----------- snip F-15 grounding story -------------

conspiracy mode on

The USAF has made it clear they'd like a lot more F-22s... If for some
reason
a big % of their front-line fighters (F-15) couldn't fly, might that
be used for leverage with
Congress to approve funding for more 5th gen fighters? I'm just
sayin'...

If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.

conspiracy mode off

As far as bang for the buck, the old platforms still flying like the
C-5, P-3, B-52, KC-135 are still getting the job done, but at a huge
cost to maintain. How many times have the H model Stratoforts been
essentially rebuilt and updated? Same with the KC fuelers (new
engines) That ain't cheap, and the 52s are still fuel pigs because of
their old engines. Witness the C-5 RERP project which is hanging
modern CF6-80 engines and upgrading the flight deck to glass. Way over
budget, and the original plans to convert all the Galaxys has been
pared down to just the C-5Bs due to corrosion issues and program cost.
I've read many accounts of airborne engine/prop failures in the P-3
fleet, but as that plane descended from the L188 Electra from the 50's
it doesn't surprise me. Old airframes flying in a corrosive
environment just means that much more maintenance. The KC-XXX contract
is supposed to be decided in February/March next year and that's way
overdue.

If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.

In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

Given the current status of our Air Force -- essentially impotent in
the War on Terror, and shrinking fast -- this would seem the most
logical path for them to take. At the rate they're going, in ten
years we'll have a single squadron of fighters on each coast and one
on the Gulf of Mexico, a hand-full of bombers and tankers -- and
that's about it. Everything else will be Air National Guard.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.

In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.

Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.

Given the current status of our Air Force -- essentially impotent in
the War on Terror, and shrinking fast -- this would seem the most
logical path for them to take. At the rate they're going, in ten
years we'll have a single squadron of fighters on each coast and one
on the Gulf of Mexico, a hand-full of bombers and tankers -- and
that's about it. Everything else will be Air National Guard.

Which is probably as it should be as there is no Soviet Union with
waves of bombers poised to attack the US for fighters to defend against
nor a Soviet Union with US bombers flying 24/7 poised to attack in
retribution.

Plus in an era of ICBM's and cruise missles, the days of massive
fighter dog fights and protection of bombers are essentially over.

The current requirement is mostly for transport of the Army and
ground support for the Army.

It doesn't take supersonic bombers or Mach 3 fighters to do that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 21, 1:05 pm, wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.
In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.

Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.

Given the current status of our Air Force -- essentially impotent in
the War on Terror, and shrinking fast -- this would seem the most
logical path for them to take. At the rate they're going, in ten
years we'll have a single squadron of fighters on each coast and one
on the Gulf of Mexico, a hand-full of bombers and tankers -- and
that's about it. Everything else will be Air National Guard.

Which is probably as it should be as there is no Soviet Union with
waves of bombers poised to attack the US for fighters to defend against
nor a Soviet Union with US bombers flying 24/7 poised to attack in
retribution.

Plus in an era of ICBM's and cruise missles, the days of massive
fighter dog fights and protection of bombers are essentially over.

The current requirement is mostly for transport of the Army and
ground support for the Army.

It doesn't take supersonic bombers or Mach 3 fighters to do that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mao charlie will soon be the next boogie man..don't close those Lock-
Boe-Northrop factories yet...JG

wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:05 pm, wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.
In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.

Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.

Given the current status of our Air Force -- essentially impotent in
the War on Terror, and shrinking fast -- this would seem the most
logical path for them to take. At the rate they're going, in ten
years we'll have a single squadron of fighters on each coast and one
on the Gulf of Mexico, a hand-full of bombers and tankers -- and
that's about it. Everything else will be Air National Guard.

Which is probably as it should be as there is no Soviet Union with
waves of bombers poised to attack the US for fighters to defend against
nor a Soviet Union with US bombers flying 24/7 poised to attack in
retribution.

Plus in an era of ICBM's and cruise missles, the days of massive
fighter dog fights and protection of bombers are essentially over.

The current requirement is mostly for transport of the Army and
ground support for the Army.

It doesn't take supersonic bombers or Mach 3 fighters to do that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mao charlie will soon be the next boogie man..don't close those Lock-
Boe-Northrop factories yet...JG

How much of your money are you willing to contribute in the form of
taxes to counter what is currently a minimal threat?

Building stuff now means it will most likely be worn out and need
replacement by the time (if ever) it is needed not to mention
the money down a rat hole.

The Chinese have their own problems and little interest in things
outside of Asia other than sales.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jay and perhaps some others seem to think that we should have launched every
available alert aircraft during the 9-11 attacks. I don't want to argue for
or against their points, but I do want to point out how things were in West
Germany during the time I was there from 1983-86. I've already posted how
few fighters NATO had on alert during the time, but what some of you guys
might not know is that the Warsaw Pact frequently sent fighters across the
border into West German airspace to test our reactions. During each
incursion, only two NATO ZULU alert fighters were launched, sometimes from
Ramstein, sometimes from Bitburg, sometimes from one of the other bases with
ZULU Alert commitments. Fighters have about an hour or two endurance without
air refueling, and it would be stupid to launch all of your jets at once.
Imagine how vulnerable to attack we'd have been had all of our alert jets
been airborne at the same time, then they all had to land and had been off
alert status while they were refueled. I never heard if the Warsaw Pact made
incursions at more than one point at a time, I'm supposing if they had then
NATO would have launched sufficient ZULU jets to make intercepts at each
point, but certainly not all of the ZULU jets at once. It could be that
NORAD only launched a minimum of alert aircraft on 9-11 for the same reason.
If you look at a map that shows where Ramstein, Bitburg, Soesterburg, and
RAF Wildenrath (not Bruggen, Bruggen was the Jaguar base, Wildenrath had
Phantoms. I was mistaken in my previous post) were in relation to the
West-East German border, you'll see that our bases were on the far side of
West Germany away from the border. It took some minutes for our jets to
get airborne and cross West German territory to make the intercept. As our
jets got close, the Pact fighters would turn around and head back for
their side.
Here's a story about one such intercept. I had to meet our F-4Es at ZULU as
they landed on one day because while they were coming back to Ramstein
after an ALPHA launch, one had squawked a problem with its IFF
interrogator, and I needed to fix the jet as quickly as possible after it
had landed so they could put it back up on alert status. As the crew were
getting out of their jets they were excitedly talking back and forth about
what they'd seen. From what they said, they'd been in IMC, and as they
approached the Munich area, they had a radar target which accelerated away
from them, heading back over the border at Mach 2.8 and accelerating. While
they never got a visual ID, they were certain it was a MiG-25.
One more story. I mentioned the pair of Luftwaffe ZULU F-4Fs that diverted
into Ramstein one day in late 1985. I should mention that we launched our
alert jets at least once a day, usually for what we called TANGOs, which
were training sorties, not actual intercepts. As the Phantoms rolled out
onto the runway, they were told if it was a TANGO, so when they took off
on Runway 09, they immediately made a left turn and came out of burner so
as not to overfly the city of Kaiserslautern and **** off the locals.
Actual intercepts were called ALPHA launches, and us groundcrew could
always know when it was an ALPHA because the jets stayed in burner and
flew right over Kaiserslautern heading east, still in burner as far as we
could see them.
So this one day, our ZULU jets launched on a TANGO. It was a typical rainy
German day, but not too bad as I could clearly see the jets come out of
burner and make their left turns. Later Job Control announced over our
maintenance radio net that the jets wouldn't be coming back, they'd
diverted for the weather and we needed to upload a couple more F-4Es and
get them over to ZULU ASAP. It was about that time that the Luftwaffe jets
landed and were parked in our Restricted Area. They were gone when I came
back to work the next morning. I'd always wondered what was going on, why
our jets had to weather divert when it wasn't that bad out, and the
Luftwaffe jets had landed okay. I don't know when our airplanes finally
returned.
Fast forward to about 7 or 8 years ago. I was at the Manitowoc, Wisconsin
airshow, and there were a couple of A-10s from the Battle Creek ANG unit
on display. The pilots were standing by the jets talking to people, and
one of them, a LT Colonel, looked very familiar to me. Turned out he had
been a Phantom Phlyer in the 526 TFS at Ramstein while I was there, and we
started talking about the good old days. For whatever reason, I mentioned
that day when our jets diverted and the Luftwaffe jets landed instead, and
he told me the rest of the story. Someone high up at NATO had decided to
do something about all of the incursions by Warsaw Pact aircraft, so they
came up with a plan. They launched out our ZULU F-4Es on a TANGO, and at
the same time TANGOed the Luftwaffe ZULU F-4Fs from JG 74 at Neuberg,
which is a bit north of Munich and much closer to the East-West German
border. All four Phantoms joined up and swapped callsigns, and landed at
each other's airfields. The 526 TFS jets were immediately refueled and put
on alert status at Neuberg in the Luftwaffe ZULU barn. Sure enough, a few
days later a Pact MiG-23 flew across the border into West German airspace.
But instead of Ramstein or Bitbirg launching their alert aircraft from all
the way across Germany, the pair of 526 TFS F-4Es came up from Neuberg,
between the MiG and the border. The LtCol told me the plan was to shoot
down the MiG on our side of the border, but only if they could be sure
that the wreckage would fall away from any towns. The F-4Es were under
Ground Controlled Intercept control, but there was some glitch and they
were not given permission to fire. So one parked himself at the MiG's
six-o'clock while the other pulled up alongside the MiG and they escorted
the MiG back to the border. He told me there were no further Warsaw Pact
incursions after that.
One other thing I'd like to point out for the guy who seems to have a
problem with the ANG holding the alert commitment in CONUS. He seemed to
think this was a bad idea because, he thinks, the ANG doesn't have enough
full-timers to generate a large number of aircraft if there were an
attack. Chew on this info... During my time at Ramstein from 1983 to 86,
during the Cold War, Reagan's sabre rattling, the attack on Libya, NATO's
equipping with Pershing 2s and GLCMS, we worked three shifts Monday
through Friday. During the weekend, we had a skeleton crew of one
maintenance specialist from each specialty, plus I believe four crew
chiefs if memory serves. There were also four crew chiefs assigned to the
ZULU rotation, at the other end of the airfield from our Restricted Area.
We worked 12 hour shifts during weekend duty, from 5 AM to 5 PM. From 5PM
to 5 AM we had NO maintenance people on duty. Aside from the four
crewchiefs and four aircrew at ZULU, I don't know how many pilots had
weekend duty as Operations worked out of a different building, but I'm
guessing very few if any after 5PM. As a reminder, an F-4E can't launch
out without ground crew, since Phantoms use external start carts
(AM32A-60) to start the engines. Not that it would've mattered anyway,
since none of the jets were armed with anything but the nose gun. Had
there been a "bolt out of the blue" attack, ZULU would have been on their
own until sufficient maintenance and weapons people could be called in to
start loading out the jets and we had aircrews on hand to fly them. No
****. I'm quite sure the Soviets were well aware of that too. We
communicated with each other and Job Control with Motorola hand-held
radios which weren't at all encrypted. Any Soviet spy could've been
stationed off base, monitoring our radio traffic and known everything that
was going on.
Scott Wilson

wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.

In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.

That is pure BS. Many aircraft have had many avionics and weapons
systems upgrades over the years including the B-52, U-2, F-15 and many
others.


Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.

And with MANY other aircraft.


Given the current status of our Air Force -- essentially impotent in
the War on Terror, and shrinking fast -- this would seem the most
logical path for them to take. At the rate they're going, in ten
years we'll have a single squadron of fighters on each coast and one
on the Gulf of Mexico, a hand-full of bombers and tankers -- and
that's about it. Everything else will be Air National Guard.

Which is probably as it should be as there is no Soviet Union with
waves of bombers poised to attack the US for fighters to defend against
nor a Soviet Union with US bombers flying 24/7 poised to attack in
retribution.

Plus in an era of ICBM's and cruise missles, the days of massive
fighter dog fights and protection of bombers are essentially over.

The current requirement is mostly for transport of the Army and
ground support for the Army.

It doesn't take supersonic bombers or Mach 3 fighters to do that.

That is true. A modernized A-10 would likely be far more valuable overall.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.

In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.

That is pure BS. Many aircraft have had many avionics and weapons
systems upgrades over the years including the B-52, U-2, F-15 and many
others.

Point totally missed.

While during the service life upgrades are made, when the services
want a "new" fleet of aircraft it is almost always a clean sheet design.

If this weren't true, most of the USAF fighters after the F-4 wouldn't
exist.

Yet we have had F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, F-117, and the A-10
among a slew of others.

There are really only two "jobs" for a fighter style aircraft; air-to-air
combat and ground support.

That means the AF needs at most two fighter models at this point in
history.

Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.

And with MANY other aircraft.

Name some.

The C-130 and CH-47 are the only exceptions I know of.

The services went out for bid for "new" aircraft and wound up with
a major revision and update of an old, existing design.

There is no real reason the USAF couldn't have done the same with
fighters as the innovations over the years haven't been in basic
airframe design, they've been in engines, weapons, avionics, and
materials.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 22, 11:55*am, wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.

In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. *Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.
That is pure BS. *Many aircraft have had many avionics and weapons
systems upgrades over the years including the B-52, U-2, F-15 and many
others.

Point totally missed.

While during the service life upgrades are made, when the services
want a "new" fleet of aircraft it is almost always a clean sheet design.

If this weren't true, most of the USAF fighters after the F-4 wouldn't
exist.

Yet we have had F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, F-117, and the A-10
among a slew of others.

There are really only two "jobs" for a fighter style aircraft; air-to-air
combat and ground support.

That means the AF needs at most two fighter models at this point in
history.

Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.
And with MANY other aircraft.

Name some.

The C-130 and CH-47 are the only exceptions I know of.

The services went out for bid for "new" aircraft and wound up with
a major revision and update of an old, existing design.

There is no real reason the USAF couldn't have done the same with
fighters as the innovations over the years haven't been in basic
airframe design, they've been in engines, weapons, avionics, and
materials.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Maybe share the F-18 with the Navy? which has been upgraded over the
years.