F-15 Breakup Animation & video

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:SULij.35366$Ux2.369@attbi_s22...

Because the draw-down of our Air Force since the end of the Cold War has
been steep and continuous. Some are even suggesting that it be
re-combined with the army, since it has become prohibitively expensive to
maintain it as a separate force at its current size.

This type of precipitous disarmament happened after World War I, and as a
result we were woefully unprepared for what followed. Guys like Curtis
Lemay made sure that the same thing did not happen after World War II --
but all the visionaries of that generation are dead, leaving a new
generation -- apparently ignorant of history -- to repeat the mistakes of
the past.

Sure, it's a different time, you might say, and we've got satellites to
keep an eye on things, now -- but IMHO maintaining a modern Air Force is
cheap insurance, and one of the few things that our Federal Government is
actually *supposed* to be doing with our tax dollars.

Oh, I think it the Air Force *is* modern. I just think the mission has
changed Jay. The money is still there for the most part but is going to
other things. Yes, satellites are one area but others like the UAV/UCAV and
Airborne Laser are more targeted to what's expected in the future. I think
they are attempting to be more efficient. What I've been reading about the
F-22 tells me that one airframe can do the work of what normally took 4 or
5. Heck, it can even act as a mini AWACS for other last generation jets. The
F-22 and the F-35 are quite capable.

Take alook at some of these article Jay, you might feel better about our
situation. http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/index.html
Keep in mind the info they write about is not even classified so you can
imagine what they can really do.

Marco

Sure, it's a different time, you might say, and we've got satellites to keep
an eye on things, now -- but IMHO maintaining a modern Air Force is cheap
insurance, and one of the few things that our Federal Government is actually
*supposed* to be doing with our tax dollars.

There's nothing cheap about an F-22.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2008/0108edit.html

Air Force Magazine
January 2008, Vol. 91, No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Robert S. Dudney, Editor in Chief

Catastrophic Failure
Washington's apathy toward USAF's geriatric fleet comes close to
outright negligence.


It was a chilling event. The aged F-15C, flying a peacetime mission,
broke up without warning, even though the aircraft had not been
violently maneuvering. The pilot was forced to eject at high speed.

These words do not refer to the recent F-15 crackup above Missouri
(see "Washington Watch: The F-15 Incident," p. 8). No, the mishap
spoken of here occurred in 2002 over the Gulf of Mexico. The doomed
F-15C was flying at 24,000 feet when part of its tail broke off. Maj.
James A. Duricy punched out at 900 mph and was killed. Investigators
said the tail had corroded over the years. The fighter had gotten old.

That, please note, was six years ago. The Nov. 2 mishap in Missouri
might be sobering—USAF cited a "catastrophic structural failure" and
grounded many F-15s—but it certainly was not new. USAF has been
warning about aging aircraft for many years.

Evidently, the warnings haven't registered. National leaders—be they
in the White House, Defense Department, or Congress—have failed to
address the issue in any truly definitive way. Indeed, Washington's
apathy toward USAF's geriatric fleet comes close to outright
negligence.

The Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne, reports the average
age of an Air Force aircraft in 1973 was eight years but today is 24
years and headed toward 26.5 years in 2012. The problem goes well
beyond the F-15 to include most of the major aircraft types—bombers,
tankers, and transports no less than fighters.

USAF's 505 KC-135 refueling tankers average more than 46 years of age.
Many C-130 transports are grounded due to poor reliability and concern
for their in-flight safety. C-5A cargo aircraft have low availability
because of frequent maintenance.

The roots of the problem are many and tangled, but no one doubts that
things began to go off the rails during the so-called "procurement
holiday" of the 1990s.

Problems first emerged in the 1989-93 presidency of George H. W. Bush.
In his four years as Pentagon chief, Dick Cheney—now Vice President
Cheney—curtailed USAF's F-15 program, postponed the F-22 fighter,
terminated the B-2 bomber at only 20 aircraft, and cut the C-17
airlifter.

A get-well aircraft modernization was supposed to begin in the late
1990s, but it was again delayed by a widespread post-Cold War desire
to reap a "peace dividend" by cutting defense spending. The Clinton
Administration bought a few F-15s and F-16s for attrition reserve, but
it also reduced the planned F-22 program from 648 to 339 aircraft and
further delayed it.

When President George W. Bush arrived in 2001, USAF was poised for a
long-deferred fleet recapitalization. Then, Bush's Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld, enamored of military transformation, restrained
aircraft modernization once more. After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks,
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began to soak up defense dollars.

Today, more than 800 aircraft—14 percent of the USAF fleet—are
grounded or operating under various flight restrictions. Older
fighters in the near future won't be up to fighting modern air
defenses or modern fighters.

The Air Force is "going out of business," said Wynne. He added, "At
some time in the future, [aircraft] will simply rust out, age out,
fall out of the sky." Indeed, it is already happening.

No one can claim there was not fair warning of the danger. As far back
as 1996, Gen. Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF Chief of Staff, noted "the term
'aging aircraft' takes on a new significance when [you are] keeping
fighters in the inventory 25 to 30 years."

In 1999, Gen. Richard E. Hawley, head of Air Combat Command, observed
that, "We are flying the oldest fleet of airplanes that the Air Force
has ever operated. ... Old airplanes break in new ways. ... The older
it gets, the less predictable it gets."

Fogleman's successor, Gen. Michael E. Ryan, in 2000 expressed deep
concern about fleet age and the high cost of finding the proper kinds
of spare parts in sufficient numbers to support readiness.

In 2005, near the end of his tour as Chief of Staff, Gen. John P.
Jumper warned, "The thing that ... worries me the most is the
[stunted] recapitalization of our force. ... We are now facing
problems with airplanes that we have never seen before."

What is to be done? Some Air Force officials suggest that, at this
late stage, the service cannot truly solve the problem but rather
engage in damage limitation. This would entail two basic moves, both
of which are simple but not easy. They a

Expand procurement. Top Air Force officials have declared that, to
properly fund the hardware accounts, service spending must rise by at
least $20 billion per year for at least the next six years—and
probably for longer than that. New aircraft would enter the inventory
at an accelerated pace.

Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF Chief of Staff, has made replacing the
aged KC-135 tanker his highest priority. USAF seeks 381 F-22s—not the
183 that has been allowed by the Pentagon—and 1,763 F-35s. These
fighters would replace many old F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, and A-10s.

Dump old airplanes. Keeping the old, flying clunkers is a
money-burner, given their high maintenance and upgrade costs. The Air
Force wants to mothball more of the old B-52 bombers, KC-135E tankers,
and C-130E lifters.

This will require the cooperation of Congress which, mostly for
parochial reasons, barred many such retirements from local bases.
Moseley said such restrictions force him to retain airplanes that can
neither fly nor fight but which nevertheless require regular and
expensive upkeep.

In both areas, the Air Force will have to do some high-stepping. There
is no assurance of success even then.

Without some dramatic change in Washington, USAF may have no choice
but to retrench, lower its expectations, and accept higher risk in
meeting its obligations. Then, the Air Force really would be going out
of business, at least in the sense to which we all have become
accustomed.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22:

Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-018.wmv

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-028.wmv

The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan
was president.

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in
1943.


No it wouldn't




Bertie

Jay Honeck wrote:
Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-018.wmv

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-028.wmv

The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
president.

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.

I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
F-35, but I fear otherwise.

Don't you know Government cheese and hand-outs and illegal
immigrant free college tuition supersedes new airplanes?

Slug wrote in news
Jay Honeck wrote:
Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed
in-flight:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-018.wmv

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-028.wmv

The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan
was president.

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in
1943.

I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
F-35, but I fear otherwise.

Don't you know Government cheese and hand-outs and illegal
immigrant free college tuition supersedes new airplanes?


Yeah, that cheese should be going into making new fighters, goddammit!


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-018.wmv

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-028.wmv

The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
president.

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in
1943.

I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
but I fear otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay you can't hug your children with Nuclear Arms. Kumbaya!

Oh, this is the "peace dividend" that the Democrats were overjoyed about.
Don't you remember?

I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
F-35,
but I fear otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...gop_field.html

Rudy's Historic Rewrite

Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that
happened mostly under a Republican administration:
Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace
dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25,
30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that.
We – our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000.
Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the
administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0993.pdf (which
was Bush’s last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers –
a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back
to 1990
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0990.pdf, during
the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton’s cuts in the military, while large,
were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/M05/hst0901.pdf, the Army went from
572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military
went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.

Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush
administration: In 1989
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0989.pdf, the
military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993,
those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.

And as we’ve pointed out before
http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_missteps.html, it was the first Bush
administration – specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney – that
began bragging openly of the peace dividend.

wrote in message
. net...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...gop_field.html

Rudy's Historic Rewrite

Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that
happened mostly under a Republican administration:
Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace
dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a
25,
30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that.
We - our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000.
Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the
administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0993.pdf
(which
was Bush's last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty
soldiers -
a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back
to 1990
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0990.pdf,
during
the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton's cuts in the military, while large,
were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/M05/hst0901.pdf, the Army went
from
572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military
went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.

Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush
administration: In 1989
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0989.pdf, the
military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993,
those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.

And as we've pointed out before
http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_missteps.html, it was the first Bush
administration - specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney - that
began bragging openly of the peace dividend.


Right. The first Bush administration reduced defense to a level appropriate
to a post-Cold War world. The Clinton administration reduced defense below
that level.