40% of F-15, now grounded, never to return to fleet

[Flamedog]

Copy that Lightning. You're right, we shouldn't be arguing about it. Honestly I think in different ways we are kind of saying the same thing. Parts go where they're needed, whether it's the Blues or the Fleet. My apologies as well for sidetracking.

 

[mules83]

Apparently this video was produced for the accident investigation. Not sure how accurate it is.

 

[Nose]

You girls forget one thing that Blues have in spades that fleet squadrons don't:

They have the name of a defense contractor painted on the side of their jets. That defense contractor (who happens to also be a part supplier) works pretty hard to make sure that the Jets that say "Boeing" on the side are FMC.

Never underestimate the power of a good tech rep.


Also, I wonder if Hacker can confirm a rumor for me. I heard that when USAF said that some of the F-15's could fly again it was two days before they could get one in the air because of crew rest issues.:icon_tong

 

[Want2flyNow]

The Air Force version is cheaper than $60 million. I never said that they wouldn't go to the fleet first. Of course they would have to set up a training pipeline and a few squadrons. I said I would almost bet they would transition to JSF's around 2015. Which is almost the decade you said, so I don't see what you don't agree about.

I know the Navy plans on doing it around 2020 (will it happen? probably not) but I don't see the Navy flying a better jet in a AIR demonstration.

Here is an example of the Air Force's messed up thinking:

Col. Thomas flew to Hill AFB, Wednesday, to bring home the first-ever Thunderbird Block 52. Over the next 12 months, the team will transition to the newer, faster version of the F-16, with the first all-Block 52 demonstration to take place in 2009.

The 11 current Block 32 Thunderbird jets will eventually be refurbished and returned to combat-capable status for use in squadrons around the Air Force.

This is from the Thunderbirds website. Don't you think the fastest most expensive F16's should be supporting the war?

That's messed up. When Akmed lauches his stinger missle at one of our boys I would rather have them in possesion of the faster jet. Why do the thunder birds need it? Its not like they can exceed mach 1(correct me if im wrong) during a demo. and I don't think the crowd(most of the crowd) is going to care what the avionics can do. They just want to see a fast pretty jet pull some moves. Whatever. The Blue Angels got it down, flying the older model hornet.
Are The Blues considering the super hornet?

 

[Flash]

That's messed up. When Akmed lauches his stinger missle at one of our boys I would rather have them in possesion of the faster jet. Why do the thunder birds need it? Its not like they can exceed mach 1(correct me if im wrong) during a demo. and I don't think the crowd(most of the crowd) is going to care what the avionics can do. They just want to see a fast pretty jet pull some moves. Whatever. The Blue Angels got it down, flying the older model hornet.
Are The Blues considering the super hornet?

Sorry, you ain't going to outrun most missiles in any jet in the US inventory.

 

[Brett327]

That's messed up. When Akmed lauches his stinger missle at one of our boys I would rather have them in possesion of the faster jet. Why do the thunder birds need it? Its not like they can exceed mach 1(correct me if im wrong) during a demo. and I don't think the crowd(most of the crowd) is going to care what the avionics can do. They just want to see a fast pretty jet pull some moves. Whatever. The Blue Angels got it down, flying the older model hornet.
Are The Blues considering the super hornet?

That ain't gonna happen - not until all the legacy jets are out of commission.

Brett

 

[HeyJoe]

Apparently this video was produced for the accident investigation. Not sure how accurate it is.

If that's the case, you'd hope it was very accurate

 

[VFA-203 Forever]

I don't think it will be anywhere near the 40% mark though. I also agree it would be too much for Boeing to ramp up their Raptor program a whole lot,

Maybe we should all go buy some Boieng stock, so we can profit off of this too

LockMart makes the Raptor, Not Boeing. Boeing just provides the aft fuselage.

 

[Gatordev]

In the Navy supply system, when a deployed unit (i.e. the Ship's IMA) orders a part, the system automatically gives it the highest priority. Next comes non-deployed EXREP and R/R (which includes Blue Angels) and then Sup-O assets (for the rest of the fleet, etc) There are certain people that can change priority codes later if the see fit. I've seen it done for the shore IMA, home squadron, deployed squadron, and the Blues as seen necessary by maintenance control and supply.

That's not entirely true. You may have just been shortening it for brevity's sake, but different deployed units have different priorities. Also, different non-deployed fleet units have different priorities. I'm guessing that the Blues' FAD is pretty high, so they stuff happens pretty quick for them, where ever they are.

We had the strange position of being between two FADs in HI. You could deploy and actually go down a FAD because the homeguard squadron was considered in a pseudo-forward-deployed status. When you got to the boat, their FAD was lower by one. Kind of silly, and it would correct once back in certain theatres (like the hot and sandy ones).

 

[Lightning26]

LockMart makes the Raptor, Not Boeing. Boeing just provides the aft fuselage.

You are right, I am not sure thought how the money is distributed. They both designed it together as a team with General Dynamics. Lockheed bought GD so they probably do get a decent amount of money. I am sure Pratt and Whitney would also get a huge contract if more raptors were to be awarded.

I was talking more of the lines of Boeing benefiting the most if they did get to build more Raptor (wings and Aft Fuselages) and the F15E. It was only my specualtion that it would be the best way to get the most Jets, in the quickest amount of time.

I like Snipdudes proposal the best. It would definitely guarantee us wannabees a lot more jet spots. I vote SNIPEDUDE for PRESIDENT!

 

[HackerF15E]

Proof.....ie link to proof.

Well, you ain' gonna find it on the internet, that is for sure, but any USAF fighter pilot from that era is going to give you the same answer.

This is about as close as I can get...it's a post from Ed Rasimus (author of When Thunder Rolled and Palace Cobra -- and, of course, a Vietnam F-105 and F-4 driver) from rec.aviation.military back in the mid 90s. It explains relatively close to the same things that I've heard from other pilots about the incident.

The accident report was very controversial. As the only TAC unit other than the 'Birds flying the T-38, the 479th TFW at Holloman was tasked to supply both the Flying Safety Officer member and Pilot member to the accident investigation board. Both pilots were out of my unit, the 435th TFTS.

The initial report of the board was a finding of pilot error. The lead aircraft had topped out on the loop at an altitude below the minimum required to insure a safe recovery. Failure to recognize the altitude and continuation of the maneuver to the pull through meant that after reaching about 60 degrees nose low inverted, the formation was in a position from which recovery was no longer possible.

There was evidence reported that the control stick and linkages were deformed probably due to pilot effort to pull through at whatever G was available. When the report was submitted, General Creech returned it and reconvened the board with the statement that "Thunderbirds do not commit pilot errors." Command guidance was to come up with another cause.

The revised report implicated a "shock absorber" in the pitch control artificial feel system. The failure of the "shock absorber" resulted in inability to input sufficient control deflection to complete the pullout. The problem was that with four squadrons of experienced fighter pilots flying 130 AT-38 aircraft at Holloman and more than 800 maintenance troops on the line, no one had ever encountered the guilty "shock absorber". There was no mention in the tech orders and no corrective action to fix the errant machinery.

IMHO, the most telling evidence that the cause of the accident was NOT mechanical failure is that NO T-38s were grounded after the accident.

If this were actually a mechanical problem, the T-38 fleet would have been grounded for a period of time in order to inspect this mechanical item that had caused the loss of four pilots and four aircraft (as in what they did with the F-15C crash).

But...there was no grounding.

FWIW, General Creech is one of those mythical powerful Generals from USAF history -- ranks right up there with Curt LeMay in terms of having his hands in EVERYTHING and ruling it with a zero-tolerance iron fist. The Thunderbirds meant a lot to him -- to the point that he was STILL directly involved in approving team members well into the late 1990s, more than 10 years after his retirement as a 4-star.

It is not at all surprising to those who knew/worked for Creech, yet had no direct involvement with the T-38 crash, that he would go to any length to protect the name of a Thunderbird pilot, especially the lead.

EDIT: Found this additional info on the crash on the interwebz, but can't vouch for it's accuracy. Looks as if the "load relief cylinder" in point D is what Rasimus was referring to:

The 6 major points of evidence in the investigation were as follows:

a: Maj. Lowery had vast experience in high speed fighter operations in a low altitude environment and had flown over 500 loops.

b: The throttle settings on the lead aircraft were reduced well below the settings used in a loop.

c: The video tape indicated that the stabilizer angel essentially did not change on the backside of the loop until very late and then only a small amount. (7deg vs the available 17deg) (it was 3.4 degrees through most of the backside of the loop.) At some point even a novice pilot would have realized he was in a serious problem and would have overreacted and pulled the stick to maximum deflection and at least overstressed his aircraft. This never happened.

d: The load relief cylinder in the leaders aircraft showed several indications of failure under stress overload, while his wingmens’ load relief cylinders were dented but not destroyed. (the load relief cylinder serves to dampen transient control moves.) This despite almost identical force vectors on each aircraft.

e: Major Lowery was pulling on the stick with both hands at the time of impact.

f: the accident loop backside was closely duplicated many times by holding the stabilizers at 3.4deg from the 180 degree point through the remainder of the loop.

The above information was taken from the Air Force’s report printed in Aviation Week 5/17/82. I also have the article from 4/5/82 and it has the same conclusion.

 

[HeyJoe]

At first I thought the Air Force should replace them all with F15E's but after seeing that a F15E cost 100 million and a F22 cost 137 million (wikipedia). I don't think it is too much for the AF to ask for all new Raptors. I would rather have 3 Raptors over 4 F15E's.

You need to do a bit more research as your F-15E costs are pretty exaggerated. Make sure you use same source and proper year and configuration (ie flyaway cost or something else) before comparing.

I don't think it will be anywhere near the 40% mark though. I also agree it would be too much for Boeing to ramp up their Raptor program a whole lot, so it would probably be best for the AF to buy half Raptors and half Eagles if they want aircraft quickly.

Boeing ramping up their Raptor program; Boeing is a sub to LMCO so it's their Raptor program and there are long lead items but nobody will turn down a request for more aircraft and now is critical time in their production deliveries to either cut back or continue and F-15E is in same situation with Boeing (That's their program).

I am pretty sure if the Air Force ask for something they will get it. They will probably even use the new Raptors to replace their Thunderbird's F16s.

Don't agree at all and suspect they won't get more Raptors without a strong pitch and last thing they'll do is waste what they call a "national asset" as a flight demonstration aircraft. Air Force had a lot of difficulty even getting Raptor into production due to protracted development and soaring costs and questionable requirement by the time it was ready for production. They have been losing ground every year to get back to their original request (750). That number has been steadily reduced from 750 to 438 in the BUR and then to 339 and ultimately 276 aircraft over past decade or so to the current cap of 183.....Hardly getting their way at all. They have been lobbying like big dogs to get back to now stated requirement of 381 before production line is ramped down. With those kind of numbers, more likely to see a F-35A in Thunderbird markings before a F-22. As long as they don't have as many as they want, that would be a poor strategic move on their part as Congress wouldn't receive that well (even it would make an awesome airshow platform).

With that being said, I don't have a problem with our country spending money on getting some more of these awesome jets. I just wish the Navy would get some more love with the Checkbook.

You might be missing how funding works with services by this statement. Air Force has to live within its allocation of Total Obligation Authority (TOA) as do other services. only Army is getting big love these days to help underwrite costs of war. Even within TOA, the PPBES process means they have to submit their proposed budget through OSD (then to President and on to Congress and back to President annually). It's been OSD and ultiamtely Congress that has reduced the Raptor force structure so even if USAF wanted to slash a lot of other programs ot afford more Raptors, they have not been allowed to do so. The ongoing F-15 situation will likely allow them to get back some of the numbers, but they will have to pay for it out of their TOA and Navy won't suffer because of it no matter how much USAF likes to disparage Aircraft Carriers.

 

[cisforsmasher]

Sorry, you ain't going to outrun most missiles in any jet in the US inventory.

whoa whoa, I totally saw Owen Wilson almost outfly a missile with a rhino... those bad guys just got lucky.

 

[Flash]

whoa whoa, I totally saw Owen Wilson almost outfly a missile with a rhino... those bad guys just got lucky.

You totally got me, Owen Wilson has proven me wrong once again.

On another note, there are SAM's that aircraft can outrun, especially if the aircraft is in the right place and the right time to run away. But there are a lot SAM's that no aircraft, no matter how fast or how maneuverable, can outrun or out-turn. Unless you are Owen Wilson of course.

 

[bunk22]

Sorry, you ain't going to outrun most missiles in any jet in the US inventory.

One would think a highschooler would be more in the know on these types of things Amazing how many wannabes get involved in these discussions.