Think we should buy it? The Air Force in jeopardy of losing dominance of the sky

[bunk22]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23223286/

 

[NozeMan]

Gasp, the AF might not get EXACTLY what it wants.

I also found it interesting that the article mentioned corrosion etc playing a role in the aging of their aircraft. Funny how their aircraft are disintegrating after 20 years of being LAND BASED and the Navy/Marines can keep 20+ year jets flying after continuously operating them in a salt water environment.

On a serious side, does the AF G-limit any of their fighters in order to make them last longer (like the navy/marines)?

 

[bunk22]

On a serious side, does the AF G-limit any of their fighters in order to make them last longer (like the navy/marines)?

They do on trainers...ie the T-34C and probably have or are doing so with fleet aircraft. I've heard the Prowler is one but one of the Prowler bubba's can provide better info than me.

 

[NozeMan]

They do on trainers...ie the T-34C and probably have or are doing so with fleet aircraft. I've heard the Prowler is one but one of the Prowler bubba's can provide better info than me.

Bunk,

I think you misread my statement. I know that the Navy G-limits their aircraft like the Prowler and T-34 (4.5???). My question was whether or not the AF puts some limitations on F-16s and F-15s to make their airframes last longer.

 

[bunk22]

Bunk,

I think you misread my statement. I know that the Navy G-limits their aircraft like the Prowler and T-34 (4.5???). My question was whether or not the AF puts some limitations on F-16s and F-15s to make their airframes last longer.

No, I did not misread your statement. I don't know the answer but gave you an example of what has been done in the Navy to extend the life of an aircraft. Thus, it might just be probable that both the Navy and AF do the or have done the same.

 

[HeyJoe]

Air Force going for broke

Air Force unveils their plan for get well: $20B additional a year for 5 years. That means either Congress gives it to them by increasing DoD top-line (not easy in election year) or other services give it up.

 

[FLYTPAY]

Funny that they make no mention of UAV's in the article or want-list. Also funny how their airframes were meant to have only 4-5,000 hours........flared landings..wtfe....huggy enlighten us on what is really going on.

 

[Hozer]

I agree that this is a logical play to keep the F-22 line open. It'll be interesting if Congress revisits/approves the sale of Raptors to Japan.

 

[eddie]

I agree that this is a logical play to keep the F-22 line open. It'll be interesting if Congress revisits/approves the sale of Raptors to Japan.

But would the Japanese follow through and buy them?

 

[nittany03]

So then the Chinese would find the F-22 Dash-1 in someone's porn stash this time . . . :icon_tong

 

[Hozer]

There's a big difference in producing F-15's under license than F-22's. But other indigenous attempts at a front-line fighter haven't turned out so well (F-1 really not state of the art when fielded).

It'd be great if they bought some though, good deterrent for the Su-33mk/ChiComs too.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Why does it seem like Marines have a shiatty QOL IOT maintain combat ready equipment...

...While the AF pays to maintain a super QOL, then needs more funding to maintain combat ready equipment?

(Edit: That isn't supposed to be a cutting sarcastic quip, that really is sort of a quasi-question...I mean, am I off base on this?)

 

[joshmf]

Here's another opinion piece on this subject, with a little background on previous requests for more F-22s:

http://www.slate.com/id/2184481

 

[Hozer]

The F-22 is the centerpiece of Air Force procurement at the moment. It has nearly no role in the sorts of wars that the United States has been fighting in the last 20 years—or has much prospect of fighting in the next 20.

I have a big problem with aircraft procurement, but this statement is just as bad.
Did folks envision the Strike Eagle when the F-15 was initially fielded in the early 70's?
Predicting who we're going to fight and betting the farm that we probably won't need the capability for the next 20 years is absurd.

I do think a high/low mix (think (F-15/16) needs to be found. Unfortunately, the F-35 is not the low end.

F-22 story from the AFA...

In one case, the entire test team—Roche described it as a “standing army” of engineers, technicians, software specialists, managers, and support personnel—was left waiting while a single 18-inch piece of specialized hydraulic line was fabricated. The cost to maintain this team was $30 million a month.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2003/0303FA22.asp

 

[HuggyU2]

Funny that they make no mention of UAV's in the article or want-list. Also funny how their airframes were meant to have only 4-5,000 hours........flared landings..wtfe....huggy enlighten us on what is really going on.

I was never a fighter pilot, so I'm not much help. However, watching from the grandstands, I don't recall them G-limiting those guys much. The Eagle had tail cracking years ago, and I seem to recall a short period where there were restrictions, but they were short lived. Hacker could give better insight.
I've seen a few 7000 hour Eagles,... that's supposedly a LOT of hours on those airframes. Two of the ones I saw were getting new wings when I saw them.
Yes, we flare our landings,... but that's no guarantee the landing will be smoooooth. But you knew that: airline pilots with Navy/Marine tailhook backgrounds prove that on a regular basis. :icon_tong