Another Ancient Military Plane Grounded

[Jay Honeck]

More metal fatigue. Our military might as well be a chapter of the
Antique Aircraft Association in Blakesburg, Iowa...
************************************************** ************************************************** *****
Washington, USA - "Structural fatigue"
(WAPA) - The US Navy decided to ground 39 of its 161 P-3C Orion
reconnaissance planes, because according to data resulting from
examinations they show signs of "Structural fatigue on the lower
section of the wing". The aircraft will now undergo maintenance
interventions, which are expected to take from 18 to 24 months.

The P-3C Orion is a maritime patrol aircraft, produced in its first
model in the late 1950s by the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which
played an important role in the Cold War and are presently employed
among other in reconnaissance operations in the Iraq conflict. These
four-engine turboprops are expected to be gradually replaced by
Boeing's P-8A Poseidons, but the Navy counts to continue using the
P-3s until 2019. Therefore careful and periodical maintenance
activities will be needed.

Another model of aircraft of the US armed forces to have recently
showed signs of fatigue has been the F-15 jet fighter (see AVIONEWS).
(Avionews)
************************************************** ************************************************** *****
How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
airplanes?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jay Honeck > said:
>Another model of aircraft of the US armed forces to have recently
>showed signs of fatigue has been the F-15 jet fighter (see AVIONEWS).
>(Avionews)
>************************************************** ************************************************** *****
>How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
>airplanes?

Well, when each generation seems to cost 10 times as much as the previous
generation, I question how long until the Air Force consists of one
multi-role fighter bomber, one attack aircraft, one tanker, an AWACS, and
85 B-52s.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
The competent, of course, make it their *first* resort.

[WolfRat]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Jay Honeck > said:
>> Another model of aircraft of the US armed forces to have recently
>> showed signs of fatigue has been the F-15 jet fighter (see AVIONEWS).
>> (Avionews)
>> ************************************************** ************************************************** *****
>> How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
>> airplanes?
>
> Well, when each generation seems to cost 10 times as much as the previous
> generation, I question how long until the Air Force consists of one
> multi-role fighter bomber, one attack aircraft, one tanker, an AWACS, and
> 85 B-52s.
>
>


A far as "bang for the buck" the B-52 is the best airplane
the Air Force ever purchased

[Jay Honeck]

> A far as "bang for the buck" the B-52 is the best airplane
> the Air Force ever purchased

Agreed. Boeing must've built the BUFF hell-bent for strength, since
I've never heard about *any* fatigue issues in the fleet.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On 18-Dec-2007, Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Agreed. Boeing must've built the BUFF hell-bent for strength, since
> I've never heard about *any* fatigue issues in the fleet.
> --
> Jay Honeck

I once saw a drawing showing with shading of all the skin and structure that
has been replaced on the B-52 fleet over the years, and as I recall it
involved most of the exterior. Very little of the skin is original, if
memory serves me correctly. I think they replaced panels and structure
before fatigue became an issue.
On this topic, did ya'll know the entire USAF F-15 fleet is grounded with
the exception of the F-15Es? There was a recent crash of a Missouri ANG
Eagle in which the nose section snapped off in flight just behind the
cockpit. The pilot ejected safely. They've since identified other cracks
in the fuselage longerons of the crashed aircraft. They've found similar
fatigue cracks in eight other Eagles during four separate fleet-wide
inspections, and thet've decided not to lift the grounding order until
they are sure they've identified all of the potential areas for fatigue
cracks.
Scott Wilson

[Jim Stewart]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Well, when each generation seems to cost 10 times as much as the previous
> generation, I question how long until the Air Force consists of one
> multi-role fighter bomber, one attack aircraft, one tanker, an AWACS, and
> 85 B-52s.

That's good enough to be someone's sig...

[Al G[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
> More metal fatigue. Our military might as well be a chapter of the
> Antique Aircraft Association in Blakesburg, Iowa...
> ************************************************** ************************************************** *****
> Washington, USA - "Structural fatigue"
> (WAPA) - The US Navy decided to ground 39 of its 161 P-3C Orion
> reconnaissance planes, because according to data resulting from
> examinations they show signs of "Structural fatigue on the lower
> section of the wing". The aircraft will now undergo maintenance
> interventions, which are expected to take from 18 to 24 months.
>
> The P-3C Orion is a maritime patrol aircraft, produced in its first
> model in the late 1950s by the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which
> played an important role in the Cold War and are presently employed
> among other in reconnaissance operations in the Iraq conflict. These
> four-engine turboprops are expected to be gradually replaced by
> Boeing's P-8A Poseidons, but the Navy counts to continue using the
> P-3s until 2019. Therefore careful and periodical maintenance
> activities will be needed.
>
> Another model of aircraft of the US armed forces to have recently
> showed signs of fatigue has been the F-15 jet fighter (see AVIONEWS).
> (Avionews)
> ************************************************** ************************************************** *****
> How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
> airplanes?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Ancient? What does that make those who flew...Uh...Nevermind.

Al G

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>More metal fatigue. Our military might as well be a chapter of the
>Antique Aircraft Association in Blakesburg, Iowa...
>************************************************** ************************************************** *****
>Washington, USA - "Structural fatigue"
>(WAPA) - The US Navy decided to ground 39 of its 161 P-3C Orion
>reconnaissance planes, because according to data resulting from
>examinations they show signs of "Structural fatigue on the lower
>section of the wing". The aircraft will now undergo maintenance
>interventions, which are expected to take from 18 to 24 months.
>

The P-3s have also been flying into hurricanes for a few decades. When you
beat an airplane up in weather like that, you can't expect it to last forever.
It's pretty impressive that they lasted this long (Weren't most of them built
in the 50s?). Structural fatigue is often directly related to the amount of
abuse and airframe must absorb. Navy planes are famous for requiring
special maintenance programs due to structural fatigue (usually the carrier
based ones).

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Big John]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:37:03 -0500, john smith > wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> A far as "bang for the buck" the B-52 is the best airplane
>>> the Air Force ever purchased
>>
>> Agreed. Boeing must've built the BUFF hell-bent for strength, since
>> I've never heard about *any* fatigue issues in the fleet.
>
>Did you look closely at the B-52 on display at the National Museum of
>the United States Air Force?
>On the left side of the fuselage, aft of the cockpit, there are several
>wrinkles in the skin.

*********************************
John

That's normal. Lots of birds have 'tin caning' all over them.
Saw it on most big bombers and transports.

Big John

[Big John]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:14:02 -0500, WolfRat > wrote:

>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> In a previous article, Jay Honeck > said:
>>> Another model of aircraft of the US armed forces to have recently
>>> showed signs of fatigue has been the F-15 jet fighter (see AVIONEWS).
>>> (Avionews)
>>> ************************************************** ************************************************** *****
>>> How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
>>> airplanes?
>>
>> Well, when each generation seems to cost 10 times as much as the previous
>> generation, I question how long until the Air Force consists of one
>> multi-role fighter bomber, one attack aircraft, one tanker, an AWACS, and
>> 85 B-52s.
>>
>>
>
>
>A far as "bang for the buck" the B-52 is the best airplane
>the Air Force ever purchased


WolfRat

Only when they had air supremacy which the fighters gave them :o)

Big John

[M[_1_]]

On Dec 18, 1:14 pm, WolfRat > wrote:

>
> A far as "bang for the buck" the B-52 is the best airplane
> the Air Force ever purchased

A friend of mine who's an aerospace engineer (used to work for
McDonald Douglas) told me that the older design often has stronger
structure than newer ones. He said in the old days the engineers had
very few tools and models for stress analysis of complex structure,
and they often overdesigned and resulted in planes that're much
stronger than the certification calls for. These days with advanced
computer model, if the certification calls for say max 3.8G and the
design goal is 15% above the certification limit, the engineers can
come up with a structure that'll break very close 4.4G, nothing more
and nothing less. The benefit of this is lighter weight and better
fuel efficiency, but it also means
the structure is not as overbuilt as older planes.

[T. McQuinn]

Aviation Week had a recent article on this. They said the P8-A Poseidon
is being developed as a replacement. I guess it's a 737 derivative and
the 1st test aircraft will go to the Navy in 2009. Maybe I don't
understand the meaning of 'patrol' but how long can a 737 stay up?

Tom


Jay Honeck wrote:
> More metal fatigue. Our military might as well be a chapter of the
> Antique Aircraft Association in Blakesburg, Iowa...
> ************************************************** ************************************************** *****
> Washington, USA - "Structural fatigue"
> (WAPA) - The US Navy decided to ground 39 of its 161 P-3C Orion
> reconnaissance planes, because according to data resulting from
> examinations they show signs of "Structural fatigue on the lower
> section of the wing". The aircraft will now undergo maintenance
> interventions, which are expected to take from 18 to 24 months.
>
> The P-3C Orion is a maritime patrol aircraft, produced in its first
> model in the late 1950s by the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which
> played an important role in the Cold War and are presently employed
> among other in reconnaissance operations in the Iraq conflict. These
> four-engine turboprops are expected to be gradually replaced by
> Boeing's P-8A Poseidons, but the Navy counts to continue using the
> P-3s until 2019. Therefore careful and periodical maintenance
> activities will be needed.
>
> Another model of aircraft of the US armed forces to have recently
> showed signs of fatigue has been the F-15 jet fighter (see AVIONEWS).
> (Avionews)
> ************************************************** ************************************************** *****
> How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
> airplanes?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"T. McQuinn" > wrote:

>Aviation Week had a recent article on this. They said the P8-A Poseidon
>is being developed as a replacement. I guess it's a 737 derivative and
>the 1st test aircraft will go to the Navy in 2009. Maybe I don't
>understand the meaning of 'patrol' but how long can a 737 stay up?

Add extra fuel tanks and a long time. You don't need to carry luggage
and 130 seats for passengers.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Bob Moore > wrote:
>
>Our problems were all corrosion related. Flying at 100' in the salt
>spray most of the time did nasty things to aluminum airframes. At the
>major bases, we had huge "car washes" that we drove through after each
>low level mission.

And that was probably not 100% effective.

Ron Lee

[[email protected]]

On Dec 18, 1:55 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> More metal fatigue. Our military might as well be a chapter of the
> Antique Aircraft Association in Blakesburg, Iowa...
> ************************************************** *************************-******************************
> Washington, USA - "Structural fatigue"
> (WAPA) - The US Navy decided to ground 39 of its 161 P-3C Orion
> reconnaissance planes, because according to data resulting from
> examinations they show signs of "Structural fatigue on the lower
> section of the wing". The aircraft will now undergo maintenance
> interventions, which are expected to take from 18 to 24 months.
>
> The P-3C Orion is a maritime patrol aircraft, produced in its first
> model in the late 1950s by the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which
> played an important role in the Cold War and are presently employed
> among other in reconnaissance operations in the Iraq conflict. These
> four-engine turboprops are expected to be gradually replaced by
> Boeing's P-8A Poseidons, but the Navy counts to continue using the
> P-3s until 2019. Therefore careful and periodical maintenance
> activities will be needed.
>
> Another model of aircraft of the US armed forces to have recently
> showed signs of fatigue has been the F-15 jet fighter (see AVIONEWS).
> (Avionews)
> ************************************************** *************************-******************************
> How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
> airplanes?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

What? You are complaining about the military being frugal with your
tax dollars? I suspect that the P-3 has had one of the best returns
on initial investment of the various airplane programs out there...

Dean

[pittss1c]

ahhh the day that a P3 shows up at Blakesburg....
They frown on bonanzas... I can't imagine what the impression of a
turboprop would be.
At least the engine is round....

Mike
Jay Honeck wrote:
> More metal fatigue. Our military might as well be a chapter of the
> Antique Aircraft Association in Blakesburg, Iowa...
> ************************************************** ************************************************** *****
> Washington, USA - "Structural fatigue"
> (WAPA) - The US Navy decided to ground 39 of its 161 P-3C Orion
> reconnaissance planes, because according to data resulting from
> examinations they show signs of "Structural fatigue on the lower
> section of the wing". The aircraft will now undergo maintenance
> interventions, which are expected to take from 18 to 24 months.
>
> The P-3C Orion is a maritime patrol aircraft, produced in its first
> model in the late 1950s by the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which
> played an important role in the Cold War and are presently employed
> among other in reconnaissance operations in the Iraq conflict. These
> four-engine turboprops are expected to be gradually replaced by
> Boeing's P-8A Poseidons, but the Navy counts to continue using the
> P-3s until 2019. Therefore careful and periodical maintenance
> activities will be needed.
>
> Another model of aircraft of the US armed forces to have recently
> showed signs of fatigue has been the F-15 jet fighter (see AVIONEWS).
> (Avionews)
> ************************************************** ************************************************** *****
> How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
> airplanes?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[John Godwin]

wrote in

:

> What? You are complaining about the military being frugal with
> your tax dollars? I suspect that the P-3 has had one of the best
> returns on initial investment of the various airplane programs out
> there...

Probably up there with the C-130

--

[Jay Honeck]

> What? You are complaining about the military being frugal with your
> tax dollars? I suspect that the P-3 has had one of the best returns
> on initial investment of the various airplane programs out there...

Agreed, it's been a good aircraft. But the time has come -- and gone
-- to replace it.

Military spending is one of the very few legitimate purposes for
having a Federal government. I have no quarrel with spending tax
money to keep our Air Force modern.

As it is, the Air Force has been reduced to such a tiny size that
there are legitimate arguments being made to roll it back into the
Army. With so few planes and bases, there is little rationale for
having an independent Air Force, with all the dead-weight bureacracy
that comes with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> ahhh the day that a P3 shows up at Blakesburg....
> They frown on bonanzas... I can't imagine what the impression of a
> turboprop would be.

Hey, who would have ever thought that we'd see a B-25 Mitchell bomber
at Blakesburg?

Strange things happen, over time...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What? You are complaining about the military being frugal with your
>> tax dollars? I suspect that the P-3 has had one of the best returns
>> on initial investment of the various airplane programs out there...
>>
>
> Agreed, it's been a good aircraft. But the time has come -- and gone
> -- to replace it.
>
> Military spending is one of the very few legitimate purposes for
> having a Federal government. I have no quarrel with spending tax
> money to keep our Air Force modern.
>
> As it is, the Air Force has been reduced to such a tiny size that
> there are legitimate arguments being made to roll it back into the
> Army. With so few planes and bases, there is little rationale for
> having an independent Air Force, with all the dead-weight bureacracy
> that comes with it.
>

Agreed, but the Air Force operates no P-3s.

[pittss1c]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> ahhh the day that a P3 shows up at Blakesburg....
>> They frown on bonanzas... I can't imagine what the impression of a
>> turboprop would be.
>
> Hey, who would have ever thought that we'd see a B-25 Mitchell bomber
> at Blakesburg?
>
> Strange things happen, over time...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
ya got to drop your pumpkins somehow. I can't think of a better way.

Mike

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:55:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
> wrote:

>More metal fatigue. Our military might as well be a chapter of the
>Antique Aircraft Association in Blakesburg, Iowa...
>************************************************** ************************************************** *****
>Washington, USA - "Structural fatigue"
>(WAPA) - The US Navy decided to ground 39 of its 161 P-3C Orion
>reconnaissance planes, because according to data resulting from
>examinations they show signs of "Structural fatigue on the lower
>section of the wing". The aircraft will now undergo maintenance
>interventions, which are expected to take from 18 to 24 months.
>
>The P-3C Orion is a maritime patrol aircraft, produced in its first
>model in the late 1950s by the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which
>played an important role in the Cold War and are presently employed
>among other in reconnaissance operations in the Iraq conflict. These
>four-engine turboprops are expected to be gradually replaced by
>Boeing's P-8A Poseidons, but the Navy counts to continue using the
>P-3s until 2019. Therefore careful and periodical maintenance
>activities will be needed.
>
>Another model of aircraft of the US armed forces to have recently
>showed signs of fatigue has been the F-15 jet fighter (see AVIONEWS).
>(Avionews)
>************************************************** ************************************************** *****
>How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
>airplanes?

Although it's a bit long in the tooth I think the P-3 is very well
suited for it's mission for distance, duration, and wide range of
altitude and speed of operation. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/p3s.htm
Roger (K8RI)

[rotor&wing]

Honeck is once again showing his ignorance when it comes to aircraft.

The P3 is used for maritime patrol which means it spends a lot of time low and maneuvering over water. This is a corrosive environment and also induces airframe stress. The majority of the P3's in service today were delivered in the mid-70's making the average age 30 years. These aircraft are also maintained to the highest standards.

[Jay Honeck]

> Honeck is once again showing his ignorance when it comes to aircraft.

???

My comments are related to the fact that these planes are old and past
due for replacement.

> The P3 is used for maritime patrol which means it spends a lot of time
> low and maneuvering over water. This is a corrosive environment and also
> induces airframe stress. The majority of the P3's in service today were
> delivered in the mid-70's making the average age 30 years. These
> aircraft are also maintained to the highest standards

Exactly correct -- thank you for restating my point. I'm glad we
agree.

Or are you saying that grounding the fleet was unnecessary?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

<rotor&amp>; "wing" > wrote in
message ...
>
> Honeck is once again showing his ignorance when it comes to aircraft.

I don't see how that statement follows.

Exactly what is wrong with wanting to see new planes put into service,
possibly even newer and better designs?

Even seeing new P-3's built and commisioned would be an improvement over
continually putting time and money into airframes that have lived a long and
hard life.

I know that will not be happening, (putting old designs back into
production) but a new plane for the mission would be a "good thing" even if
a new design had to be commisioned.

If we do not continue to modernize and upgrade our Air Force, a time will
come where we do not have what we need, and then it might be hard to
impossible to play catch-up.

Think China.

One day, we will be in a military confrontation with them, and then, I hope
that we are not still flying 60 year old, carefully maintained P-3's.

I can guarantee that they will not be flying 60 year old airplanes against
us.
--
Jim in NC

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-12-18, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
> airplanes?

Well, our guys still fly the Nimrod, which is a converted Comet. Yes,
the world's first commercial jet airliner is still flying in the form of the
Nimrod (although not the version of the Comet that had a tendency to
'dynamically disassemble' in-flight due to fatigue cracking around
square windows).

We occasionally get visits from Nimrods. With the engines concealed
in the wings, it looks very sleek without too much stuff hanging off it.
A number of them were also significantly refurbished in the 90s (new,
larger wings and new larger engines) essentially to new conditions.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Big John]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:13:24 -0800 (PST), M > wrote:

>On Dec 18, 1:14 pm, WolfRat > wrote:
>
>>
>> A far as "bang for the buck" the B-52 is the best airplane
>> the Air Force ever purchased
>
>A friend of mine who's an aerospace engineer (used to work for
>McDonald Douglas) told me that the older design often has stronger
>structure than newer ones. He said in the old days the engineers had
>very few tools and models for stress analysis of complex structure,
>and they often overdesigned and resulted in planes that're much
>stronger than the certification calls for. These days with advanced
>computer model, if the certification calls for say max 3.8G and the
>design goal is 15% above the certification limit, the engineers can
>come up with a structure that'll break very close 4.4G, nothing more
>and nothing less. The benefit of this is lighter weight and better
>fuel efficiency, but it also means
>the structure is not as overbuilt as older planes.

**********************************************
M

Your correct. In earlier days they used a slide rule to design and
built the birds very strong so they wouldn't fail in test phase and
when released to Squadrons.

Now with design computers they build new birds as light as possible to
meet design specs. They then fly bird in test phase and anything that
breaks they beef up. Result is the best performing bird they can
design.

This is just a laymans description but all should understand it
whether they are a Aeronautical Engineer or not :o)

Big John

[RST Engineering]

Not only that, but the FAA has issued a NPRM requiring a special issue of
medical certificate for pilots of the Lockheed Constellation because ...


* down




*




*




*




*




*




*



*




*




*


not many pilots these days can take three pieces of tail in a row.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"M" > wrote in message
...
>
> A friend of mine who's an aerospace engineer (used to work for
> McDonald Douglas) told me that the older design often has stronger
> structure than newer ones.
>

Well, he could have worked for Donald Douglas, and he could have worked for
McDonnell Douglas, but I think it unlikely he worked for McDonald Douglas.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"M" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> A friend of mine who's an aerospace engineer (used to work for
>> McDonald Douglas) told me that the older design often has stronger
>> structure than newer ones.
>>
>
>Well, he could have worked for Donald Douglas, and he could have worked for
>McDonnell Douglas, but I think it unlikely he worked for McDonald Douglas.

Maybe that's where they make McPlanes?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
After 30 years, it should be pretty bloody obvious to everyone (but apparently
the memo has missed a few people) that all but the very best C programmers are
nothing but a danger to themselves and others. -- Mark Hughes

[[email protected]]

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."

[rotor&wing]

My comments are related to the fact that these planes are old and past
due for replacement.



With that "logic" can we safely say your 30+year old Cherokee is old and past due for replacement?

You have obviously never served in the military, and don't have a clue to the various missions of each branch, much less the capabilities of their respective aircraft.

[Jay Honeck]

> With that "logic" can we safely say your 30+year old Cherokee is old
> and past due for replacement?
>
> You have obviously never served in the military, and don't have a clue
> to the various missions of each branch, much less the capabilities of
> their respective aircraft.

Clearly your contention is that the grounding of the P-3s and F-15s
was unnecessary. On what do you base this assessment?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Godwin]

rotor&amp;wing > wrote in
:

> You have obviously never served in the military, and don't have a
> clue to the various missions of each branch, much less the
> capabilities of their respective aircraft.

I see, you know for a fact that he doesn't have a DD-214?

--

[WJRflyboy]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:13:24 -0800 (PST), M wrote:

> A friend of mine who's an aerospace engineer (used to work for
> McDonald Douglas) told me that the older design often has stronger
> structure than newer ones. He said in the old days the engineers had
> very few tools and models for stress analysis of complex structure,
> and they often overdesigned and resulted in planes that're much
> stronger than the certification calls for. These days with advanced
> computer model, if the certification calls for say max 3.8G and the
> design goal is 15% above the certification limit, the engineers can
> come up with a structure that'll break very close 4.4G, nothing more
> and nothing less. The benefit of this is lighter weight and better
> fuel efficiency, but it also means
> the structure is not as overbuilt as older planes.

I don't understand. Overdesign doesn't necessarily mean greater longevity;
by definition, over design means that there is too much of something to
meet the requirements. If the spec is zero fatigue failures in X years,
then overdesign gives the same x years and there is waste. Were the planes
designed for 50 years, 25 years?

[Marty Shapiro]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> said:
>>"M" > wrote in message
.
>>..
>>>
>>> A friend of mine who's an aerospace engineer (used to work for
>>> McDonald Douglas) told me that the older design often has stronger
>>> structure than newer ones.
>>>
>>
>>Well, he could have worked for Donald Douglas, and he could have
>>worked for McDonnell Douglas, but I think it unlikely he worked for
>>McDonald Douglas.
>
> Maybe that's where they make McPlanes?
>
>

Maybe he worked for Ronald McDonald. :-)

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Kingfish]

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.

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

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.

[rotor&wing]

rotor&amp;wing wrote in
:

You have obviously never served in the military, and don't have a
clue to the various missions of each branch, much less the
capabilities of their respective aircraft.

I see, you know for a fact that he doesn't have a DD-214?

--

Honeck never served in any branch of the military. He just likes to pretend he's an "expert" in military aviation.

[rotor&wing]

Clearly your contention is that the grounding of the P-3s and F-15s
was unnecessary. On what do you base this assessment?


That was not my contention. You started this thread off by stating P-3's were "antique" airplanes "built" in the 50's. I pointed out that all current P-3's were built in the mid 70's.

So by using your logic, your 30+ year old Cherokee is an "antique" and should be replaced.

BTW, I've flown missions aboard P-3C's and EP-3E's, and worked with the maintenance end of the squadron. What is your experience with ANY military aircraft, other than what you have read on the internet?

[Matt Whiting]

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]

Bob Moore wrote:
> rotor&amp;wing wrote
>> Honeck never served in any branch of the military. He just likes to
>> pretend he's an "expert" in military aviation.
>
> At least, we know who Jay really is. He doesn't hide behind some
> silly internet name.

Classic, Bob. If that is your real name. :-)

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...
>
> At least, we know who Jay really is. He doesn't hide behind some
> silly internet name.
>

How do we know that's his real name?

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Jay Honeck]

> 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.

I seem to remember General Dynamics radically updated the F-16 with
new materials and a completely different wing (a delta/canard
arrangement, IIRC), along with engine and avionics upgrades. It was
billed as a proof of concept aircraft, but could easily have been used
by the military at a much smaller cost than the new F-35.

The Air Force didn't buy it. Anyone know why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote
>
> 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.

You have to be kidding. The new airforce fighters are a totally different
concept in airframe, and also conceal weapons in some of them. That
certainly qualifies as a new airframe design, since you could not have
concealed weapons in the older airframes.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> > At least, we know who Jay really is. He doesn't hide behind some
> > silly internet name.
>
> How do we know that's his real name?

Ya got me. My real name isn't "Jay"...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> >> How do we know that's his real name?
>
> > Ya got me. *My real name isn't "Jay"...
>
> > ;-)
>
> Aha!

Yep, I've been hiding behind a pseudonym all these years, coward that
I am!

I'm a Junior, and -- to prevent confusion with my dad -- everyone
started calling me "J.J." -- short for Joseph John.

That was okay with me, until 1969 when a TV show called "The Governor
and J.J." came on the air -- and J.J. was (*gasp!*) a GIRL. (See it
here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063905/ )

That was simply unacceptable to this then 10-year old boy -- so I
quickly became "Jay"...

;-)

Now my son is "Joseph John" also (we Honeck's aren't very imaginative
-- he's the fourth Joseph in the last 150 years), but he gets to use
his real name...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:25:02 GMT, wrote:

> What was "wrong" with the F-4 airframe that the F-15 airframe had to be
> designed?

Changing engines on a podded design like a B-52, KC-135, or ME-262 is one thing;
doing it to a design with integrated engines is another. There's CG issues,
there's structural issues, there are issues with routing other components around
it.

Couple that with the fact that the F-4 was designed 15-20 years prior to the
CAD-CAM era. All the design would either have to be done the old-fashioned way
(for which there are few qualified engineers still about) or the entire thing
will have to be re-engineered for CAD-CAM. You'd HAVE to redesign it anyway, if
you wanted to take advantage of more-modern materials.

Remember, too, the F-15 was designed in response to the F-4's shortcomings that
came out in the Vietnam era...lack of a gun, and poor dogfighting agility.
Superior pilots and some kludged-up gun pods overcame that, but it was desired
to give our pilots even more of an edge.

> What was "wrong" with the F-15 airframe that the F-16 airframe had to be
> designed?

Designed for two different missions...

> What was "wrong" with the F-16 airframe that the F-22 airframe had to be
> designed?

One word: Stealth. Beyond the obvious tactical advantages, it has political
ones, as well. It now generates a political crisis whenever one of our pilots is
shot down and captured, and stealth helps keep that from happening. Not
PERFECT, of course, as the F-117 shootdown proved, but it's still an advantage.

A lesser point, I think, is related to my first one: The F-15 was *barely* in
the CAD-CAM era. They may not even be able to read the files anymore.

I was involved in a project where we needed to look at some design data from 15
years ago. The data back then were fully backed up...on tapes that were
guaranteed to last five years. Couldn't read a one. Our bacon was saved by a
grizzled old engineer who grinned at us, then opened an old file cabinet where
he'd saved a complete set of (hard copy) drawings.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> I was involved in a project where we needed to look at some design data from
> 15
> years ago. The data back then were fully backed up...on tapes that were
> guaranteed to last five years. Couldn't read a one. Our bacon was saved by
> a
> grizzled old engineer who grinned at us, then opened an old file cabinet
> where
> he'd saved a complete set of (hard copy) drawings.

so often people try to get old engineers to get rid of all that old data...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt Whiting]

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.

Yes, you did miss the point.


> 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 the weapons systems and avionics are already upgrade, what else could
you do with an existing design if you don't change the airframe and
engines. Maybe your definition of clean sheet design is different than
the rest of the world.


> 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.

Most of which do a completely different job than the F-4 could ever do.
What is your point? That we should freeze the capability of aircraft
in 60's era technology?


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

Actually, one job. Ground support is best provided by attack aircraft,
not fighter aircraft.


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

Actually, one fighter model is enough. They also need an attack model
like the A-10.


>>> 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.

I named three above.


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

You don't know enough.


> 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.

Another load of the smelly stuff. Stealth technology required
substantial airframe innovations. And substantial airframe changes are
required to fully utilize thrust vectoring as well. And I would argue
that thrust vectoring is more airframe than engine fundamentally.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> 46.128...
>> At least, we know who Jay really is. He doesn't hide behind some
>> silly internet name.
>>
>
> How do we know that's his real name?

Because nobody would make up an alias like Jay Honeck.

Matt

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> 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.

> Yes, you did miss the point.


> > 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 the weapons systems and avionics are already upgrade, what else could
> you do with an existing design if you don't change the airframe and
> engines. Maybe your definition of clean sheet design is different than
> the rest of the world.

Why change the airframe then?

> > 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.

> Most of which do a completely different job than the F-4 could ever do.
> What is your point? That we should freeze the capability of aircraft
> in 60's era technology?


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

> Actually, one job. Ground support is best provided by attack aircraft,
> not fighter aircraft.

OK, so it is a loose definition of fighter.

Yet above you talk of different jobs, which is it, one job or many?

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

> Actually, one fighter model is enough. They also need an attack model
> like the A-10.


> >>> 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.

> I named three above.

Name one where a service went out for bid for a new fleet and accepted
and upgrade to an existing design other than the CH-47 and C-130.

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

> You don't know enough.


> > 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.

> Another load of the smelly stuff. Stealth technology required
> substantial airframe innovations. And substantial airframe changes are
> required to fully utilize thrust vectoring as well. And I would argue
> that thrust vectoring is more airframe than engine fundamentally.

Oh, yeah, stealth technology AKA the F-117 which is being decommisioned.

Oh, yeah, thrust vectoring AKA the Harrier which is being decommisioned.

In this day and age the only "fighter" style aircraft the AF needs is
something like the A-10 for ground support.

There is no requirement to fly cover for bombers.

There is no requirement for interceptors to attack incoming bombers.

Opposition fighters would be better countered with an airborn equivalant
of the missle frigate; an aircraft loaded with radars, IR sensors, UV
sensors and a pile of air-to-air missles.

With today's technology, there is no need for something designed to
engage in dog fights with other fighters.

And if the USAF insists in living in the days of the P-51, it will be
absorbed into the Army.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> With today's technology, there is no need for something designed to
> engage in dog fights with other fighters.
>
> And if the USAF insists in living in the days of the P-51, it will be
> absorbed into the Army.

That is a completely different argument. If we have fighters, they
should be the best in the world, not 60s era. If you want to argue that
we shouldn't have fighters, that is fine, but that is a different
discussion entirely.

I think we are approaching the era where manned aircraft of any kind
will be obsolete, but we aren't there yet.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:IXtbj.1200$2n4.28855
@news1.epix.net:

> wrote:
>
>> With today's technology, there is no need for something designed to
>> engage in dog fights with other fighters.
>>
>> And if the USAF insists in living in the days of the P-51, it will be
>> absorbed into the Army.
>
> That is a completely different argument. If we have fighters, they
> should be the best in the world, not 60s era. If you want to argue that
> we shouldn't have fighters, that is fine, but that is a different
> discussion entirely.
>
> I think we are approaching the era where manned aircraft of any kind
> will be obsolete, but we aren't there yet.


But thank god we have Anthony to fly then when they do come, eh?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> wrote:

> > With today's technology, there is no need for something designed to
> > engage in dog fights with other fighters.
> >
> > And if the USAF insists in living in the days of the P-51, it will be
> > absorbed into the Army.

> That is a completely different argument. If we have fighters, they
> should be the best in the world, not 60s era. If you want to argue that
> we shouldn't have fighters, that is fine, but that is a different
> discussion entirely.

Best at what; fullfilling the actual tactical needs at this point
in history or looking sexy at the Paris Air Show?

I doubt there is a 60's era fighter that given current sensors and
missles that wouldn't be perfectly adequate today.

For air-to-air combat the fighter hasn't been much more than a missle
launch platform for many decades.

> I think we are approaching the era where manned aircraft of any kind
> will be obsolete, but we aren't there yet.

Not when you factor in economics.

While cruise missles and ICBM's negate the need for long range bombers,
a manned bomber with cheap laser guided bombs is a much cheaper solution
for the close in ground support role.

And there is still the one big job the AF has but is reluctant to take
on; transport.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dan G]

On Dec 22, 7:25*pm, wrote:

Not sure if this was a joke post but:

> What was "wrong" with the F-4 airframe that the F-15 airframe had to be
> designed?

Pilots couldn't see much out of the F-4 and it didn't like corners. So
the F-15 was designed with a much better view and dogfighting
abilities.

>
> What was "wrong" with the F-15 airframe that the F-16 airframe had to be
> designed?

The F-15 cost a fortune back in the day; the lightweight single-
engined F-16 didn't. The fact fly-by-wire and an unstable design made
it a brilliant dogfighter was a nice bonus.

>
> What was "wrong" with the F-16 airframe that the F-22 airframe had to be
> designed?

Because it has a *huge* radar cross-section in comparison. A Su-27
could lock, launch, and destroy an F-16 before it even knew it was
there. An F-22 is practically undetectable, so can live with the
Su-27. As a bonus it's internal weapons bays have the same capacity as
the F-117, so bingo, the latter is redundant and can be scrapped.

>
> What was "wrong" with the F-22 airframe that the F-35 airframe had to be
> designed?

The F-22 costs a fortune; the lightweight single-engined F-35 does
too, just not quite as much. The fact it has bigger bomb bays, a
larger fuel fraction, and a better elec/op sensor suite making it a
better strike platform is a nice bonus. Just so long as nothing flies
up behind it.


>
> What's the problem with designing the airframe once for the current
> role of fighters, which hasn't changed much in about 40 years?

Worth noting that both the F-22 and the F-35 (and the Eurofighter for
that matter) have 40-year design lives, though they'll all probably be
scrapped for UAVs long before.

> Opposition fighters would be better countered with an airborn equivalant
> of the missle frigate; an aircraft loaded with radars, IR sensors, UV
> sensors and a pile of air-to-air missles.
>

LOL have not seen the new Russian AWACs killers? They'd make mincemeat
of such an aircraft. The idea didn't work with the B-17 and it doesn't
work today either.

> I doubt there is a 60's era fighter that given current sensors and
> missles that wouldn't be perfectly adequate today.

Actually the only point you make that has a grain of truth. A lot of
poorer countries are refitting their older aircraft with modern
sensors and weapons, e.g. the MiG-21 2000. However you can't escape
the high maintenance costs, the poor fuel efficiency, small fuel
fractions etc. etc. of old aircraft. If you remanufacture them (e.g.
Nimrod MR4A) it costs almost as much as new build, but you end up with
a piece of crap compared to a new fighter.

> For air-to-air combat the fighter hasn't been much more than a missle
> launch platform for many decades.

Ah, but what a difference there is between "platforms". The
Eurofighter, for example, will rely on the long-range Meteor missile
for "first shot/first kill" against the Su-27 and derivatives. The
F-22 will get up close and use medium range AMRAAMs without the Su-27
ever knowing about it. The latter's stealth also means it can
penetrate defences the Eurofigher could not, e.g. Belgrade (only
stealth aircraft visited), or indeed Tehran. Both use sensor fusion
and system automation so the pilot can concentrate on the air battle
rather than flying the plane (something an F-15 driver can only dream
of).

The Su-27, btw, depends on simply having a really big radar and really
fast missiles. Quite a lethal combination when all said and done.



Dan

[Jay Honeck]

> Worth noting that both the F-22 and the F-35 (and the Eurofighter for
> that matter) have 40-year design lives, though they'll all probably be
> scrapped for UAVs long before.

This from AvWeb today:
************************************************** *****************************
AIR FORCE CUTTING PILOT TRAINING
The U.S. Air Force will train about 925 new pilots in 2008, a decrease
of about 12 percent from the 1,100 that will graduate this year, the
Air Force Times is reporting. The Times says there will be a slight
bump in trainees in 2009 to about 1025 that is expected to remain
constant for several years. The newspaper says the reduction is
directly related to the decline in the number of aircraft and will be
particularly felt in the fighter pilot ranks. "If the Air Force did
not slow down pilot production, the service's fighter squadrons would
be overwhelmed by first-assignment pilots who could not get adequate
training because there wouldn't be enough jets or instructors," the
newspaper reported.
************************************************** *****************************
They go on to say that 200 pilots have already been reassigned to
other duties, simply because we have no aircraft for them to fly.

This train of events reinforces your point (USAF going to UAVs) as
well as the point that we should have stuck with older, less expensive
designs.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> Worth noting that both the F-22 and the F-35 (and the Eurofighter for
>> that matter) have 40-year design lives, though they'll all probably
>> be scrapped for UAVs long before.
>
> This from AvWeb today:
> ************************************************** *********************
> ******** AIR FORCE CUTTING PILOT TRAINING
> The U.S. Air Force will train about 925 new pilots in 2008, a decrease
> of about 12 percent from the 1,100 that will graduate this year, the
> Air Force Times is reporting. The Times says there will be a slight
> bump in trainees in 2009 to about 1025 that is expected to remain
> constant for several years. The newspaper says the reduction is
> directly related to the decline in the number of aircraft and will be
> particularly felt in the fighter pilot ranks. "If the Air Force did
> not slow down pilot production, the service's fighter squadrons would
> be overwhelmed by first-assignment pilots who could not get adequate
> training because there wouldn't be enough jets or instructors," the
> newspaper reported.
> ************************************************** *********************
> ******** They go on to say that 200 pilots have already been
> reassigned to other duties, simply because we have no aircraft for
> them to fly.
>
> This train of events reinforces your point (USAF going to UAVs) as
> well as the point that we should have stuck with older, less expensive
> designs.
>

What, no mindless POV of your own?


Bertie

[Jose]

> This train of events reinforces your point (USAF going to UAVs) as
> well as the point that we should have stuck with older, less expensive
> designs.

Depends on what you consider the primary job of the air force. If it is to defend the country, then it should stick with whatever (in the big picture) works best for this. (I have no opinion as to what that is). If it is to train pilots, then you are clearly correct.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Depends on what you consider the primary job of the air force. *If it is to defend the country, then it should stick with whatever (in the big picture) works best for this. *(I have no opinion as to what that is). *If it is to train pilots, then you are clearly correct.

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.

IIRC, the ones that did finally scramble weren't even armed. It was
1941 all over again. (Not that anyone would have known what to do if
they *had* intercepted them, but that's another thread...)

I'm sure steps have been taken to speed things up -- but if we don't
have the planes or pilots anymore to do the intercepting, no amount of
"scramble speed" will help. And ground-based missiles are not capable
of "taking a look" before attacking -- at least not yet.

It's really not hard to imagine a scenario where a rogue foreign power
devises a plan to take advantage of this weakness. Which brings us
back to Jim's (?) point -- we should've stuck with the old designs,
and had more of 'em.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> Depends on what you consider the primary job of the air force. *If it
>> is
> to defend the country, then it should stick with whatever (in the big
> picture) works best for this. *(I have no opinion as to what that
> is). *If it is to train pilots, then you are clearly correct.
>
> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
> how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
> airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.
>
> IIRC, the ones that did finally scramble weren't even armed. It was
> 1941 all over again. (Not that anyone would have known what to do if
> they *had* intercepted them, but that's another thread...)
>
> I'm sure steps have been taken to speed things up -- but if we don't
> have the planes or pilots anymore to do the intercepting, no amount of
> "scramble speed" will help. And ground-based missiles are not capable
> of "taking a look" before attacking -- at least not yet.
>
> It's really not hard to imagine a scenario where a rogue foreign power
> devises a plan to take advantage of this weakness. Which brings us
> back to Jim's (?) point -- we should've stuck with the old designs,
> and had more of 'em.
> --

Oh brother.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Depends on what you consider the primary job of the air force. ?If it is to defend the country, then it should stick with whatever (in the big picture) works best for this. ?(I have no opinion as to what that is). ?If it is to train pilots, then you are clearly correct.

> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
> how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
> airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.

> IIRC, the ones that did finally scramble weren't even armed. It was
> 1941 all over again. (Not that anyone would have known what to do if
> they *had* intercepted them, but that's another thread...)

> I'm sure steps have been taken to speed things up -- but if we don't
> have the planes or pilots anymore to do the intercepting, no amount of
> "scramble speed" will help. And ground-based missiles are not capable
> of "taking a look" before attacking -- at least not yet.

> It's really not hard to imagine a scenario where a rogue foreign power
> devises a plan to take advantage of this weakness. Which brings us
> back to Jim's (?) point -- we should've stuck with the old designs,
> and had more of 'em.

My point had to do with the economics of gee-wiz fighters.

Your post reminds me of the Simpson's episode where a bear wanders
into town for the first time in many years and the response is 24
hour bear patrol, which lasted until everyone got the tax bill to
pay for it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
> how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
> airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
of aircraft launched from US soil. And look at how little actual damage
was done.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Jay Honeck]

> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
> of aircraft launched from US soil. *And look at how little actual damage
> was done.

Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.

I'd be willing to bet that war planners all over the world took
notice. Hopefully NORAD has responded accordingly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
> > how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
> > airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.

> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
> of aircraft launched from US soil. And look at how little actual damage
> was done.

9/11 illustrated what a bunch sheep airline passengers had become
until the second airplane hit.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
> > of aircraft launched from US soil. ?And look at how little actual damage
> > was done.

> Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
> defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.

> I'd be willing to bet that war planners all over the world took
> notice. Hopefully NORAD has responded accordingly.

NORAD was designed to counter a wave of enemy bombers trying to penetrate
US airspace, not a handfull of fanatics bent on suicide in airliners.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
> > of aircraft launched from US soil. *And look at how little actual damage
> > was done.
>
> Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
> defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.

ah, Jay, NORAD never ever had the mission of looking inside our borders until
AFTER 9/11. NORAD didn't have the radar feeds necessary to look across
the NAS.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Jay Honeck]

> > Agreed. *But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
> > defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.
>
> ah, Jay, NORAD never ever had the mission of looking inside our borders until
> AFTER 9/11. *NORAD didn't have the radar feeds necessary to look across
> the NAS.

It's not the radar detection (or lack thereof) that raised eyebrows --
it was the inability to scramble *any* aircraft in a timely fashion
once the attack was acknowledged.

If that attack *had* been waves of bombers coming over the north pole,
America would have been defenseless. We were unable to muster more
than a couple of unarmed aircraft over Washington, DC., even after
NORAD went on full alert.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > > Agreed. ?But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
> > > defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.
> >
> > ah, Jay, NORAD never ever had the mission of looking inside our borders until
> > AFTER 9/11. ?NORAD didn't have the radar feeds necessary to look across
> > the NAS.

> It's not the radar detection (or lack thereof) that raised eyebrows --
> it was the inability to scramble *any* aircraft in a timely fashion
> once the attack was acknowledged.

> If that attack *had* been waves of bombers coming over the north pole,
> America would have been defenseless. We were unable to muster more
> than a couple of unarmed aircraft over Washington, DC., even after
> NORAD went on full alert.

And there are no fleets of blimps patrolling the coast line looking
for enemy submarine periscopes these days either.

If that attack *had* been waves of submarines...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> It's not the radar detection (or lack thereof) that raised eyebrows --
> it was the inability to scramble *any* aircraft in a timely fashion
> once the attack was acknowledged.
>
> If that attack *had* been waves of bombers coming over the north pole,
> America would have been defenseless.

Wanna bet? There is a world of difference defending a massive
airborne subsonic attack vs a onesy-twosy hijacked airliner. Think
hours instead of minutes.

> We were unable to muster more
> than a couple of unarmed aircraft over Washington, DC., even after
> NORAD went on full alert.

Unarmed? Who said they were unarmed?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> > Agreed. *But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our
>> > air
>
>> > defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air
>> > Force.
>>
>> ah, Jay, NORAD never ever had the mission of looking inside our
>> borders un
> til
>> AFTER 9/11. *NORAD didn't have the radar feeds necessary to look
>> across the NAS.
>
> It's not the radar detection (or lack thereof) that raised eyebrows --
> it was the inability to scramble *any* aircraft in a timely fashion
> once the attack was acknowledged.
>
> If that attack *had* been waves of bombers coming over the north pole,
> America would have been defenseless.


you're as big an iiot as Anthony is.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:87070242-d671-463c-9576-
:

>> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
>> of aircraft launched from US soil. *And look at how little actual damage
>
>> was done.
>
> Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
> defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.


And here we have the case against one man-one vote

Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
>> of aircraft launched from US soil. And look at how little actual damage
>> was done.
>
> Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
> defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.

The air defenses weren't porous at all. The threat didn't come from
outside our borders and that was the primary threat that NORAD was
created to defend against. It was never meant to defend from an attack
from within using commercial airplanes. Sheesh.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
>>> defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.
>> ah, Jay, NORAD never ever had the mission of looking inside our borders until
>> AFTER 9/11. NORAD didn't have the radar feeds necessary to look across
>> the NAS.
>
> It's not the radar detection (or lack thereof) that raised eyebrows --
> it was the inability to scramble *any* aircraft in a timely fashion
> once the attack was acknowledged.

I'm not sure that 6 minutes is a horrendous amount of time, especially
since I think there was still question even after the first crash as to
whether this was an attack and how widespread it might be. This was
simply not a scenario that was planned for my the military.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

> If that attack *had* been waves of bombers coming over the north pole,
> America would have been defenseless. We were unable to muster more
> than a couple of unarmed aircraft over Washington, DC., even after
> NORAD went on full alert.

Bull. That is almost exactly one of the scenarios the military HAS
planned for and I'll bet the response would have been very timely and
effective.

Jay, your lack of knowledge of NORAD and the military in general, and
even history, is appalling.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Bob Noel > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
>>> how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
>>> airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.
>
>> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
>> of aircraft launched from US soil. And look at how little actual damage
>> was done.
>
> 9/11 illustrated what a bunch sheep airline passengers had become
> until the second airplane hit.

Not just airline pax, but nearly all US citizens. Then again, this
wasn't accidental. The government and other "experts" have been
preaching for years the religion of passiveness and not to resistant
robbers, kidnappers, rapists, etc. They teach that to kids in school
and everyone else. That certainly isn't how I was raised.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> Bob Noel > wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>>>> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just
>>>> look how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those
>>>> rogue airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.
>>
>>> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a
>>> handful of aircraft launched from US soil. And look at how little
>>> actual damage was done.
>>
>> 9/11 illustrated what a bunch sheep airline passengers had become
>> until the second airplane hit.
>
> Not just airline pax, but nearly all US citizens. Then again, this
> wasn't accidental. The government and other "experts" have been
> preaching for years the religion of passiveness and not to resistant
> robbers, kidnappers, rapists, etc. They teach that to kids in school
> and everyone else. That certainly isn't how I was raised.
>

Much as I hate to agree with anyone, ever, I have to agree with this.

the scary thing is that the more "disciplined" a culture is, the easier
it is manipulated into some kind o insanely agressive stance.

I can think of a couple of good examples from the last century alone.

A belligerent and healthy opposition is a healthy thing for a nation or
culture.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> > Agreed. *But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
> > defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.
>
> The air defenses weren't porous at all. *The threat didn't come from
> outside our borders and that was the primary threat that NORAD was
> created to defend against. *It was never meant to defend from an attack
> from within using commercial airplanes. *Sheesh.

Missed the point completely -- again.

The meager response to the scramble alert is the point -- not the
basis of the threat. Whether they're responding to a C-130 full of
midgets flying out of Oshkosh, or 10 SU-35s coming in at mast-top
level down the Potomac, the fact remains that NORAD could not scramble
more than a tiny handful of aircraft in response.

Do a little reading on the subject -- NORAD didn't have another
squadron of F-15s on stand-by. What responded was EVERYTHING we had
in the sector. And it was pathetic.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1a219c8a-6770-4d49-aabc-
:

>> > Agreed. *But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
>
>> > defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.
>>
>> The air defenses weren't porous at all. *The threat didn't come from
>> outside our borders and that was the primary threat that NORAD was
>> created to defend against. *It was never meant to defend from an attack
>> from within using commercial airplanes. *Sheesh.
>
> Missed the point completely -- again.

You always do!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > > Agreed. ?But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
> > > defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.
> >
> > The air defenses weren't porous at all. ?The threat didn't come from
> > outside our borders and that was the primary threat that NORAD was
> > created to defend against. ?It was never meant to defend from an attack
> > from within using commercial airplanes. ?Sheesh.

> Missed the point completely -- again.

> The meager response to the scramble alert is the point -- not the
> basis of the threat. Whether they're responding to a C-130 full of
> midgets flying out of Oshkosh, or 10 SU-35s coming in at mast-top
> level down the Potomac, the fact remains that NORAD could not scramble
> more than a tiny handful of aircraft in response.

> Do a little reading on the subject -- NORAD didn't have another
> squadron of F-15s on stand-by. What responded was EVERYTHING we had
> in the sector. And it was pathetic.

So your solution to airliner jacking is to have squadrons of fighters
around every city in the USA?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
>>> defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.
>> The air defenses weren't porous at all. The threat didn't come from
>> outside our borders and that was the primary threat that NORAD was
>> created to defend against. It was never meant to defend from an attack
>> from within using commercial airplanes. Sheesh.
>
> Missed the point completely -- again.

No, I got the point precisely. The point that you don't understand at
all the mission of NORAD.


> The meager response to the scramble alert is the point -- not the
> basis of the threat. Whether they're responding to a C-130 full of
> midgets flying out of Oshkosh, or 10 SU-35s coming in at mast-top
> level down the Potomac, the fact remains that NORAD could not scramble
> more than a tiny handful of aircraft in response.
>
> Do a little reading on the subject -- NORAD didn't have another
> squadron of F-15s on stand-by. What responded was EVERYTHING we had
> in the sector. And it was pathetic.

And there was no need to multiple squadrons on stand-by on the east
coast of the USA.

Matt

[Big John]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Jay Honeck > wrote in
:
>
>>> > Agreed. *But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our
>>> > air
>>
>>> > defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air
>>> > Force.
>>>
>>> ah, Jay, NORAD never ever had the mission of looking inside our
>>> borders un
>> til
>>> AFTER 9/11. *NORAD didn't have the radar feeds necessary to look
>>> across the NAS.
>>
>> It's not the radar detection (or lack thereof) that raised eyebrows --
>> it was the inability to scramble *any* aircraft in a timely fashion
>> once the attack was acknowledged.
>>
>> If that attack *had* been waves of bombers coming over the north pole,
>> America would have been defenseless.
>
>
>you're as big an iiot as Anthony is.
>
>
>Bertie
********************************
Bertie

I spent 15 years in the Air Defense Command and we furnished thousands
of fighters to NORAD for operations. Any aircraft we had on NORAD
alert were ARMED (including NUCLEAR Air to air Rocket with a Pk of
almost 100% that was test fired over a group (some friends of
mine)standing in the open at ground zero). Listening to the arm chair
experts on this news group who may have soloed a GA I have refrained
myself from trying to outline the old and current NORAD operations.

They wouldn't believe me so why try to educate them on the where's and
why's of the real world.

Keep on trying to keep the dishonest, honest Bertie.


Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

>
>>
>>you're as big an iiot as Anthony is.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
> ********************************
> Bertie
>
> I spent 15 years in the Air Defense Command and we furnished thousands
> of fighters to NORAD for operations. Any aircraft we had on NORAD
> alert were ARMED (including NUCLEAR Air to air Rocket with a Pk of
> almost 100% that was test fired over a group (some friends of
> mine)standing in the open at ground zero). Listening to the arm chair
> experts on this news group who may have soloed a GA I have refrained
> myself from trying to outline the old and current NORAD operations.
>
> They wouldn't believe me so why try to educate them on the where's and
> why's of the real world.
>
> Keep on trying to keep the dishonest, honest Bertie.

OK, will do ,

And merry christmas to you.

here's to the day when the only thing the air force does is airshows!


Bertie

[rotor&wing]

Do a little reading on the subject -- NORAD didn't have another
squadron of F-15s on stand-by. What responded was EVERYTHING we had
in the sector. And it was pathetic.
--
Jay Honeck


The only thing "pathetic" is your total lack of knowledge on the subject. You're just another "internet expert".

LOL

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
>>> defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.
>> The air defenses weren't porous at all. The threat didn't come from
>> outside our borders and that was the primary threat that NORAD was
>> created to defend against. It was never meant to defend from an attack
>> from within using commercial airplanes. Sheesh.
>
> Missed the point completely -- again.
>
> The meager response to the scramble alert is the point -- not the
> basis of the threat. Whether they're responding to a C-130 full of
> midgets flying out of Oshkosh, or 10 SU-35s coming in at mast-top
> level down the Potomac, the fact remains that NORAD could not scramble
> more than a tiny handful of aircraft in response.
>
> Do a little reading on the subject -- NORAD didn't have another
> squadron of F-15s on stand-by. What responded was EVERYTHING we had
> in the sector. And it was pathetic.

You may want to do a little reading on the subject. Here is a link to
get you started on the mission of NORAD prior to 9/11. It has changed
since then, but tracking and intercepting domestic flights wasn't a high
priority pre-9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:u_icj.1226$2n4.29086
@news1.epix.net:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
>>>> defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.
>>> The air defenses weren't porous at all. The threat didn't come from
>>> outside our borders and that was the primary threat that NORAD was
>>> created to defend against. It was never meant to defend from an attack
>>> from within using commercial airplanes. Sheesh.
>>
>> Missed the point completely -- again.
>>
>> The meager response to the scramble alert is the point -- not the
>> basis of the threat. Whether they're responding to a C-130 full of
>> midgets flying out of Oshkosh, or 10 SU-35s coming in at mast-top
>> level down the Potomac, the fact remains that NORAD could not scramble
>> more than a tiny handful of aircraft in response.
>>
>> Do a little reading on the subject -- NORAD didn't have another
>> squadron of F-15s on stand-by. What responded was EVERYTHING we had
>> in the sector. And it was pathetic.
>
> You may want to do a little reading on the subject.


If that's a bet, I'll take it.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> I spent 15 years in the Air Defense Command and we furnished thousands
> of fighters to NORAD for operations. Any aircraft we had on NORAD
> alert were ARMED (including NUCLEAR Air to air Rocket with a Pk of
> almost 100% that was test fired over a group (some friends of
> mine)standing in the open at ground zero). Listening to the arm chair
> experts on this news group who may have soloed a GA I have refrained
> myself from trying to outline the old and current NORAD operations.

No on respects your service more than me, Big John, and your defense
of your modern-day brothers in NORAD is touching -- but what we've got
today isn't anything like when you were flying air defense. Not by a
long shot.

Our Air Force is a tiny shadow of what it was in the '50s, '60s, '70s,
and '80s. Our inability to respond to airborne threats in a timely
fashion isn't my opinion -- it's a widely discussed (and fretted over)
fact. The point of this thread -- the fact that our Air Force is
using out-dated equipment -- isn't a slam on the military, as you seem
to be assuming. It's a slam on our political leaders who have under-
funded the procurement of new aircraft.

The fact that we were only able to scramble 2 (that's TWO) F-15s from
Otis, and a similar number of aircraft from Langley, during the 9/11
attacks is just one data point illustrating the problem. We just don't
have enough hardware for any kind of an effective intercept -- even
over the critical New York - Washington, D.C. corridor.

Here is link to a very interesting article on NORAD's response to the
9/11 attack, complete with the actual tape recordings of controllers
and pilots: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=1
(An aside: This article certainly makes me look at "Vanity Fair" in a
different light.)

> They wouldn't believe me so why try to educate them on the where's and
> why's of the real world.

Why would you assume that? If you've got information that controverts
the official version of events, we're all ears.

> Keep on trying to keep the dishonest, honest Bertie.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Oh, sorry. That *was* a joke, right? You're
calling on anonymous troll to do anything other than...troll?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > I spent 15 years in the Air Defense Command and we furnished thousands
> > of fighters to NORAD for operations. Any aircraft we had on NORAD
> > alert were ARMED (including NUCLEAR Air to air Rocket with a Pk of
> > almost 100% that was test fired over a group (some friends of
> > mine)standing in the open at ground zero). Listening to the arm chair
> > experts on this news group who may have soloed a GA I have refrained
> > myself from trying to outline the old and current NORAD operations.

> No on respects your service more than me, Big John, and your defense
> of your modern-day brothers in NORAD is touching -- but what we've got
> today isn't anything like when you were flying air defense. Not by a
> long shot.

> Our Air Force is a tiny shadow of what it was in the '50s, '60s, '70s,
> and '80s. Our inability to respond to airborne threats in a timely
> fashion isn't my opinion -- it's a widely discussed (and fretted over)
> fact. The point of this thread -- the fact that our Air Force is
> using out-dated equipment -- isn't a slam on the military, as you seem
> to be assuming. It's a slam on our political leaders who have under-
> funded the procurement of new aircraft.

Which is as it should be since the threats of the '50s, '60s, '70s, and
'80s no longer exist.

Here's a news flash; the Soviet Union no longer exists.

Here's another news flash; manned bombers have been replaced by ICBM's
and cruise missiles for strategic attacks.

And now a bit of geography; were the US mainland to be attacked by
manned bombers, they would be coming from the North, not out of the
Atlantic and certainly wouldn't originate from inside the USA.

> The fact that we were only able to scramble 2 (that's TWO) F-15s from
> Otis, and a similar number of aircraft from Langley, during the 9/11
> attacks is just one data point illustrating the problem. We just don't
> have enough hardware for any kind of an effective intercept -- even
> over the critical New York - Washington, D.C. corridor.

What problem?

Before the sun set on 9/11 people realized the answer to the problem of
hijacked airliners is for the passengers to swarm the assholes and beat
them senseless; problem solved, no fighters on standby required.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> 9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
>>> of aircraft launched from US soil. ?And look at how little actual damage
>>> was done.
>
>> Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
>> defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.
>
>> I'd be willing to bet that war planners all over the world took
>> notice. Hopefully NORAD has responded accordingly.
>
> NORAD was designed to counter a wave of enemy bombers trying to penetrate
> US airspace, not a handfull of fanatics bent on suicide in airliners.
>
>

Especially ones that originated inside the US. One could even argue that
because of the Posse Comitatus Act that the Air Force jets couldn't be
used to defend non-federal buildings from aircraft originating in the
US. I'm not one of these people but had we gotten to the point where we
were shooting down 767s every week or so I'll bet someone would have.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 22, 7:00*am, Bob Moore > wrote:
>
> At least, we know who Jay really is. He doesn't hide behind some
> silly internet name.

So true Bob, but as abrasive as Jay is, maybe he should hide behind a
"Silly Internet Name"

Frank K Baum

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> I spent 15 years in the Air Defense Command and we furnished
>> thousands of fighters to NORAD for operations. Any aircraft we had on
>> NORAD alert were ARMED (including NUCLEAR Air to air Rocket with a Pk
>> of almost 100% that was test fired over a group (some friends of
>> mine)standing in the open at ground zero). Listening to the arm chair
>> experts on this news group who may have soloed a GA I have refrained
>> myself from trying to outline the old and current NORAD operations.
>
> No on respects your service more than me, Big John, and your defense
> of your modern-day brothers in NORAD is touching -- but what we've got
> today isn't anything like when you were flying air defense. Not by a
> long shot.
>
> Our Air Force is a tiny shadow of what it was in the '50s, '60s, '70s,
> and '80s.


Bull****.


>
>> Keep on trying to keep the dishonest, honest Bertie.
>
> Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Oh, sorry. That *was* a joke, right? You're
> calling on anonymous troll to do anything other than...troll?
>

As if you'd even know what a troll is, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:6d231128-8af2-4e7c-a014-
:

> On Dec 22, 7:00*am, Bob Moore > wrote:
>>
>> At least, we know who Jay really is. He doesn't hide behind some
>> silly internet name.
>
> So true Bob, but as abrasive as Jay is, maybe he should hide behind a
> "Silly Internet Name"
>

I thought he was!

Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> NORAD was designed to counter a wave of enemy bombers trying to penetrate
> US airspace, not a handfull of fanatics bent on suicide in airliners.

Right. And the two aircraft Otis managed to scramble would have been
able to do what, against an airborne threat?

Right answer: Not much. Our pants were down on the whole Eastern
Seaboard.

Back on topic -- here is the latest on the ground of the F-15s. and
the impact it is having on our air defenses, from today's USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Which is as it should be since the threats of the '50s, '60s, '70s, and
> '80s no longer exist.
>
> Here's a news flash; the Soviet Union no longer exists.
>
> Here's another news flash; manned bombers have been replaced by ICBM's
> and cruise missiles for strategic attacks.

Which is why credible people are recommending that we roll the Air
Force back into the Army.

War planners in the Pentagon apparently agree with you, and are
following the doctrine of "there is no airborne threat to the US
except from ICBMs and cruise missiles." In my opinion this leaves
us open to low-tech attacks from all quarters.

Shrinking the Air Force to this level is the airborne equivalent of
the Rumsfeld Doctrine, which made our ground forces "lighter/faster/
smaller". Unfortunately, we discovered that taking and holding
territory requires boots on the ground -- and (until the "surge") we
just didn't have 'em in Iraq.

Now -- surprise! -- peace and quiet have broken out across that
nation. Gee, I wonder why?

The Air Force has followed that same road -- and eventually we'll be
bitten by it. To see how short of aircraft we are now, due to the
F-15 grounding, see http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > NORAD was designed to counter a wave of enemy bombers trying to penetrate
> > US airspace, not a handfull of fanatics bent on suicide in airliners.

> Right. And the two aircraft Otis managed to scramble would have been
> able to do what, against an airborne threat?

> Right answer: Not much. Our pants were down on the whole Eastern
> Seaboard.

What is the name of the hostile nation that would be launching an
airborne strike against the US that is off the Eastern Seaboard?

What is the name of ANY hostile nation that would be launching an
airborne strike against the US with manned bombers in the day of
ICBM's and cruise missles?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Which is as it should be since the threats of the '50s, '60s, '70s, and
> > '80s no longer exist.
> >
> > Here's a news flash; the Soviet Union no longer exists.
> >
> > Here's another news flash; manned bombers have been replaced by ICBM's
> > and cruise missiles for strategic attacks.

> Which is why credible people are recommending that we roll the Air
> Force back into the Army.

> War planners in the Pentagon apparently agree with you, and are
> following the doctrine of "there is no airborne threat to the US
> except from ICBMs and cruise missiles." In my opinion this leaves
> us open to low-tech attacks from all quarters.

You do know it takes more than low-tech to get effective weapons
systems across the oceans that surround the USA, don't you?

And just who would be doing this attacking by bombers?

Or maybe you are talking about terrorists in trucks loaded with
explosives?

Yeah, we need fighters to counter that threat.

You are just arm waving over a none existent threat, or maybe you
really believe Castro is going to send a fleet of 172's to attack
the US.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > NORAD was designed to counter a wave of enemy bombers trying to penetrate
> > US airspace, not a handfull of fanatics bent on suicide in airliners.
>
> Right. And the two aircraft Otis managed to scramble would have been
> able to do what, against an airborne threat?

The two aircraft lauched from Otis were more than capable of taking
down more than two 767 aircraft. Why would they have sent more
than the two?

Bear in mind that any sizable external air threat would have been detected
a long long LONG time before needing to be countered by the
OTIS F-15s.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Jay Honeck]

> Bear in mind that any sizable external air threat would have been detected
> a long long LONG time before needing to be countered by the
> OTIS F-15s.

No argument there.

All of your (not just you, Bob) responses seem to imply that my post
has something to do with the threat (AKA: Airliners), rather than the
response.

Just to clarify, there is nothing NORAD could have done to stop the
hijackers, short of shooting them down. That would never have been
approved, especially not in the short period of time we had to
respond. Even if we had a dozen squadrons of F-15s ready to respond
on 9/11, it wouldn't have mattered one whit.

In fact, the 9/11 attack is irrelevant to my point, which is that our
air force was shown to be painfully inadequate to the task of
intercepting *anything* on 9/11. Since then, steps have been taken to
rectify this weakness -- but these have now been undone by the
grounding of the F-15s. As can be seen in today's article in USA
Today, I'm not the only one to have noticed this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You are just arm waving over a none existent threat, or maybe you
> really believe Castro is going to send a fleet of 172's to attack
> the US.

Well, it doesn't really matter what I believe. No one ever thought
the Japanese would have the audacity or ability to attack Pearl Harbor
with torpedoes -- yet it happened.

I'm of the belief that our Federal Government has very few legitimate
reasons to exist -- but one of those reasons is national defense.
When an event highlights the fact that we can only muster two aircraft
in response to a surprise attack on New York, I'd say it's a cause for
attention, if not alarm.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> NORAD was designed to counter a wave of enemy bombers trying to penetrate
>> US airspace, not a handfull of fanatics bent on suicide in airliners.
>
> Right. And the two aircraft Otis managed to scramble would have been
> able to do what, against an airborne threat?
>
> Right answer: Not much. Our pants were down on the whole Eastern
> Seaboard.

You can believe what you want, but I think the biggest issue was that
nobody at first really believed what was happening. I just don't think
that "the system" responded as it wasn't really sure what the threat
was. A wave of bombers coming across the North Pole would be a whole
nother animal and I'll bet the response would be quite different.

You may ask why the military doesn't "defend itself" against the media
and folks like you who think they really only had two airplanes ready.
The reason is that they really don't want to give out details on what
their capabilities are any any given moment. My dad spent a career in
the AF and ANG and I can tell you that the capabilities available are
far in excess of what you believe or what was seen on 9/11.

The reality is that the scenario that unfolded simply wasn't one that
had been foreseen. Suicide bombers are simply anathema to the American
pysche and we hadn't prepared for that.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> NORAD was designed to counter a wave of enemy bombers trying to penetrate
>> US airspace, not a handfull of fanatics bent on suicide in airliners.
>
> Right. And the two aircraft Otis managed to scramble would have been
> able to do what, against an airborne threat?
>
> Right answer: Not much. Our pants were down on the whole Eastern
> Seaboard.
>
> Back on topic -- here is the latest on the ground of the F-15s. and
> the impact it is having on our air defenses, from today's USA Today:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm

Ah, USA Today, that bastion of journalistic capability and integrity...

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Which is as it should be since the threats of the '50s, '60s, '70s, and
>> '80s no longer exist.
>>
>> Here's a news flash; the Soviet Union no longer exists.
>>
>> Here's another news flash; manned bombers have been replaced by ICBM's
>> and cruise missiles for strategic attacks.
>
> Which is why credible people are recommending that we roll the Air
> Force back into the Army.
>
> War planners in the Pentagon apparently agree with you, and are
> following the doctrine of "there is no airborne threat to the US
> except from ICBMs and cruise missiles." In my opinion this leaves
> us open to low-tech attacks from all quarters.
>
> Shrinking the Air Force to this level is the airborne equivalent of
> the Rumsfeld Doctrine, which made our ground forces "lighter/faster/
> smaller". Unfortunately, we discovered that taking and holding
> territory requires boots on the ground -- and (until the "surge") we
> just didn't have 'em in Iraq.
>
> Now -- surprise! -- peace and quiet have broken out across that
> nation. Gee, I wonder why?
>
> The Air Force has followed that same road -- and eventually we'll be
> bitten by it. To see how short of aircraft we are now, due to the
> F-15 grounding, see http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm

Posting the link more times doesn't make it more credible. I don't know
how you can read this statement and then take the rest of it seriously
at all. "The F-15 is the sole fighter at many of the 16 or so "alert"
sites around the country, where planes and pilots stand ready to take
off at a moment's notice to intercept hijacked airliners, Cessnas that
wander into protected airspace, and other threats."

Cessnas and other threats. Ha, ha, ha.... That is hilarious.

And I'll bet you a steak dinner that the F-15s are grounded only from
flying routine training and patrol missions, not from responding to a
bona fide threat.

Matt

[F. Baum]

On Dec 27, 9:14*am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> Just to clarify, there is nothing NORAD could have done to stop the
> hijackers, short of shooting them down. That would never have been
> approved, especially not in the short period of time we had to
> respond.

Jay, you do a tremendous (and entertaining ) job of back pedaling.
This paragragh indicates that you dont really understand how this
situation works in regards to airliners. Stick to what you know best
like your weather reports or what you got for Xmas.
(Kidding.........wait.......no Im not).


> . * As can be seen in today's article in USA
> Today, I'm not the only one to have noticed this:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm

Ah, Useless Today, a veritble Bastion of Journalistic integrity.
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination" & self serving advertising plug

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> In fact, the 9/11 attack is irrelevant to my point, which is that our
> air force was shown to be painfully inadequate to the task of
> intercepting *anything* on 9/11.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?


> Since then, steps have been taken to
> rectify this weakness -- but these have now been undone by the
> grounding of the F-15s. As can be seen in today's article in USA
> Today, I'm not the only one to have noticed this:
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm

Posting it three times doesn't make it any more credible. Can we get a
4th post? Going once, going twice,...

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> You are just arm waving over a none existent threat, or maybe you
>> really believe Castro is going to send a fleet of 172's to attack
>> the US.
>
> Well, it doesn't really matter what I believe. No one ever thought
> the Japanese would have the audacity or ability to attack Pearl Harbor
> with torpedoes -- yet it happened.
>
> I'm of the belief that our Federal Government has very few legitimate
> reasons to exist -- but one of those reasons is national defense.
> When an event highlights the fact that we can only muster two aircraft
> in response to a surprise attack on New York, I'd say it's a cause for
> attention, if not alarm.

You keeping claiming this, but you have yet to provide a shred of
evidence that your claim is true.

Matt

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Bear in mind that any sizable external air threat would have been detected
> > a long long LONG time before needing to be countered by the
> > OTIS F-15s.

> No argument there.

> All of your (not just you, Bob) responses seem to imply that my post
> has something to do with the threat (AKA: Airliners), rather than the
> response.

> Just to clarify, there is nothing NORAD could have done to stop the
> hijackers, short of shooting them down. That would never have been
> approved, especially not in the short period of time we had to
> respond. Even if we had a dozen squadrons of F-15s ready to respond
> on 9/11, it wouldn't have mattered one whit.

The light slowly comes on...

> In fact, the 9/11 attack is irrelevant to my point, which is that our
> air force was shown to be painfully inadequate to the task of
> intercepting *anything* on 9/11. Since then, steps have been taken to
> rectify this weakness -- but these have now been undone by the
> grounding of the F-15s. As can be seen in today's article in USA
> Today, I'm not the only one to have noticed this:
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm

Perhaps that is because there is nothing for the AF to intercept anymore.

During the Soviet era the task of defending against bomber attacks
was split between USAF interceptors and USA Nike Hercules missle
batteries.

Perhaps we should also bring back Nike and ring all our cities again
with missles tipped with 40 kiloton nukes.

The military is charged with external security and there currently is
no external airborne threat to the USA so there is no need for either
bunches of US based interceptors or Nike Hercules missle batteries.

Other agencies are charged with internal security.

Internal security doesn't require supersonic interceptors.

Maybe you'd be happy if Homeland Security got itself a fleet of Apache
Longbow's?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > You are just arm waving over a none existent threat, or maybe you
> > really believe Castro is going to send a fleet of 172's to attack
> > the US.

> Well, it doesn't really matter what I believe. No one ever thought
> the Japanese would have the audacity or ability to attack Pearl Harbor
> with torpedoes -- yet it happened.

Pearl Harbor was an air attack by manned bombers.

In this case the stuff to defend against such an attack was in place,
but since the attack was an almost total surprise, the troops were
caught literally with their pants down in the morning attack.

It takes time to arm, fuel, and launch fighters, and almost all of them
were destroyed on the ground.

> I'm of the belief that our Federal Government has very few legitimate
> reasons to exist -- but one of those reasons is national defense.
> When an event highlights the fact that we can only muster two aircraft
> in response to a surprise attack on New York, I'd say it's a cause for
> attention, if not alarm.

You do understand the difference between an external military threat
and an internal terrorist threat, don't you?

The US military is not charged with countering internal terrorist threats
and it is debatable whether it would even be legal under US law.

And in any case, it doesn't take supersonic fighters to do internal
security.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

> my point, which is that our
> air force was shown to be painfully inadequate to the task of
> intercepting *anything*

My (admittedly simple) understanding of history is that the central reason for the fall of the Soviet Union was economics. They bankrupted themselves trying to keep their military up to the task of defending themselves against the phantom threat we projected out to them. (Not that we weren't a real threat, but we got them to believe we were a much bigger one.)

We should be careful lest we fall victim to our own trick.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

wrote:

> Maybe you'd be happy if Homeland Security got itself a fleet of Apache
> Longbow's?
>
>

Maybe we could give them Mini-500's with a Ruger 10-22 for the co-pilot.

[[email protected]]

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> wrote:

> > Maybe you'd be happy if Homeland Security got itself a fleet of Apache
> > Longbow's?
> >
> >

> Maybe we could give them Mini-500's with a Ruger 10-22 for the co-pilot.

With extended magazines and the bolt on crank trigger?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>> wrote:
>
>>> Maybe you'd be happy if Homeland Security got itself a fleet of Apache
>>> Longbow's?
>>>
>>>
>
>> Maybe we could give them Mini-500's with a Ruger 10-22 for the co-pilot.
>
> With extended magazines and the bolt on crank trigger?
>


Only for the most senior agents and then only in permanent TFR (God, I
love that oxymoron) areas.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

>> In fact, the 9/11 attack is irrelevant to my point, which is that our
>> air force was shown to be painfully inadequate to the task of
>> intercepting *anything* on 9/11. Since then, steps have been taken to
>> rectify this weakness -- but these have now been undone by the
>> grounding of the F-15s. As can be seen in today's article in USA
>> Today, I'm not the only one to have noticed this:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm
>
> Perhaps that is because there is nothing for the AF to intercept anymore.

There are Cessnas! Did you not read the article posted above??

Matt

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> wrote:

> >> In fact, the 9/11 attack is irrelevant to my point, which is that our
> >> air force was shown to be painfully inadequate to the task of
> >> intercepting *anything* on 9/11. Since then, steps have been taken to
> >> rectify this weakness -- but these have now been undone by the
> >> grounding of the F-15s. As can be seen in today's article in USA
> >> Today, I'm not the only one to have noticed this:
> >> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm
> >
> > Perhaps that is because there is nothing for the AF to intercept anymore.

> There are Cessnas! Did you not read the article posted above??

Oh yeah, it takes a supersonic fighter to intercept a spam can...

How many things are wrong with that concept?

I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop and Jay realizes that most
of the fighters in CONUS don't belong the the USAF, they belong to
the National Guard these days, which generally only works one weekend a
month.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On 25-Dec-2007, Jay Honeck > wrote:

> The meager response to the scramble alert is the point -- not the
> basis of the threat. Whether they're responding to a C-130 full of
> midgets flying out of Oshkosh, or 10 SU-35s coming in at mast-top
> level down the Potomac, the fact remains that NORAD could not scramble
> more than a tiny handful of aircraft in response.
>
> Do a little reading on the subject -- NORAD didn't have another
> squadron of F-15s on stand-by. What responded was EVERYTHING we had
> in the sector. And it was pathetic.

Jay, this may surprise you... when I was stationed at Ramstein Air Base, W.
Germany in the mid 1980s, we had only two fully armed F-4Es on ZULU (air to
air) Alert, aka QRA (Quick Reaction Alert). The 36 TFW at Bitburg, Germany
had either two or four F-15s, RAF Bruggen in Northern Germany had two, maybe
four FGR.2 Phantoms, and the 32 TFS at Soesterberg, Netherlands had another
two F-15s on ZULU. The Luftwaffe had a few F-4F Phantoms sitting their own
version of Zulu which had many status of forces agreement restrictions on
when they could launch. The pair of ZULU Luftwaffe F-4F Phantoms that
diverted to Ramstein one day in 1985 were loaded with, I kid you not, four
AIM-9Bs. F-4Fs had no BVR missile capability at the time. This during the
height of the cold war, Reagan's "Evil Empire" sabre rattling and huge
defense spending, the attack on Libya, etc. None of our other jets were ever
loaded with live air-to-air ordnance unless they were being prepped to go up
on ZULU. F-4Es and F-4Fs always flew with a loaded nose gun for weight and
balance, but the gun was safed with a safety pin and another device called a
"holdback tool", only removeable while the jet was on the ground. F-4Es
flying on training sorties would have had to land, be refueled, new drag
chute installed, and have the gun armed (much less a full load of missiles
uploaded) before they would have been militarily effective. Had the Soviets
launched a "bolt out of the blue" attack, we wouldn't have had much to
defend with. It didn't seem to concern USAFE headquarters. It woul;d've been
nearly impossible for the Soviets to prepare for an attack without NATO
detecting the preparations The same thinking goes for NORAD alert these
days. The chances of a "bolt out of the blue" attack by a foreign adversary
are almost nil. We'd have enough notice to loadout many more fighters if
things were looking dicey. So really, your criticisms of the USAF and ANG
are way off base.
And whoever made the comment about the ANG "mostly working one day a
month" has no clue either. About a third to half of an ANG flying unit's
people are full time employees of the unit. Their jets fly many training
sorties every day. Weekenders are really augmentees. I was one of those
once upon a time...
Scott Wilson
Former avionics specialist
149 TFG, Texas ANG, (F-4Cs) 1980-82
35CRS, George AFB, CA (F-4E) 1982-83
526TFS/AMU, Ramstein AB, Germany (F-4E) 1983-86
62 AMS/AGS, McChord AFB, WA (C-130E, C-141B) 1986-91

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> And whoever made the comment about the ANG "mostly working one day a
> month" has no clue either. About a third to half of an ANG flying unit's
> people are full time employees of the unit. Their jets fly many training
> sorties every day. Weekenders are really augmentees. I was one of those
> once upon a time...

If one third to half of an ANG unit are full time civilian employees,
that means half to two thirds are weekenders.

Half to two thirds is "most" by definition and it is one weekend a
month in a Guard/Reserve unit, not one day a month.

And in any case, the likelyhood of a Guard aircraft being fueled and
armed with a pilot ready to hop in and intercept something on a
moments notice is less than the active Air Force.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck]

> Today's WSJ Opinion Page had the following artilce:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119871916502651809.html

Sadly, that link requires that you subscribe to the WSJ. Care to sum
up their points?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop and Jay realizes that most
> of the fighters in CONUS don't belong the the USAF, they belong to
> the National Guard these days, which generally only works one weekend a
> month.

Jim, did I **** in your gas tank at OSH, or what? Apparently you
feel the need to be an asshole to hold a discussion here -- but it's
really not necessary.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Back on topic -- here is the latest on the ground of the F-15s. and
> > the impact it is having on our air defenses, from today's USA Today:
>
> >http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm
>
> Ah, USA Today, that bastion of journalistic capability and integrity...

You're a funny guy, Matt. I've now produced two articles, in two
different widely respected publications, outlining and supporting my
salient points. I'm still waiting to see any evidence from you to the
contrary.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You do understand the difference between an external military threat
> and an internal terrorist threat, don't you?

You *do* understand that the nature of the threat is irrelevant to my
point?

*sigh* No, I guess you don't. And, after a week's worth of posts, I
guess you never will. I give up -- you win!

> The US military is not charged with countering internal terrorist threats
> and it is debatable whether it would even be legal under US law.

WTF does *that* have to do with *anything*?

> And in any case, it doesn't take supersonic fighters to do internal
> security.

Really? Dang, Jim, you are a real student of history.

I can only conclude that you are being deliberately thick, or you are
simply a flawed computer program named "Jim" that is stuck in a never-
ending loop.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

Thanks for the great post, Scott!

> Jay, this may surprise you... when I was stationed at Ramstein Air Base, W.
> Germany in the mid 1980s, we had only two fully armed F-4Es on ZULU (air to
> air) Alert, aka QRA (Quick Reaction Alert). The 36 TFW at Bitburg, Germany
> had either two or four F-15s, RAF Bruggen in Northern Germany had two, maybe
> four FGR.2 Phantoms, and the 32 TFS at Soesterberg, Netherlands had another
> two F-15s on ZULU. The Luftwaffe had a few F-4F Phantoms sitting their own
> version of Zulu which had many status of forces agreement restrictions on
> when they could launch.

Well, that sounds like a squadron or so, altogether. Not a lot
against the Soviet Union, for sure. (And yes, I *am* surprised...)

> Had the Soviets
> launched a "bolt out of the blue" attack, we wouldn't have had much to
> defend with. It didn't seem to concern USAFE headquarters. It woul;d've been
> nearly impossible for the Soviets to prepare for an attack without NATO
> detecting the preparations The same thinking goes for NORAD alert these
> days.

I'll bet you ten bucks that potential "second tier" adversaries --
whether it's Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, or whomever -- took notice
of the ease with which Washington's and New York's airspace was
penetrated -- just the same way WE took notice of Mathias Rust's
(remember him?) easy landing on the Kremlin's grounds...

And I'll bet another ten bucks that Putin and the Russians are
smacking themselves on the forehead now that this information is
becoming commonly known. If they had known there were only 16 armed
jets between them and the English channel...

> The chances of a "bolt out of the blue" attack by a foreign adversary
> are almost nil. We'd have enough notice to loadout many more fighters if
> things were looking dicey. So really, your criticisms of the USAF and ANG
> are way off base.

Um, your not the first person here to misrepresent my points as
"criticism of the USAF" when, in fact, I am criticising their
keepers. This has nothing to do with the USAF or ANG, IMHO. I'm
sure they would LOVE to have the number of aircraft we once were able
to deploy.

There are other points to consider, of course. The F-22, for example,
can out-perform any six F-15s -- but (a) we're a long ways from having
F-22s in significant numbers, and (b) that superiority is only evident
on a symmetric battlefield. Most people don't believe that our next
adversary will be six SU-27s in line-abreast formation.

Thanks again for the great post, Scott. Have you heard anything from
your old buds about the state of affairs with the F-15s?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop and Jay realizes that most
> > of the fighters in CONUS don't belong the the USAF, they belong to
> > the National Guard these days, which generally only works one weekend a
> > month.

> Jim, did I **** in your gas tank at OSH, or what? Apparently you
> feel the need to be an asshole to hold a discussion here -- but it's
> really not necessary.

Having spent time at both ends of the weapons pipeline, I'm a bit
sensitive with regards to the whole subject.

I have nothing against you; I just don't think you know what you are
talking about.

If you want to get indignant about the quality of hardware delivered
to the troops, get upset about the Army insisting on pushing the M-4
when every rifle it has tested against came out better.

There is a need for rifles; not much need for supersonic interceptors.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > You do understand the difference between an external military threat
> > and an internal terrorist threat, don't you?

> You *do* understand that the nature of the threat is irrelevant to my
> point?

Your point that we need better supersonic interceptors?

Or did you have some other point that got lost?

> *sigh* No, I guess you don't. And, after a week's worth of posts, I
> guess you never will. I give up -- you win!

> > The US military is not charged with countering internal terrorist threats
> > and it is debatable whether it would even be legal under US law.

> WTF does *that* have to do with *anything*?

You are the one that keeps talking about 9/11 being justification for
supersonic interceptors, not me.

9/11 was an internal terrorist action.

> > And in any case, it doesn't take supersonic fighters to do internal
> > security.

> Really? Dang, Jim, you are a real student of history.

> I can only conclude that you are being deliberately thick, or you are
> simply a flawed computer program named "Jim" that is stuck in a never-
> ending loop.

Let's summarize.

Your statements were because the US couldn't launch a fleet of supersonic
interceptors on 9/11, we need more supersonic interceptors.

What did I miss?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> Which is as it should be since the threats of the '50s, '60s, '70s,
>> and '80s no longer exist.
>>
>> Here's a news flash; the Soviet Union no longer exists.
>>
>> Here's another news flash; manned bombers have been replaced by
>> ICBM's and cruise missiles for strategic attacks.
>
> Which is why credible people are recommending that we roll the Air
> Force back into the Army.
>
> War planners in the Pentagon apparently agree with you,


Yeah, obviously a bunch of peaceniks,


You are a complete idiot.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On 27-Dec-2007, Jay Honeck > wrote:

> just the same way WE took notice of Mathias Rust's
> (remember him?) easy landing on the Kremlin's grounds...

Mathias WAS intercepted shortly after crossing the East German border. The
Soviet commanders decided not to shoot him down fearing bad press as I
recall. I've read that several of their commanders were sacked afterwards,
and that directly led to the decision to shoot down KAL 007 when it
penetrated Soviet airspace.


> Um, your not the first person here to misrepresent my points as
> "criticism of the USAF" when, in fact, I am criticising their
> keepers. This has nothing to do with the USAF or ANG, IMHO. I'm
> sure they would LOVE to have the number of aircraft we once were able
> to deploy.

But that's one and the same. The President and the Congress didn't make
operational decisions about how many F-4Es the 86 TFW was going to have on
alert, that came from USAFE and NATO. If the USAF Generals at USAFE felt two
F-4Es weren't enough, you can bet there would've been more.
At my next assignment after Ramstein, McChord AFB, Washington from
1986-1991, we had a squadron of F-15s on base, the 318th FIS. They also
had only two jets on alert. And to top that off, they were only armed with
two (out of four possible) AIM-7F Sparrows and the 20mm gun, and no
Sidewinders.
Scott Wilson

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop and Jay realizes that most
>> of the fighters in CONUS don't belong the the USAF, they belong to
>> the National Guard these days, which generally only works one weekend a
>> month.
>
> Jim, did I **** in your gas tank at OSH, or what? Apparently you
> feel the need to be an asshole to hold a discussion here -- but it's
> really not necessary.

But you do it so well...clearly it comes naturally.

[Big John]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:06:36 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
> wrote:

>> I spent 15 years in the Air Defense Command and we furnished thousands
>> of fighters to NORAD for operations. Any aircraft we had on NORAD
>> alert were ARMED (including NUCLEAR Air to air Rocket with a Pk of
>> almost 100% that was test fired over a group (some friends of
>> mine)standing in the open at ground zero). Listening to the arm chair
>> experts on this news group who may have soloed a GA I have refrained
>> myself from trying to outline the old and current NORAD operations.
>
>No on respects your service more than me, Big John, and your defense
>of your modern-day brothers in NORAD is touching -- but what we've got
>today isn't anything like when you were flying air defense. Not by a
>long shot.
>
>Our Air Force is a tiny shadow of what it was in the '50s, '60s, '70s,
>and '80s. Our inability to respond to airborne threats in a timely
>fashion isn't my opinion -- it's a widely discussed (and fretted over)
>fact. The point of this thread -- the fact that our Air Force is
>using out-dated equipment -- isn't a slam on the military, as you seem
>to be assuming. It's a slam on our political leaders who have under-
>funded the procurement of new aircraft.
>
>The fact that we were only able to scramble 2 (that's TWO) F-15s from
>Otis, and a similar number of aircraft from Langley, during the 9/11
>attacks is just one data point illustrating the problem. We just don't
>have enough hardware for any kind of an effective intercept -- even
>over the critical New York - Washington, D.C. corridor.
>
>Here is link to a very interesting article on NORAD's response to the
>9/11 attack, complete with the actual tape recordings of controllers
>and pilots: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=1
>(An aside: This article certainly makes me look at "Vanity Fair" in a
>different light.)
>
>> They wouldn't believe me so why try to educate them on the where's and
>> why's of the real world.
>
>Why would you assume that? If you've got information that controverts
>the official version of events, we're all ears.
>
>> Keep on trying to keep the dishonest, honest Bertie.
>
>Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Oh, sorry. That *was* a joke, right? You're
>calling on anonymous troll to do anything other than...troll?


Jay

I wrote multiple pages covering the history of ADC and NORAD prior to
9/11. I then tore them up as much of history is not applicable to post
9/11.

So short version.

Prior to 9/11 the Airline Aircrews were briefed to do as the hi-
jackers demanded. This led to an occasional loss of an aircraft but
rarely any significant loss of life.

It was routine to scramble fighters to escort (I say again, escort)
the hi-jacked aircraft while it was in US airspace.

While the Fighters were armed, the command authority to order any
shoot down had not been set up in the command/political structure.

Subsequent to 9/11, several things were changed.

1. Cockpits were armored
2. Aircrew were armed.
3. Crews were briefed to land ASAP if hi-jackers tried to take over
the A/C.
3. Command and control was organized with specific individuals
delegated authority to authorize a shoot down of a hi-jacked aircraft
if it looked like it would endanger the US infrastructure.

Now, since 9/11 there have been no hi-jacks (attempted or successful)
in the US so why do we need aircraft on alert???? We can use the money
for other things.

You may ask about a GA with 100# of C-4 wandering around Washington or
over one of our Nuc plants. A intercept and forcing that A/C to land
or divert may be money well spent but so far it has not met the cost
benefit ratio.

As to NYT and their position on hi-jacking. I wouldn't **** on them if
they were on fire and I dumped my subscription to them years ago :o(

Hope you had a good Xmas and are looking forward to a Happy New Year.


Big John
Ex ADC Pilot with a Expert (top) rating.








3

[Jay Honeck]

> We cannot predict what kind of adversaries the U.S. will face in the
> coming decades, but we do know that part of the responsibility of being
> the world's "sole remaining superpower" is to be prepared for as many
> contingencies as possible. One prudent way of reducing the threat is to
> discourage potential adversaries from trying to match America's
> advantages in numbers and technology. Replacing our faltering Eagles
> with additional Raptors may be expensive, but allowing our neglect to be
> exploited by those who wish us harm would be ruinous.

Thanks, John -- that article pretty well sums up my points.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:b14d4f98-0740-4c7f-8165-
:

>> We cannot predict what kind of adversaries the U.S. will face in the
>> coming decades, but we do know that part of the responsibility of being
>> the world's "sole remaining superpower" is to be prepared for as many
>> contingencies as possible. One prudent way of reducing the threat is to
>> discourage potential adversaries from trying to match America's
>> advantages in numbers and technology. Replacing our faltering Eagles
>> with additional Raptors may be expensive, but allowing our neglect to be
>> exploited by those who wish us harm would be ruinous.
>
> Thanks, John -- that article pretty well sums up my points.
> --


Yes, it does. Your point is obvious. Where do you get hats to fit it
though?

Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Dec 27, 8:16*pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> Jim, did I **** in your gas tank at OSH, or what? * Apparently you
> feel the need to be an asshole to hold a discussion here -- but it's
> really not necessary.

While it may not be necessary,In your case, it doesnt seem to hurt ;)

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Back on topic -- here is the latest on the ground of the F-15s. and
>>> the impact it is having on our air defenses, from today's USA Today:
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm
>> Ah, USA Today, that bastion of journalistic capability and integrity...
>
> You're a funny guy, Matt. I've now produced two articles, in two
> different widely respected publications, outlining and supporting my
> salient points. I'm still waiting to see any evidence from you to the
> contrary.

You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
would not want it published. So, go on believing what you want and what
USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
others here with similar inside knowledge.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
> would not want it published. *So, go on believing what you want and what
> USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
> others here with similar inside knowledge.

Ooooooooooooo...I feel so...double-oh-seven-ish... You could tell
us, but then you'd have to kill us...?

Let's see if I've got this straight: You claim to have secret
information that disproves the events of 9/11 (as published in Vanity
Fair) *and* discounts the fact that our interception capabilities have
been marginalized by the grounding of our F-15 fleet (as published in
USA Today)?

I s'pose you know who really killed JFK, RFK, MLK, and Marilyn Monroe,
too?

C'mon, Matt -- surely you can do better than *that*!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:b88b3db9-3ebf-4848-883f-
:

>> You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
>> would not want it published. *So, go on believing what you want and what
>
>> USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
>> others here with similar inside knowledge.
>
> Ooooooooooooo...I feel so...double-oh-seven-ish...

Really? cuz you sound like an ignoramous.

And i don't mean that in a "good" way.


Bertie

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
> > would not want it published. *So, go on believing what you want and what
> > USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
> > others here with similar inside knowledge.
>
> Ooooooooooooo...I feel so...double-oh-seven-ish... You could tell
> us, but then you'd have to kill us...?
[snip]
>
> C'mon, Matt -- surely you can do better than *that*!

Vulnerabilities of US military systems are usually classified. Tactics and
procedures for today's operations (including intercepts in the NAS) are at
the very least For Official Use Only (which is exempt from FOIA requests).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
>> would not want it published. So, go on believing what you want and what
>> USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
>> others here with similar inside knowledge.
>
> Ooooooooooooo...I feel so...double-oh-seven-ish... You could tell
> us, but then you'd have to kill us...?
>
> Let's see if I've got this straight: You claim to have secret
> information that disproves the events of 9/11 (as published in Vanity
> Fair) *and* discounts the fact that our interception capabilities have
> been marginalized by the grounding of our F-15 fleet (as published in
> USA Today)?

I expected this to be your reaction given your general level of paranoia
with respect to all things government. I'm not claiming that only a few
interceptors WERE launched on 9/11, I am claiming that this isn't
because that is all that COULD HAVE been launched. There is a huge
difference here that you are unable to understand or unwilling to accept.

The issue wasn't capability it was decision making, plain and simple.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>> You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
>>> would not want it published. So, go on believing what you want and what
>>> USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
>>> others here with similar inside knowledge.
>> Ooooooooooooo...I feel so...double-oh-seven-ish... You could tell
>> us, but then you'd have to kill us...?
> [snip]
>> C'mon, Matt -- surely you can do better than *that*!
>
> Vulnerabilities of US military systems are usually classified. Tactics and
> procedures for today's operations (including intercepts in the NAS) are at
> the very least For Official Use Only (which is exempt from FOIA requests).
>

Bob, you know that, I know that, and almost every other person posting
here seems to understand that. It is only Jay who can't comprehend that
our military has reasons for not disclosing every detail of their
capability to Vanity Fair or USA Today.

I still can't believe Jay is so gullible that he could read USA Today's
Cessna threat comment and then believe anything else in the article.
That is a level of naivete not often seen in this day and age.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> The issue wasn't capability it was decision making, plain and simple.

So you're saying that we had more capable (or, at least, more)
interceptors available in the New York to DC corridor, but the command
authority decided not to launch them?

Given the short length of time they had to assess the situation, and
given the fact that the Pentagon itself was under attack, this seems
unlikely at best. In the haze of battle, not knowing the nature or
duration of the attack, I would be extraordinarily surprised if they
didn't launch everything they had.

In fact, if they *didn't* launch everything available, the conspiracy
nuts would have found out about it long ago, methinks, and had a field
day with the information.

But whatever -- we've beaten this one to death, and what we know, or
think we know, is of little consequence. All we really know is that
the F-15s are grounded until further notice, the F-16s are spread
thin, and the F-22s are too few to matter.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The issue wasn't capability it was decision making, plain and simple.
>
> So you're saying that we had more capable (or, at least, more)
> interceptors available in the New York to DC corridor, but the command
> authority decided not to launch them?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.


> Given the short length of time they had to assess the situation, and
> given the fact that the Pentagon itself was under attack, this seems
> unlikely at best. In the haze of battle, not knowing the nature or
> duration of the attack, I would be extraordinarily surprised if they
> didn't launch everything they had.
>
> In fact, if they *didn't* launch everything available, the conspiracy
> nuts would have found out about it long ago, methinks, and had a field
> day with the information.
>
> But whatever -- we've beaten this one to death, and what we know, or
> think we know, is of little consequence. All we really know is that
> the F-15s are grounded until further notice, the F-16s are spread
> thin, and the F-22s are too few to matter.

Wrong still. All F-15s are not grounded. Only those considered "not
critical."

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:0dfa6c4e-b8ad-4a12-9636-
:

>> The issue wasn't capability it was decision making, plain and simple.
>
> So you're saying that we had more capable (or, at least, more)
> interceptors available in the New York to DC corridor, but the command
> authority decided not to launch them?
>
> Given the short length of time they had to assess the situation,


Shorter than your attention span?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

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