F-15 Breakup Animation & video

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marco Leon[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
> The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
> designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
> president.
>
> To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
> grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in
> 1943.
>
> I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
> but I fear otherwise.

Why would you fear otherwise? If the Air Force winds up grounding a large
enough number of F-15's, they may not have an option *but* to increase
production.

http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/405748.html "F-22 rises as an
option after F-15 faults found"

Then again, I'm sure whoever getd into the White House next term will have
an impact on the outcome...

Marco

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

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

> Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:
>
> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-018.wmv
>
> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-028.wmv
>
> The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
> designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan
> was president.
>
> To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
> grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in
> 1943.
>

No it wouldn't




Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
>> F-35, but I fear otherwise.
>
> Why would you fear otherwise? If the Air Force winds up grounding a large
> enough number of F-15's, they may not have an option *but* to increase
> production.

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

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

Sure, it's a different time, you might say, and we've got satellites to keep
an eye on things, now -- but IMHO maintaining a modern Air Force is cheap
insurance, and one of the few things that our Federal Government is actually
*supposed* to be doing with our tax dollars.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Slug]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:
>
> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-018.wmv
>
> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-028.wmv
>
> The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
> designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
> president.
>
> To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
> grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.
>
> I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
> F-35, but I fear otherwise.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

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

>>> I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
>>> F-35, but I fear otherwise.
>>
>> Why would you fear otherwise? If the Air Force winds up grounding a
>> large enough number of F-15's, they may not have an option *but* to
>> increase production.
>
> Because the draw-down of our Air Force since the end of the Cold War
> has been steep and continuous. Some are even suggesting that it be
> re-combined with the army, since it has become prohibitively expensive
> to maintain it as a separate force at its current size.
>
> This type of precipitous disarmament happened after World War I, and
> as a result we were woefully unprepared for what followed.

Untrue.





> a new generation -- apparently ignorant of history


And you right up there at the front...


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Slug > wrote in :

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed
>> in-flight:
>>
>> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-018.wmv
>>
>> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-028.wmv
>>
>> The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
>> designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan
>> was president.
>>
>> To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
>> grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in
>> 1943.
>>
>> I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
>> F-35, but I fear otherwise.
>
> Don't you know Government cheese and hand-outs and illegal
> immigrant free college tuition supersedes new airplanes?
>

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


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:SULij.35366$Ux2.369@attbi_s22...
>
> Sure, it's a different time, you might say, and we've got satellites to
> keep an eye on things, now -- but IMHO maintaining a modern Air Force is
> cheap insurance, and one of the few things that our Federal Government is
> actually *supposed* to be doing with our tax dollars.
>

Actually, the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to
maintain an Air Force.

[Darkwing]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
> Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:
>
> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-018.wmv
>
> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-028.wmv
>
> The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
> designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
> president.
>
> To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
> grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in
> 1943.
>
> I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
> but I fear otherwise.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

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

[Marco Leon[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:SULij.35366$Ux2.369@attbi_s22...
>
> Because the draw-down of our Air Force since the end of the Cold War has
> been steep and continuous. Some are even suggesting that it be
> re-combined with the army, since it has become prohibitively expensive to
> maintain it as a separate force at its current size.
>
> This type of precipitous disarmament happened after World War I, and as a
> result we were woefully unprepared for what followed. Guys like Curtis
> Lemay made sure that the same thing did not happen after World War II --
> but all the visionaries of that generation are dead, leaving a new
> generation -- apparently ignorant of history -- to repeat the mistakes of
> the past.
>
> Sure, it's a different time, you might say, and we've got satellites to
> keep an eye on things, now -- but IMHO maintaining a modern Air Force is
> cheap insurance, and one of the few things that our Federal Government is
> actually *supposed* to be doing with our tax dollars.

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

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

Marco

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:SULij.35366$Ux2.369@attbi_s22...
> >
> > Sure, it's a different time, you might say, and we've got satellites to
> > keep an eye on things, now -- but IMHO maintaining a modern Air Force is
> > cheap insurance, and one of the few things that our Federal Government is
> > actually *supposed* to be doing with our tax dollars.
> >

> Actually, the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to
> maintain an Air Force.

Nor does it explicitly give the federal government the power to requlate
telephones, radio, television, or nuclear reactors or create and maintain
NASA as none of those things existed when the Constitution was written.

It is done through interpretation of the intent of the framers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dennis Johnson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
> I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
> but I fear otherwise.

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that
have pilots on board. There are huge disadvantages to carrying a person.
The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and
often those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight penalty
for the life support systems, including the cockpit, ejection seat, and
pressurization system are considerable. The potential acceleration of the
airplane must be greatly reduced due to the frailty of the human on board.

A warplane without a human on board could be much lighter, faster, more
maneuverable, and dramatically cheaper. To some extent, we already have
this: cruise missiles and UAVs.

Because they are so cheap, relatively speaking, the US could flood an enemy
with dozens or hundreds of them. With modern bomb technology, only a few of
them would have to get through to accomplish most targeting objectives.

I think the Air Force is moving in this direction, but far too slowly
because the leadership is made up mostly of pilots and there is a strong
unconscious desire to eliminate pilots. There is too much of the World War
I, scarf blowing in the wind, romantic notion of fighter pilots.

We now have an Air Force far more than adequate to defend against present
threats. I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22
roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed warplanes
instead. I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question of when.

Best,
Dennis Johnson

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Nor does it explicitly give the federal government the power to requlate
> telephones, radio, television, or nuclear reactors or create and maintain
> NASA as none of those things existed when the Constitution was written.
>

Agreed.


>
> It is done through interpretation of the intent of the framers.
>

Yes, and the intent of the framers can be interpreted so as to give the
federal government unlimited power.

[Darkwing]

"Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
>> I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
>> F-35, but I fear otherwise.
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that
> have pilots on board. There are huge disadvantages to carrying a person.
> The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and
> often those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight
> penalty for the life support systems, including the cockpit, ejection
> seat, and pressurization system are considerable. The potential
> acceleration of the airplane must be greatly reduced due to the frailty of
> the human on board.
>
> A warplane without a human on board could be much lighter, faster, more
> maneuverable, and dramatically cheaper. To some extent, we already have
> this: cruise missiles and UAVs.
>
> Because they are so cheap, relatively speaking, the US could flood an
> enemy with dozens or hundreds of them. With modern bomb technology, only
> a few of them would have to get through to accomplish most targeting
> objectives.
>
> I think the Air Force is moving in this direction, but far too slowly
> because the leadership is made up mostly of pilots and there is a strong
> unconscious desire to eliminate pilots. There is too much of the World
> War I, scarf blowing in the wind, romantic notion of fighter pilots.
>
> We now have an Air Force far more than adequate to defend against present
> threats. I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22
> roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed
> warplanes instead. I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question
> of when.
>
> Best,
> Dennis Johnson
>

They have already cancelled quite a few projects involving manned aircraft
in favor of UAV's with Boeing getting the nod after losing the F-35
contract. Actually the military ordered less F-35's then they originally
planned so they could buy more UAV's.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Nor does it explicitly give the federal government the power to requlate
> > telephones, radio, television, or nuclear reactors or create and maintain
> > NASA as none of those things existed when the Constitution was written.
> >

> Agreed.

> >
> > It is done through interpretation of the intent of the framers.
> >

> Yes, and the intent of the framers can be interpreted so as to give the
> federal government unlimited power.

Sure, all you have to do is corrupt the majority of the Supreme Court.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Sure, all you have to do is corrupt the majority of the Supreme Court.
>

You say that like it hasn't been done.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Nor does it explicitly give the federal government the power to
>> > requlate telephones, radio, television, or nuclear reactors or
>> > create and maintain NASA as none of those things existed when the
>> > Constitution was written.
>> >
>
>> Agreed.
>
>> >
>> > It is done through interpretation of the intent of the framers.
>> >
>
>> Yes, and the intent of the framers can be interpreted so as to give
>> the federal government unlimited power.
>
> Sure, all you have to do is corrupt the majority of the Supreme Court.
>

And that surely could never be done.


Bertie

[LWG]

Only if you are a liar or a thief.

> Yes, and the intent of the framers can be interpreted so as to give the
> federal government unlimited power.
>

[LWG]

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

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

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


By Robert S. Dudney, Editor in Chief

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[email protected]]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html

Rudy's Historic Rewrite

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

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

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Only if you are a liar or a thief.
>

Then Congress is comprised of liars and thieves.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
. net...
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html
>
> Rudy's Historic Rewrite
>
> Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that
> happened mostly under a Republican administration:
> Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace
> dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a
> 25,
> 30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that.
> We - our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000.
> Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the
> administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993
> <http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0993.pdf>
> (which
> was Bush's last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty
> soldiers -
> a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back
> to 1990
> <http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0990.pdf>,
> during
> the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton's cuts in the military, while large,
> were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001
> <http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/M05/hst0901.pdf>, the Army went
> from
> 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military
> went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.
>
> Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush
> administration: In 1989
> <http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0989.pdf>, the
> military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993,
> those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.
>
> And as we've pointed out before
> <http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_missteps.html>, it was the first Bush
> administration - specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney - that
> began bragging openly of the peace dividend.
>

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

[quietguy]

On Jan 14, 12:01*pm, "Dennis Johnson" > wrote:

> I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that
> have pilots on board....
>
>I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22
> roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed warplanes
> instead. *I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question of when..
>
The Air Force has already started down that road, albeit slowly and
tentatively: they've recently admitted that UAV's have been more
extensively used for combat sorties than USAF leaders had let on and
some recent graduates of pilot training have been assiged to UAV's.
That second move is controversial inside and outside the USAF: some
argue that pilots are not the best choices for a kind of operation
fundamentally different from in-the-cockpit flying. If the most
suitable type of individual is at all like a certain chair-flier on
these forums, then I'm glad I'm retired. Fighter jocks were hard
enough to take...

[Blueskies]

"Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message . ..
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
>> I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35, but I fear otherwise.
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that have pilots on board. There are huge
> disadvantages to carrying a person. The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and often
> those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight penalty for the life support systems, including the
> cockpit, ejection seat, and pressurization system are considerable. The potential acceleration of the airplane must
> be greatly reduced due to the frailty of the human on board.
>

Air power is one thing, sea power is another. Apparently Japan has a larger navy than the brits!
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jni/jni071217_1_n.shtml

[[email protected]]

On 14-Jan-2008, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

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

Careful, your bias is showing.
Scott Wilson

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
. net...
>
> Careful, your bias is showing.
>

Can't, I have none.

[[email protected]]

On 14-Jan-2008, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Can't, I have none.



Oh please. I once talked to a Green Bay controller who knows you, and he
said you are about as far right-wing as they come, implied you're almost
looney about it. Stuff I've seen you post in the past confirmed it.
Scott Wilson

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>> Careful, your bias is showing.
>>
>
> Can't, I have none.


Nor have I.

I am a Fair and Balanced guy. I know it's true because I believe it, and
since I am without bias, I must be right.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On 14-Jan-2008, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> Can't, I have none.
>
>
>
> Oh please. I once talked to a Green Bay controller who knows you, and he
> said you are about as far right-wing as they come, implied you're almost
> looney about it. Stuff I've seen you post in the past confirmed it.
> Scott Wilson


The guy you talked to obviously didn't know what he was talking about.
Almost?? :-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
et...
>
> Oh please. I once talked to a Green Bay controller who knows you, and he
> said you are about as far right-wing as they come, implied you're almost
> looney about it.
>

Doubtful and irrelevant.


>
> Stuff I've seen you post in the past confirmed it.
>

Such as?

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Actually, the Constitution does not give the federal government the power
> to maintain an Air Force.

Actually, it does -- unless you don't believe an Air Force contributes to
the "common defence" of the country:

Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

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

I don't think that is a valid comparison. What airforce today has
planes that outperform F-15s like an ME109 would outperform a Spad or
a Camel?

[[email protected]]

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

There's nothing cheap about an F-22.

[Marissa Reichert]

I don't want to say the Air Force is milking this in a time of F-22 cuts, but
Jay don't you think it is a little strange that the cause of the accident had
all but been set in stone in mere hours after this mishap? Think about what
incentives there could be at play. Also, how many accidents have had a cause
determined so quickly, particularly with a relatively complex (if older)
machine? Sure the longeron failed at some point, but it is fascinating how
quickly potential causes (e.g. an Oxygen tank can go boom, right behind the
cockpit, or the emergency tank, or ____). Most other investigations took time
to eliminate other possible causes first.



Jay Honeck wrote:

> Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:
>
> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-018.wmv
>
> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-028.wmv
>
> The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
> designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
> president.
>
> To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and grandfathers
> flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.
>
> I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
> but I fear otherwise.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:G2Wij.300291$Fc.57396@attbi_s21:

>> Actually, the Constitution does not give the federal government the
>> power to maintain an Air Force.
>
> Actually, it does -- unless you don't believe an Air Force contributes
> to the "common defence" of the country:
>
> Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and
> collect Taxes,
> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Explains why they don't subsidize you, then.

Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Marissa Reichert" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't want to say the Air Force is milking this in a time of F-22 cuts,
> but
> Jay don't you think it is a little strange that the cause of the accident
> had
> all but been set in stone in mere hours after this mishap? Think about
> what
> incentives there could be at play. Also, how many accidents have had a
> cause
> determined so quickly, particularly with a relatively complex (if older)
> machine? Sure the longeron failed at some point, but it is fascinating
> how
> quickly potential causes (e.g. an Oxygen tank can go boom, right behind
> the
> cockpit, or the emergency tank, or ____). Most other investigations took
> time
> to eliminate other possible causes first.
>

Do you have reason to believe that was not the case in this investigation?

[Big John]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:33:09 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:
>
>http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-018.wmv
>
>http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080110-028.wmv
>
>The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
>designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
>president.
>
>To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and grandfathers
>flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.
>
>I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
>but I fear otherwise.


Jay

How do you equate the age of the B-52 fleet compared to the age of the
early Model F-15's you are talking about?

Someone on this thread mentioned the White Scarf era. I still have
mine :o)

Big John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you equate the age of the B-52 fleet compared to the age of the
> early Model F-15's you are talking about?
>

In terms of flying hours the B-52 fleet may be younger.

[Dave S]

Jay Honeck wrote:

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

Hardly a fair comparison.

The F15 is still an excellent air superiority fighter. It has a PERFECT,
unblemished record - its never been shot down. Granted much of this is
because of the integrated system in which its deployed - stealth takes
out the enemies eyes, AWACS serves as your eye in the sky, etc.. - even
if it had to operate without the system, it would be formidable.

The B52 assembly line was shut down in the 60's.. and its said the last
crews to fly it have yet to be born. Despite being superseded by the B1B
and the B2, its still the front line workhorse.

Aging issues in the fleet are a serious concern, but that does not mean
the design itself is obsolete or faulty. If new parts and airframes were
readily available, it would still be top dog for quite a while.

[Darkwing]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Big John" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> How do you equate the age of the B-52 fleet compared to the age of the
>>> early Model F-15's you are talking about?
>>>
>>
>> In terms of flying hours the B-52 fleet may be younger.
>>
> Ummm, no. The design life of the F-15 is about half of the current average
> hours on the B-52 fleet. It took less than 2 minutes to google that up.
>
> I suspect you'll try to nitpick this, McNicoll. Don't. Just accept the
> fact
> that you are wrong again.
>
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here


A huge bomber is being flown at lower g-loads than a fighter would be in
normal training and sorties I would think.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:G2Wij.300291$Fc.57396@attbi_s21...
>
> Actually, it does -- unless you don't believe an Air Force contributes to
> the "common defence" of the country:
>
> Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
> Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
>

You didn't go far enough:


"...but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and
with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the
subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the
standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current
coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall
be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union,
suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for
governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the
officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular
states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of
the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased
by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be,
for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or
officer thereof."


If you wish to gain an understanding of the Constitution, the best sources
are James Madison's "Notes On the Constitutional Convention of 1787", "The
Federalist Papers", and "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:G2Wij.300291$Fc.57396@attbi_s21...
>>
>> Actually, it does -- unless you don't believe an Air Force
>> contributes to the "common defence" of the country:
>>
>> Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and
>> collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and
>> provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
>> States..."
>>
>
> You didn't go far enough:
>


He never does, but then he's got you to take up the slack.


Bertie
>

[Big John]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:45:00 -0600, Dave S >
wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
>> grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.
>>
>
>Hardly a fair comparison.
>
>The F15 is still an excellent air superiority fighter. It has a PERFECT,
>unblemished record - its never been shot down. Granted much of this is
>because of the integrated system in which its deployed - stealth takes
>out the enemies eyes, AWACS serves as your eye in the sky, etc.. - even
>if it had to operate without the system, it would be formidable.
>
>The B52 assembly line was shut down in the 60's.. and its said the last
>crews to fly it have yet to be born. Despite being superseded by the B1B
>and the B2, its still the front line workhorse.
>
>Aging issues in the fleet are a serious concern, but that does not mean
>the design itself is obsolete or faulty. If new parts and airframes were
>readily available, it would still be top dog for quite a while.


Dave

To add to your good post.

Here is an extract on the F-15 problem. Jay, note the number of birds
that have been returned to flight status in the marked paragraph.


Big John
-----------------------------------------------------


11/21/2007 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFPN) -- Gen. John D.W.
Corley, commander, Air Combat Command, sent a message Nov. 21 to F-15
pilots, weapons systems officers and maintenance professionals
outlining the actions the Air Force has taken following the Nov. 2
F-15C Eagle mishap that resulted in the loss of the aircraft.

The message reads:

(Quote) Airmen

On 2 November, the Air Force experienced an F-15C mishap resulting in
the loss of the aircraft. The circumstances of the mishap indicated
catastrophic structural failure. On 3 November, the Air Force grounded
its F-15 fleet. This decision was not made lightly. It was the right
thing to do based upon the nature of this mishap.

Grounding a fleet of nearly 700 front-line aircraft has significant
operational impact. Total force, joint and coalition partners were
able to mitigate that impact.

The cause of the mishap remains under investigation. Air Force
maintenance and operations professionals and industry experts are
working with the accident investigation board to examine all aspects
of the mishap. At the same time, structural engineers have conducted
in-depth technical reviews of data from multiple sources. We continue
to proceed in an inclusive and transparent fashion to derive, as best
as humanly possible, the cause of the mishap.

We evaluated the grounded fleet. First, we focused on the F-15Es. They
are the newest F-15s and have been exposed to less stress. They are
structurally different than the A-D models. Problems identified during
years of A-D model usage were designed "out" of the E-model. Given
these differences, and after consultation with Warner Robins Air
Logistics Center and the AIB, we returned the F-15E fleet to flying
status following successful inspections.

Next, we concentrated on the remainder of the grounded fleet. The AIB
is now focused on the area just aft of the cockpit and slightly
forward of the inlets. Warner Robins ALC mandated a thorough
inspection and repair of all structural components in this area. I
have directed each F-15 aircraft be inspected and cleared before
returning to operational status. Today, ACC issued (a flight crew
information file) and Warner Robins ALC issued an Operational
Supplemental Tech Order to further direct and guide your pre-flight
and post-flight actions.

The F-15 is a formidable war fighting aircraft and workhorse for our
Air Force. I applaud each and every Eagle pilot, WSO and maintainer
for the meticulous and disciplined way you approached this challenge.
Mission accomplishment entails risk. Together, we must remain vigilant
and focused on operational risk management to mitigate this risk.
Airmen speak up when they see something wrong. I rely on you to ensure
all operations and maintenance parameters are in order before flight.
The F-15 community can take great pride in the fact that you have met
this challenge. We must deliver air power on time, on target given our
overriding duty to defend our Country. (End Quote)

NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH-----------------------

There are nearly 700 F-15s in the Air Force inventory. As of today,
219 of the 224 E-models and 294 of the 442 A-D models in the inventory
have been inspected and cleared for flight.
------------------------------------------

In releasing the F-15 fleet to fly, General Corley said the Air Force
was accepting a degree of risk.

"We accept this risk because of our overriding duty to provide
unrivaled combat air power for the defense of our Country," the
general said.

(Courtesy of Air Combat Command News Service)

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:G2Wij.300291$Fc.57396@attbi_s21...
>> Actually, it does -- unless you don't believe an Air Force contributes to
>> the "common defence" of the country:
>>
>> Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
>> Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
>>
>
> You didn't go far enough:
>
>
> "...but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the
> United States;
>
<SNIP>

What's your point? He posted the part that was that had something to do
with what he was talking about. Unless it is your position that
something else in Art. I Sec 8 says that the Air Force isn't included in
the "Common Defense" clause you are just blowing smoke.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ummm, no. The design life of the F-15 is about half of the current average
> hours on the B-52 fleet. It took less than 2 minutes to google that up.
>
> I suspect you'll try to nitpick this, McNicoll. Don't. Just accept the
> fact that you are wrong again.
>

I suspect you're not at all aware that you made an apples-oranges
comparison.

B-52 airframes average about 18,000 flying hours. The airframe life is
estimated to be between 32,500 and 37,500 hours, depending on the usage
history of the individual aircraft. They are relatively young in terms of
flying hours because they spent much of their operational life on ground
alert.

By comparison, the airframe life of the F-15A-D is 8000 hours, some are
approaching that now. So in terms of flying hours the B-52 fleet is indeed
considerably younger than the F-15 fleet.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> You didn't go far enough:

In what way?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"