backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 183 comment(s) - last by winterspan.. on Dec 11 at 3:41 AM

An F-15 flies alongside two F-22s  (Source: Aviation Explorer)
Structural failures in the F-15 leads officials to scramble for more F-22s

The last time DailyTech discussed the USAF's F-22 Raptor in detail, the fighter was in the news due to an International Date Line (IDL) bug. When a group of Raptors flying from Hawaii to Japan crossed the IDL, multiple computer systems crashed on the planes forcing them to rely on their accompanying tankers to guide them to safety.

Today, the Raptors are in the news again -- but this time it's not for something negative towards the plane itself. The Defense Department is reportedly making plans to extend the production of the F-22.

The original plan was to produce 183 F-22s at a cost of $132 million USD each. The last F-22 was to be delivered by the end of 2011.

The move to continue production of the F-22 beyond 2011 comes amid recent safety concerns over the 30+ year old F-15. A Missouri Air National Guard F-15C crashed on November 2 during a routine training mission. Early investigations suggested a structural failure as the direct cause of the crash.

As a result, USAF grounded the entire fleet of F-15s. "The whole fleet was already flying on flight restrictions due to metal fatigue," said Lexington Institute military analyst Loren Thompson in early November. "In this case, the planes that are grounded are supposed to be America's top-of-the line air superiority plane. These are the sinews of our global air dominance."

The planes were then put back into service on November 19 only to be recently grounded again. All 442 of the USAFs F-15A, B, C and D aircraft were grounded -- only the newest F-15E Strike Eagles remain cleared for regularly scheduled flights.

Thompson noted that money is being squirreled away into the fiscal 2009 budget to make room for additional F-22 aircraft after the last of the originally planned 183 planes is built in 2011. The Air Force has requested as many as 381 of the aircraft, but it's unlikely that the money being set aside will allow for anywhere near that number of aircraft.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Good
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/3/2007 10:02:33 AM , Rating: 3
This is a good thing. Planes do not have 50+ year life spans. Some of the older bombers (B-52) do, but they have been through numerous major overhauls.

By increasing our armament of F-22's we can further solidify our hold on air dominance into the 21st century.




RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 10:10:13 AM , Rating: 4
I agree. Air warfare is really where the US has its stronghold.


RE: Good
By cochy on 12/3/2007 10:18:21 AM , Rating: 5
"Let's give em' an air show!"


RE: Good
By iFX on 12/3/2007 10:20:25 AM , Rating: 1
I agree there is nothing that can touch us in the air, but we are the most devastating open field army on the planet also. Urban fighting has proved to be a challenge but in the open country no country can oppose us.


RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 10:24:09 AM , Rating: 1
I think we are still the most advanced urban fighting force...but its still hard to fight in urban areas where the resistance is more familiar with the surroundings than you are.

But i think our future technology in weapons, night vision, heat signals, etc will be prove to be even more successful.


RE: Good
By smitty3268 on 12/3/2007 2:53:53 PM , Rating: 4
Urban areas lend themselves well to guerrilla warfare, which levels out the differences between superior armies and their enemies, especially when the occupying army is hesitant to simply kill any innocent civilians. Still, we're certainly one of the best - I might be inclined to say Israel is better, simply because they've had so much experience in this area.

Where the US really wasn't very good was in peacekeeping, and acting like police/diplomats rather than a military organization. Which isn't really a surprise given that this was really frowned upon by our military for decades. Patreus has really worked on changing this recently.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/3/2007 5:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Even in Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) or Urban warfare, technology plays a key role. It can give you the upper hand if employed properly but if you become too dependent, when your shit fails, it'll be a long day ;-)
Either way training is the key. It's where the boots hit the ground.

Israelis definitely know Urban warfare. Unfortunately they've learned through trial by fire. The Brits have had there share with Ireland.

Now as for who's better, well, Ask a US Marine, a Royal Marine or their Israeli counterpart who's better!

The US has done a lot of peace keeping efforts. Usually there are very strict rules on the amount of time we are there and we do prefer that the UN or a multi-national peacekeeping force replaces us. This is because, like you said we aren't designed to be a peacekeeping force and secondly we don't want to be viewed as an occupying force.


RE: Good
By maven81 on 12/3/2007 11:05:58 AM , Rating: 3
I think history has shown time and time again, that a technologically superior army can be fought to a standstill by one that is less advanced but has a greater numbers, and even more so if it has home field advantage.
Such thinking is therefore dangerous and misguided, since this perceived invincibility can totally blind someone to the harsh realities of war.
Frankly I think future warfare will mainly consist of very small, localized conflicts, where this open field advantage is even less relevant.


RE: Good
By iFX on 12/3/2007 11:15:51 AM , Rating: 1
This is why I said urban fighting has been a challenge.


RE: Good
By Regs on 12/3/2007 1:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
Urban fighting will remain a challenge since it causes a death rate amongst our troops which is not acceptable to our public or politicians.

The technology to fight urban war from a distance with minimal collateral damage is out there but is very costly.

I don't see our Marines being equipped very well with modern armor and vests. So I can't imagine their weaponry being any different. Maybe special forces, but special forces do more recon, rescue, and counter-intellgence than combat.


RE: Good
By timmiser on 12/3/2007 3:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
The strives we have made on the technology behind urban fighting has been huge. Due to the soldier armour technology, we have seen a huge number of dismemberments in the US forces but very little torso injuries by comparision. This is just another step on what will be a future focus on leg and arm armour.

There is also a trend being developed in robotic recon. In a urban situation, knowing where the enemy is hiding is the key and what better way to find them by hooking up cameras to an R/C helicopter and fly around the suspected building looking on the roof and in the windows and into the rooms. Kind of an evolution of the unmaned predater drone aircaft.


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 11:40:32 AM , Rating: 3
Thats because the US has to play by the rules. If we were allowed to throw the rule book away in a war situation then it would be a very different story.

Our enemies fire from Churches, Schools, and hospitals and we take a more civilized manner in fighting back.

We fight more of a politically correct war then our adversaries. If we didnt have to fight this way then no one would stand a chance.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 12:06:24 PM , Rating: 1
Hit the nail on the head. We have to follow rules. They don't. Iraq has been a disaster because politicians have tried to run the war.


RE: Good
By SeeManRun on 12/3/2007 1:07:52 PM , Rating: 3
Well, when your country is getting invaded, you'll probably go to greater lengths than an invading army. The invading army can just go home if they lose, but if you lose, you may very well die, or be a prisoner. Makes one fight harder than the hired army of an invader.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/3/2007 2:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
No. They're just plain dogs, doing things like hideing caches of weapons and ammo in families basements, then making a fuss when an airstrike takes the place out, killing the family, as seen in the Lebanon conflict last summer.

Reconciliation is the ultimate outcome; look at Northern Ireland, isn't the present leader a former IRA guerilla? This sort of after-the-fact inclusiveness has a strong enough precedent, not to mention our success in places like Anbar province is based on working with people who previously were fighting against us -- or at the very least, they expressed hostile neutrality.

They're dogs. Lets not be PC. They are dogs.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/4/2007 12:06:03 AM , Rating: 1
-1 rating, but am I wrong? There's no justification for their tactics; they terrorize their own people to push them to radicalize, and they don't have to fight like animals due to the threat of certain death if they fail because an argument could be made that reconciliation without mass executions is in fact probably the best way to end civil strife.

Did the French or Germans take it to this level in WW1? No. Did the allies in WW2? Not systematically; we did drop pamphlets in the targetted towns of nuclear strikes warning them to leave soon, and there was an "ends justify the means" rationale which these people don't have. Did Americans take it to this level when fighting the Civil War? Except for nuts in Kansas, no.

We didn't treat the Tories very nicely in our own Revolution, but nothing on the scale these people have got in killing civilians, and we did have regular armies in the field despite British superiority and their hired German mercenaries.

They don't have an excuse, and wont apologize for pointing it out. Down-mod this too. :P


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/3/2007 1:37:59 PM , Rating: 1
The US ignores rules it wants to. For instance the invasion was a war crime as defined by the US, the Nazi were executed for doing the same thing the US/UK did. Its illegal to bomb or use Chemical weapons in cites with civilians present. Doesn't stop the US doing it.

I suppose the most effective way would have been to nuke the cities - however once you dis-regard the rules don't expect other countries to play nice. If China, Russia, Pakistan decide to start handing out nuclear weapons US military advantage will count for nought.

Remember, you enemy will not fight you where you are strongest, that would be stupid. The US commands the Air and open countryside, great... you can have it. Thats why Iraqi Information Ministers parting words were that 'they had the American just where they wanted them - in Baghdad'. Four years later the war is still being fought.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 1:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats why Iraqi Information Ministers parting words were that 'they had the American just where they wanted them - in Baghdad'. Four years later the war is still being fought.

His words were not ominious foreshadow, they were delusional ramblings of a complete idiot and/or liar. The Iraqi military forces that we faced when we invaded Iraq have long since melted away, and the enemy we face today is a much different beast. The former Iraqi government neither planned on nor counted on this as part of their plan.


RE: Good
By BMFPitt on 12/3/2007 11:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
His words were not ominious foreshadow, they were delusional ramblings of a complete idiot and/or liar.
Or comic genius.