Airforce may be be going out of business

[Presley Cannady]

Isn't this why the US has an Office of Secretary of Defense? OSD does sit atop NSS and NMS chains and ultimately submits the budget. Isn't the idea to shape the adversarial process of budgeting to serve unified national security objectives?

[Ken White]

Unfortunately, that reasonable and logical idea runs into the parochialism of the services and, far more importantly, into Congress which can and will skew the process to insure their priorities are addressed. As Congress changes due to elections (or retirements, since we now seem to have Congroids for life) and as Committee members change, those priorities change. Congress mumbles and DoD heeds...

Neither their priorities nor changes to them are often reasonable and logical. Amazing amount of DoD stuff in PA and WV...

[Presley Cannady]

My point isn't that the system consistently tends towards the optimal force, but that it at least produces an acceptable one given the foreseeable range of missions with considerably more reliability than prior to 1986 and definitely prior to 1947. The United States hasn't fielded a military that could conceivably be defeated operationally in any of non-nuclear scenario in at least since the Gulf War, possibly more so, and has done so at expenditure that never exceeded 10 percent of the GDP. Beyond the admittedly vast space for cost and risk optimization, what more can you ask for than that?

[Ken White]

As I've often said, it really works better than it has right to...

Systems are clean and generally precise. Humans are inherently messy and are are rarely precise. Fortunately it mostly works out.

[carl]

I just read a newspaper story stating that the USAF has grounded 130 of its approximately 400 A-10s for wing cracks.

That makes 3 first line aircraft in the last year or so that have had major structural problems, the F-15, P-3 and now the A-10. These old airplanes are wearing out and will have to be replaced, not modernized or upgraded because the aluminum is just giving up the struggle.

There is no cheap way out of this. It will cost a lot of money and if we don't pony up I don't see how we can keep our activities overseas going at the present rate.

(Depriving the Air Force of golf courses and swimming pools won't solve this.)

[Steve Blair]

The A-10 is an aircraft that the Air Force didn't want in the first place, flying a mission that is still unpopular in the higher quarters of the service (NOTE THAT I DIDN'T SAY THE LOWER LEVELS). A great deal of this mess is of the AF's own making, and until they fix the way they develop and field aircraft (creating realistic goals and specifications for airframes, not wanting to make everything stealth and ultra-high tech, for just two examples), throwing them more money will NOT fix the problem. It will just ensure that we get more of the same.

The AF is not alone in this mess, of course, but they happen to be one of the higher-profile contracting misfits.

[William F. Owen]

These old airplanes are wearing out and will have to be replaced, not modernized or upgraded because the aluminum is just giving up the struggle.

There is no cheap way out of this. It will cost a lot of money and if we don't pony up I don't see how we can keep our activities overseas going at the present rate.

Not true. It is both doable and cost effective to build new parts such as wings. An A-10 wing costs very little to build, as long as you have the right Jigs, materials, and design authority clearances. Any aluminium aircraft, such as A-4, A-10's, F-5, etc etc can be kept flying indefinitely. The same can be done with Helicopters as well. The biggest challenge is keeping the engines going.

A lot of Air Forces don't want to admit this, but it's fact. Granny's knife. Replace the blade every five years and the handle every ten.

[Entropy]

This isn't a huge deal. It calls for inspections only on 130 aircraft - probably the oldest planes. It's not that unusual for these kinds of things to crop up on aircraft this old. At this point, the issue doesn't seem to be too severe and just requires an inspection regimen.

[carl]

F-15, C-130, KC-135, A-10, P-3 etc., all old airplanes, all wearing out. You can keep airplanes, individual examples, flying indefinitely. People keep P-51s and Spitfires flying, at huge cost and effort. It would be inexpensive to build new A-10 wings on production tooling, if it existed. I would be very surprised if it did.

KC-135s are already at the "warbird" point. They go into heavy maintenance and the guys have to fabricate parts from scratch cause they aren't made anymore.

Some of these airplanes, especially the tac fighters, have life limited airframes. I am not that familiar with details but I imagine you can extend it, with an inspection regimen, as Entropy says. But how severe does the inspection regimen get as more and more hours are put on the airframe?

And this just addresses the airframe. The avionics get old too. Those are the things that are hard to replace, or get parts for, or manuals for. Sometimes the company that made them is long out of business.

These airplanes are wearing out. This latest A-10 problem may or may not be that severe but to me it is an alarm bell ringing far off in the night. Something big is coming and we had better heed these warnings.

These thing wear out and if you push them too far you have a spectacular result like the C-130A airtanker crash.

[William F. Owen]

F-15, C-130, KC-135, A-10, P-3 etc., all old airplanes, all wearing out. You can keep airplanes, individual examples, flying indefinitely. People keep P-51s and Spitfires flying, at huge cost and effort. It would be inexpensive to build new A-10 wings on production tooling, if it existed. I would be very surprised if it did.

Back in another life I was the manager for an A-4 and F-5 upgrade project.

Avionics was never a problem, as avionics are the first thing that gets replaced. Saves, weight, maintenance costs, and manpower. - and the biggest costs are those associated with training that comes from a capability increase, such as PGMs, Radar or NVGs.

Airframes are just a matter of cost versus effect. All aircraft are collection of consumables. If you have the materials, jigs and design authority, you can keep the airframe flying, while it is operationally effective to do so. EG: - Don't keep F-86's going when the role requires an F-4. The physically lighter the airframe, the lest cost is associated. There is a cross over. What is cost effective for an A-4 is not for a C-130.

Engines are by far the biggest challenge. With the F-5 and A-4 you had engine upgrade kits, that extended the TBO, and overall life of the engine. For the A-4s there were more upgrade kits than there were A-4s in existence.

The real problem is the organisational, human/political and emotional bias against extending the life of inservice aircraft. Yes, there comes a point where it is futile to do so, but that point is not often reached.

[Entropy]

Wilf,

Much of your last comment is entirely true. I would add that two big factors, besides organizational, are cost and readiness rates. It's true that we can keep aircraft flying almost indefinitely, but the maintenance costs to do can become prohibitively expensive and reduce the readiness rates for the airframe. As an example, in my air wing in the Navy during the mid- 1990's, only about 1/2 of the aircraft in our F-14 squadron were flyable at any one time. In both my deployments, one aircraft hard broke, sat in the hanger deck for the rest of deployment and was craned off the carrier at the end. And these were the upgraded D models. By contrast, the 3 F-18 squadrons all had readiness rates of 80-90 percent. In addition, depending on circumstances, older aircraft have limits put on because of structural issues. They're either G-restricted or take-off/landing weight limited (which limits ordnance, fuel, etc.). These restrictions complicate planning obviously. They aren't a huge deal in Iraq and Afghanistan because there's no air threat except the occasional manpad so such limits aren't as big of an issue.

You're right that engines are a big deal, but they are also relatively easy to replace. Engines can be replaced on the ramp in theater, for example. If you have a crack in a wing spar, though, it will probably have to go to depot or, just as likely, the boneyard as a parts queen. There's no fixing that kind of problem anywhere but depot.

One reason I'm not particularly worried about the A-10 is that most of the upgrades to the C variant are taking place at the depot level. That's actually where these wing problems were discovered in the first place. As aircraft go to depot for the C upgrade any structural problems will be addressed.

[William F. Owen]

Entropy,

Yes, there is a point where the whole exercise become futile. The F-14 and F-111 are good examples. I am pretty sure it's weight thing.

Some of the techs I had on the A-4 Program had come from an F-18 Squadron, and all said that what we were doing for A-4's and F-5's could not be done for F-18's or even F-14s.

The list of aircraft that can be readily and cost effectively upgraded is quite extensive but the bigger and more complex the aircraft, the more this goes away.

[Ken White]

...The list of aircraft that can be readily and cost effectively upgraded is quite extensive but the bigger and more complex the aircraft, the more this goes away.

purposely headed in that direction to insure product replacement instead of product refurbishment...

[selil]

Any system will decay over time regardless of the amount of replacement (including complete replacement). Systemic decay over time is just going to happen. The higher the quality of materials and workmanship the slower that occurs. Design, capability, structure, engineering and tolerances can not all be perfect and eroded by time.

There is another point but I'm not sure how to say it. I can't imagine a military keeping the main battle tank unchanged for 100 years like they plan on some air frames. The Navy is already planning on replacing entire ships even though hulls are a well defined science for over 100 years. It just seems like poor management to plan on keeping air frames flying for over 100 years.

[120mm]

To be sure, aircraft design has a lot to do with how "time-limited" an airframe (or any other machine) is. Case in point: I can economically keep a CJ or even XJ Jeep in operation for 50 years or more, because they are simple, can be easily maintained, and had long production runs.

An ordinary unibody front-drive car, though, is done, as soon as it gets body cancer or has a major mechanical problem. Just wasn't designed to be refurb'd.

The F-14 is complex and difficult to maintain. The A-4, F-5 or A-10 are archetypes for simple, easy to maintain aircraft. Same with the Piper "Cub" and "Super Cub" series of aircraft. They're just made to be upgraded and maintained for a service life of 100 years, or more (despite Bill Piper's original advice to throw the aircraft away at 10 years age...)

[selil]

....Case in point: I can economically keep a CJ or even XJ Jeep in operation for 50 years or more, because they are simple, can be easily maintained, and had long production runs.

An ordinary unibody front-drive car, though, is done, as soon as it gets body cancer or has a major mechanical problem. Just wasn't designed to be refurb'd.....

Pretty much the exact analogy I had in mind.

[Cliff]

To be sure, aircraft design has a lot to do with how "time-limited" an airframe (or any other machine) is. Case in point: I can economically keep a CJ or even XJ Jeep in operation for 50 years or more, because they are simple, can be easily maintained, and had long production runs.

An ordinary unibody front-drive car, though, is done, as soon as it gets body cancer or has a major mechanical problem. Just wasn't designed to be refurb'd.

The F-14 is complex and difficult to maintain. The A-4, F-5 or A-10 are archetypes for simple, easy to maintain aircraft. Same with the Piper "Cub" and "Super Cub" series of aircraft. They're just made to be upgraded and maintained for a service life of 100 years, or more (despite Bill Piper's original advice to throw the aircraft away at 10 years age...)

The way a plane is used has a huge effect on it's service life. Aircraft's lives are indeed defined by age and hours... but a bigger factor is how the airplane is used. Spectrum Life is a common way of measuring the age of the aircraft. It is a mix of hours, g-loadings, loads carried, etc.

The Jeep is not a good comparison. The difference between your Super Cub and an F-15C is like the difference between your CJ jeep and a HMMWV. The Hummer starts its life as a bigger jeep, but then gets weighed down with armor that increases its weight by 50%. Add new radios, datalink, and weaponry and now your Hummer is seriously weighed down. Now drive that Hummer at nearly top speed twice a day 5 days a week, every day of the week when it is deployed. After about 20 years of this, your HMMWV might break down a little.

The jets in question fly at 9gs every day, and to contend with the newer fighters that you say they are as good as, F-15s and F-16s have to carry new avionics and weapons. These only add to stress on the airframes.

The simple fact is that there is only so much you can do with an old airplane. Throw in the state of SAM technology and you have a problem that can only be solved with new aircraft.

V/R,

Cliff

[120mm]

<snip>
The Jeep is not a good comparison. The difference between your Super Cub and an F-15C is like the difference between your CJ jeep and a HMMWV. The Hummer starts its life as a bigger jeep, but then gets weighed down with armor that increases its weight by 50%. Add new radios, datalink, and weaponry and now your Hummer is seriously weighed down. Now drive that Hummer at nearly top speed twice a day 5 days a week, every day of the week when it is deployed. After about 20 years of this, your HMMWV might break down a little.

It's not how much they wear, or break down, it's how rebuildable/maintainable they are. I would suggest that your typical Alaskan Bush Super Cub gets treated more roughly, and with less maintenance, than your typical F-15C. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is how the aircraft is designed, and whether they're easily maintained.

The jets in question fly at 9gs every day, and to contend with the newer fighters that you say they are as good as, F-15s and F-16s have to carry new avionics and weapons. These only add to stress on the airframes.

new avionics are smaller and lighter than old avionics. How does this stress old airframes? And what new weapons are there out there, that create new and unmanageable stresses on old airframes?

You're mixing up the concept of "wear and tear" with "maintainability".

The simple fact is that there is only so much you can do with an old airplane. Throw in the state of SAM technology and you have a problem that can only be solved with new aircraft.

V/R,

Cliff

Since most airplanes, including high-performance fighters, can be relatively easily built from the dataplate up, the only real limiting factor in a COIN environment is cost of maintenance versus cost of new production.

[120mm]

versus:



And:



versus:

[reed11b]

120...did you just say dissin?? P.S. does 120 refer to "high Angle Hell" 120mm? Are you an 11 chuck? On a more serious note, does the US have remaining the manufacturing ability to build new wings?
Reed