USAF F-15 fleet grounded

[jaffo4011]

US Air Force ground ageing F-15 fighter jets

15 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US Air Force has grounded all its F-15 fighter planes after an accident in Missouri triggered concerns about the ageing fleet, officials said Tuesday.

The decision comes after Japan on Sunday grounded its F-15 fleet after it was informed by US forces that an Air National Guard F-15 fighter jet had crashed.

"The cause of that accident is still under investigation," the US Air Force said in a statement.

"Preliminary findings indicate that a possible structural failure of the aircraft may have occurred. The suspension of flight operations is a precautionary measure."

The Air Force has more than 700 F-15s in its fleet. But until further notice, they will only be used for emergency missions in Iraq or Afghanistan, while F-16s will be used for all routine operations.

"They have some concerns about structural issues with the F-15 that went down," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

"The Air Force is looking at its operational requirements and where they have the newer aircraft and are making some of those available for missions while they take a look at the F-15 and see if they have a more systemic problem throughout the fleet," said Whitman.

"They will still be flying F-15 in support of troops and when there are no other aircraft available."

The plane that crashed on Friday was a 27-year-old F-15C built in Hazelwood, Missouri.

Around 500 of the total F-15 fleet are older models with an average age of around 25 years, Air Force spokesman Cristin Marposon told AFP.

There are also around 223 of the later F-15E models, which are mostly the ones used in Iraq.

The Air Force is trying to replace its oldest F-15s with the F-22 Raptor made by Lockheed Martin, but due to budgetary constraints it has so far only been able to purchase half of the aircraft it has asked for.

The US Congress has given approval for the Air Force to purchase 183 F-22s, although military officials have said they need 381 aircraft. A total of 97 F-22s have already been integrated into the fleet.

But Friday's accident may help step up the replacement program.

"The chief of staff directed the grounding for safety concerns. We will see what comes out of the investigation," Marposon said.

The US Air Force stopped buying F-15s in 2004, but Boeing has continued to produce them for clients in South Korea and Singapore, which ordered 12 new craft at the end of 2005.

In Japan, Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters that Tokyo has also suspended flights of F-2 fighter jets after one crashed on takeoff and burst into flames at an airport in central Japan last week.

"We will deal with the task of preventing airspace incursions with our F-4 fighter jets," the oldest model among Japan's fighter jets, Ishiba said.

The Japanese Air Force had 203 F-15s, 68 F-2s and 91 F-4s as of March 2006, a Japanese defence ministry spokesman said.


i presume that the saudi and israeli air force will be following suit.
this problem has left a gaping hole in the allied air defence systems.....

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I what to know how long is the grounding going to be? I herd it could be days until the F-15's start flying again!:shudder:unknown

 

[funtz]

This issue if handled by the spin doctors can be used for increasing funding for F-22 procurement. After all with a few more failures what options will exist.

Could some one explain some things in the article above

1

The plane that crashed on Friday was a 27-year-old F-15C built in Hazelwood, Missouri.

2

Around 500 of the total F-15 fleet are older models with an average age of around 25 years, Air Force spokesman Cristin Marposon told AFP.

wats up with this?

 

[neil]

wats up with this?

What do you mean whats up with this? These are simple facts. The US F15 fleet is OLD.

I believe we might see the USAF accelerate the retirement of the older C/D model F15's in light of what happened, once the planes return to flight status.

The USAF has stated that it intends to 178 F15 C/D's(the so called 'Golden Eagles'). I think we should see the fleet decreasing faster now to this goal than originally anticipated.

Even with just 178 older F15's(upgraded with AESA radars) and 224 F15E plus 183 Raptors, the USAF should remain relatively unchallenged in the air to air environment(leaving F16's etc. out of the picture for a minute).

Other countries(read China) can put up similar numbers, however not enough of these will be in the SU30MK class any time soon.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

What do you mean whats up with this? These are simple facts. The US F15 fleet is OLD.

I believe we might see the USAF accelerate the retirement of the older C/D model F15's in light of what happened, once the planes return to flight status.

The USAF has stated that it intends to 178 F15 C/D's(the so called 'Golden Eagles'). I think we should see the fleet decreasing faster now to this goal than originally anticipated.

Even with just 178 older F15's(upgraded with AESA radars) and 224 F15E plus 183 Raptors, the USAF should remain relatively unchallenged in the air to air environment(leaving F16's etc. out of the picture for a minute).

Other countries(read China) can put up similar numbers, however not enough of these will be in the SU30MK class any time soon.

Yeh thats what the Air Force says they need, but right now the F-15 fleet will be grounded for a few weeks at least, an investigated report is due in 60 days. I don't think this should interfear with the upgrade program since the so called golden eagles are the young ones in good shape. I think the Air Force should have 381 F-22, 220 FB-22, and 1763 F-35 but they just can't because of budget problems.

 

[RubiconNZ]

It's pretty major that they've grounded the whole fleet but expect they will be all up again shortly, especially those on deployment, time will tell though.
FB-22's can't recall it even got past concept and haven't heard of any call for it from AF circle I think they will have their hands full getting the 381 Raptors though events like this improve the likelihood of this arising.

 

[funtz]

What do you mean whats up with this? These are simple facts. The US F15 fleet is OLD.
I believe we might see the USAF accelerate the retirement of the older C/D model F15's in light of what happened, once the planes return to flight status.
The USAF has stated that it intends to 178 F15 C/D's(the so called 'Golden Eagles'). I think we should see the fleet decreasing faster now to this goal than originally anticipated.

Even with just 178 older F15's(upgraded with AESA radars) and 224 F15E plus 183 Raptors, the USAF should remain relatively unchallenged in the air to air environment(leaving F16's etc. out of the picture for a minute).
Other countries(read China) can put up similar numbers, however not enough of these will be in the SU30MK class any time soon.

what i meant was, if the average age is 25 years and the Plane in question was a '27-year-old F-15C', this must have been expected so what is the problem, or is 27 years actual time in the sky.

Even if all the F15's (C/D/E) are taken out of the USAF they still have a lot of fire power left.

 

[kato]

what i meant was, if the average age is 25 years and the Plane in question was a '27-year-old F-15C', this must have been expected so what is the problem, or is 27 years actual time in the sky.

Current USAF fighter/attack inventory, age very roughly, as far as i'm aware of it:
119 A-10 (plus 72 in ANG); average age 26 years
586 F-16C/D (plus 433 in ANG); average age 18 years
381 F-15C/D (plus 110 in ANG); average age 23 years
212 F-15E; average age 17 years
~16 F-22A; average age 1 year

Average age of the entire fleet is around 20-21 years iirc. Traditional airforce "retirement goal" once used to be 22 years (with average at 11-13 years).

 

[windscorpion]

Of course it used to be the USAF prefixed aircraft numbers after 10 years with O for Obsolete

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Even if all the F15's (C/D/E) are taken out of the USAF they still have a lot of fire power left.

Why on Earth would they ever do that? And keep in mind that the AF has certain Requirements for the number of fighter jets it uses and F-16 are wearing out fast too. This whole incident will help the AF get 381 F-22's and 220 FB-22's sounds good to them as well. And they will definably stick with 1763 F-35 Lightning II's.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

It's pretty major that they've grounded the whole fleet but expect they will be all up again shortly, especially those on deployment,

Yea in 60 days at least when the report is finished! Until then there all grounded. As I said in my other post thats why they need at least 381 F-22 to replace the F-15C and 220 FB-22 to replace the F-15E.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Well no one is replying on this forum anymore so I will give it a try to restart it again. I saw that Air Force said that the F-15E Strike Eagle will be flying again by Wendsday so the F-15C's should be up in the air again soon. I don't know much more about it though.

 

[neil]

well in the news section on this site there are reports of strike eagles flying combat missions in afghanistan in the last couple of days.. so i presume the air force meant it when they said essential combat missions would go ahead regardless..

it was reported on defence news that there is talk by senator(or is it congressman? cant remember) murtha(chairman of the house appropriations committee).. of buying 20 more F22 in light of the F15 groundings.. using about $500 million earmarked to shut down the F22 line as a downpayment on the aircraft..

 

[Pingu]

I believe that the F-22 needs to be procured in large numbers, such as 381 originally hoped for. The reason I say this is because I am unaware of what will happen when the "Golden Eagles" reach the end of their life. By that time, AFAIK, the F-22 line will be closed and the F-35 is not in my eyes a sufficient replacement for the F-15.

I also wonder what will replace the F-15E. AFAIK, the FB-22 concept has been ruled out in favour of funding for a 2018 bomber. I wonder whether the Strike Eagle will not be directly replaced at all and instead, the F-35 and 2018 bomber will be indirect replacements.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The F-15E's just started flying again today in Afganistian, the F-15C should be soon after they figure out what caused the crash, as for the replacement for the F-15E, its hard to say who knows what plans they will have in 2035 as that is the retirement date for the F-15E, it could be anything plans change but only time will tell. And for getting 20 more F-22's, that is not going to help much at all, now if they get 200 more F-22 than thats when we can replace the F-15C. The Air Force Says they need 381 F-22, well 183 F-22 and 178 F-15C is only 361 jets, but if you get 203 F-22 and 178 F-15C then you get 381 jets though that is still not as good as 381 F-22.

 

[rjmaz1]

the F-35 is not in my eyes a sufficient replacement for the F-15.

I also wonder what will replace the F-15E.

The F-35 is an excellent replacement for the F-15C. The F-35 will have similar speed, agility and range of the F-15 as it uses a newer more efficient design. The F-35's Air to Air combat capability due to its stealth would be better than even the AESA equipped F-15 Eagles.

Also as an F-15E replacement the range is also similar to the F-35 once you take into account the drag of carrying a dozen small bombs. It has a considerably larger fuel capacity which should allow it to hit any target that the F-15E could. The F-15E is the same size as the F-15C so to replace the F-15E you dont automatically need to go a class bigger with the FB-22. The smaller F-35 and F-22's have enough range to replace the F-15E.

In high risk area's the F-15's in the future may have to fly around a hot spot or fly fast or low to avoid detection. The stealthy F-35 could fly closer and slower to the hotspot while still remaining undetected, saving fuel and increasing range.

Ignore top speed comparisons as they are unrealistic. The F-35 will accelerate and hit Mach 1.5 just as easily as an F-15C eagle and transit speeds are both high subsonic around Mach 0.9. However a fully loaded F-15E would no doubt have a slower transit speed which will most likely be slower than a F-35 with similar bomb load.

You do not have to replace the F-15's 1 to 1 with vast superior F-22's. You could replace only 25% of them with F-22's and replace the other 75% with F-35's.

I definitely agree that the USAF needs more F-22's as the may be kept for 30 years and attrition may cause massive problems on such a small fleet.

250 F-22's
1000 F-35's
20 B-2's

Thats all the front line combat aircraft the USAF needs at the moment.

The role of the B-52 and B-1B are great in low tech conflicts such as Afghanistan due to their high endurance to provide close air support from distance bases. I do not think an FB-22 would have a range or endurance long enough for this role. The FB-22 is a high speed low endurance platform. A subsonic high endurance aircraft is required. A cheaper scaled down B-2 bomber that was unmanned would be good. Apparently this is what the B-3 may end up being, this is more important than the FB-22 in my opinion.

What i think will happen is that the F-35 will definitely end up having an much rumored unmanned version. With 2,000lb of extra fuel it will have 10% extra combat radius. As it no longer requires reserve fuel for pilot safety it will have another 10% increase in combat radius. As we are no longer risking a pilot the unmanned F-35 can fly straight through high risk area's instead of traveling the long way around. This may end up providing a 50% increase in combat radius over the manned F-35 which will now exceed the 1000 mile mark. The range of the unmanned F-35 would now be in the class of the FB-22.

The FB-22 idea would be great in my opinion it would be the ultimate long range interceptor and would be able to provide air dominance over mainland China which the F-22 would find difficult due to its shorter range. With the current budget i dont think the FB-22 wil ever appear

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The F-35 is an excellent replacement for the F-15C. The F-35 will have similar speed, agility and range of the F-15 as it uses a newer more efficient design. The F-35's Air to Air combat capability due to its stealth would be better than even the AESA equipped F-15 Eagles.

Also as an F-15E replacement the range is also similar to the F-35 once you take into account the drag of carrying a dozen small bombs. It has a considerably larger fuel capacity which should allow it to hit any target that the F-15E could. The F-15E is the same size as the F-15C so to replace the F-15E you dont automatically need to go a class bigger with the FB-22. The smaller F-35 and F-22's have enough range to replace the F-15E.

In high risk area's the F-15's in the future may have to fly around a hot spot or fly fast or low to avoid detection. The stealthy F-35 could fly closer and slower to the hotspot while still remaining undetected, saving fuel and increasing range.

Ignore top speed comparisons as they are unrealistic. The F-35 will accelerate and hit Mach 1.5 just as easily as an F-15C eagle and transit speeds are both high subsonic around Mach 0.9. However a fully loaded F-15E would no doubt have a slower transit speed which will most likely be slower than a F-35 with similar bomb load.

You do not have to replace the F-15's 1 to 1 with vast superior F-22's. You could replace only 25% of them with F-22's and replace the other 75% with F-35's.

I definitely agree that the USAF needs more F-22's as the may be kept for 30 years and attrition may cause massive problems on such a small fleet.

250 F-22's
1000 F-35's
20 B-2's

Thats all the front line combat aircraft the USAF needs at the moment.

The role of the B-52 and B-1B are great in low tech conflicts such as Afghanistan due to their high endurance to provide close air support from distance bases. I do not think an FB-22 would have a range or endurance long enough for this role. The FB-22 is a high speed low endurance platform. A subsonic high endurance aircraft is required. A cheaper scaled down B-2 bomber that was unmanned would be good. Apparently this is what the B-3 may end up being, this is more important than the FB-22 in my opinion.

What i think will happen is that the F-35 will definitely end up having an much rumored unmanned version. With 2,000lb of extra fuel it will have 10% extra combat radius. As it no longer requires reserve fuel for pilot safety it will have another 10% increase in combat radius. As we are no longer risking a pilot the unmanned F-35 can fly straight through high risk area's instead of traveling the long way around. This may end up providing a 50% increase in combat radius over the manned F-35 which will now exceed the 1000 mile mark. The range of the unmanned F-35 would now be in the class of the FB-22.

The FB-22 idea would be great in my opinion it would be the ultimate long range interceptor and would be able to provide air dominance over mainland China which the F-22 would find difficult due to its shorter range. With the current budget i dont think the FB-22 wil ever appear

Dude you got your facts wrong, the F-35 will not have the same speed as the F-15 not even close, the F-35 flies at Mach 1.6 well the F-15 Flies at Mach 2.5 theirs a big difference. And 1000 F-35, 250 F-22 and only 20 B-2 yea if you want to cut the Air Force by 75%! The AF needs more like 381 F-22, 1763 F-35 and they were saying 21 B-2's is not nearly enough to satisfy the needs of the AF, even 200 bombers is still not enough. The F-35 is meant to replace light weight jets like the F-16, F-18 and AV-8 (but I don't think they should replace the A-10 with the F-35) not heavy weight jets like the F-15E, the JSF well it has a much larger payload then the F-16 or F-18, it is still smaller the the F-15E. As for the 2018 bomber don't know much about that since it is still in the concept stage.

 

[Pingu]

I have to agree with F-15 Eagle that the F-35 may not have the air-air performance of the F-15C. Once an F-15C detects a target, it's likely to jettison its fuel tanks and at this point (with its greater thrust and large wing area), will most likely have better acceleration and better maneuverability (in areas that matter). The F-35 has been designed to have an air-air performance "on par with the F-16" (and I believe that it seems to chunky and stubby winged to even achieve this).

The F-35 will have benefits over the F-15C like AESA and Stealth etc but remember that the USAF needs something a leap ahead of the F-15C to deal with future threats which is what the F-22 achieves while the F-35 only offers improvements in some areas (arguably less important ones).

You have made some goods point about the stealth and large internal fuel capacity of the F-35 and its effect on increasing the effective range of the F-35 on a strike mission. However, bear in mind that the F-15E can carry heavier, more varied, mixed payloads (1x5000lbs bomb, 4x2000lbs bombs, 12x500lb bombs and AKAIK 16xSDBs) along with 3 drops tanks and AMRAAMs/Sidewinders.

The F-35 could only achieve this with external hardpoints which would negate all of the F-35's benefits you've mentioned. Remember too, that F-15Es have set a world record for the longest strike fighter mission ever flown. The FB-22 could be seen as something with the range of an F-111 but with stealth and extremely advanced air-ground sensors. In principle it would be a great replacement of the F-15E but I believe a direct replacement of the F-15E is unnecessary and a 2018 bomber is more important and should be seen as something that will indirectly replace the F-15E.

I maintain that 381 F-22s should be procured at the cost of a cut in the F-35 order. There is no point in having billions and billions of dollars invested into an aircraft and then not having enough in the sky to make them worthwhile. The F-22 is also proving to have an air-ground capability that would soften the blow of an F-35 cut.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I have to agree with F-15 Eagle that the F-35 may not have the air-air performance of the F-15C. Once an F-15C detects a target, it's likely to jettison its fuel tanks and at this point (with its greater thrust and large wing area), will most likely have better acceleration and better maneuverability (in areas that matter). The F-35 has been designed to have an air-air performance "on par with the F-16" (and I believe that it seems to chunky and stubby winged to even achieve this).

The F-35 will have benefits over the F-15C like AESA and Stealth etc but remember that the USAF needs something a leap ahead of the F-15C to deal with future threats which is what the F-22 achieves while the F-35 only offers improvements in some areas (arguably less important ones).

You have made some goods point about the stealth and large internal fuel capacity of the F-35 and its effect on increasing the effective range of the F-35 on a strike mission. However, bear in mind that the F-15E can carry heavier, more varied, mixed payloads (1x5000lbs bomb, 4x2000lbs bombs, 12x500lb bombs and AKAIK 16xSDBs) along with 3 drops tanks and AMRAAMs/Sidewinders.

The F-35 could only achieve this with external hardpoints which would negate all of the F-35's benefits you've mentioned. Remember too, that F-15Es have set a world record for the longest strike fighter mission ever flown. The FB-22 could be seen as something with the range of an F-111 but with stealth and extremely advanced air-ground sensors. In principle it would be a great replacement of the F-15E but I believe a direct replacement of the F-15E is unnecessary and a 2018 bomber is more important and should be seen as something that will indirectly replace the F-15E.

I maintain that 381 F-22s should be procured at the cost of a cut in the F-35 order. There is no point in having billions and billions of dollars invested into an aircraft and then not having enough in the sky to make them worthwhile. The F-22 is also proving to have an air-ground capability that would soften the blow of an F-35 cut.

I agree with you on everything except for cutting the F-35 order I think it should be maintained at 1763 because the F-16's are wearing out faster than expected. If the AF cut the F-35 order then the AF would have to keep some F-16's longer and that brings no new capabilty to the AF. All in all the F-35 is a good replacement for the F-16 and 381 F-22's is needed to replace the AF fleet of 522 F-15C. I also agree with you on the 2018 bomber concept/FB-22, though I don't see any difference between directly or indirectly replacing the F-15E, it still gets replaced by something so whats the difference between directly or indirectly replacing the F-15E?

 

[rjmaz1]

Dude you got your facts wrong, the F-35 will not have the same speed as the F-15 not even close, the F-35 flies at Mach 1.6 well the F-15 Flies at Mach 2.5 theirs a big difference.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The F-15 has never even reached Mach 2 in its combat history let alone Mach 2.5......

The highest speed it reached in combat was Mach 1.6 when it tried to catch some Iran Mig-25's that were doing high speed passes.. Of course they didn't catch the migs and had to go straight to the tanker afterwards.

The F-35 is better than the F-15 in every way. What you are saying is that it cant replace the F-15 because its slower? I can tell you now it wont be slower in fact it will be faster during most missions.

An F-15 carrying no weapons hitting mach 2.5 in a straight line and landing because you have run out of fuel is not useful at all. You are an idiot if you think it serves a purpose in combat.

At dry military thrust the F-35 will travel as quick as the F-15C/E with the same combat load. This is what you should be comparing it too. An F-15 with a dozen SDB's will most likely travel SLOWER than an F-35 with the same bombs carried internally. From what i have seen the F-35 should be able to accelerate to low supersonic speeds quicker than the Eagle as well.