1st Air Force composite Air Dominance Wing Operational

[Kei Lau]

Non-Stealth Teamed With Stealth In First Air Dominance Wing article in Aviationweek.com. Unfortunately, it needs a subscription to read the article. Some key points below:

U.S. Air National Guard F-15C Golden Eagles – upgraded with advanced, long-range radars that also will serve as electronic warfare jamming and attack weapons – are becoming part of the Air Force’s composite air dominance force that also includes stealthy F-22s stationed at Langley Air Force Base, Va.

Each fighter type will shoulder 50% of the air dominance mission now that the F-22 force has been capped at 187 aircraft. The upgraded F-15Cs will carry the larger APG-63(V)3 active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. The radar’s long range and small target detection capability will allow F-22s to operate in electronic silence with their low observability uncompromised by electronic emissions.

The first operational F-15C modified with the Raytheon radar was declared operational with the Florida Air National Guard’s 125th Fighter Wing. The Air Force will deliver up to six AESA radars this summer for installation on F-15Cs at the Weapons School and 422 Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis AFB, Nev. The fleet will eventually grow to 176 Golden Eagles that are slated to serve until 2030.

[Murph]

The fleet will eventually grow to 176 Golden Eagles that are slated to serve until 2030.

By which time the Eagles will be 45 to 50 years old.

Regards,

Murph

[MattC]

Murph -

I'm assuming then, that despite the upgrades etc, the airframes will be the original 'C' models (late 90's?) which poses the question, how much maintenance effort/expense etc will be required to keep airframes of that age operational?

Seems a bit like taking the interior from a modern car and shoving it into a 1983 Ford Escort and calling it an "upgrade"

[Pete]

Murph -

I'm assuming then, that despite the upgrades etc, the airframes will be the original 'C' models (late 90's?) which poses the question, how much maintenance effort/expense etc will be required to keep airframes of that age operational?

Seems a bit like taking the interior from a modern car and shoving it into a 1983 Ford Escort and calling it an "upgrade"

The last F-15C's were built in 1985, certainly not late 90's. The only F-15's that were built after '85 were the E and it's versions for other airforces.

[MattC]

Oops. My bad, I'm a bit of an ignoramus about such things.

But heck, a 55 year old airframe?

*counts on fingers*

Something like a 1955 airframe today

IIRC the last F-86's were built around 1956 (not the Canadair ones)

:)

I'm sure with a lick of paint and a new radio set, they'd be just the job

[ventura_kelley]

Oops. My bad, I'm a bit of an ignoramus about such things.

But heck, a 55 year old airframe?

*counts on fingers*

Something like a 1955 airframe today

IIRC the last F-86's were built around 1956 (not the Canadair ones)

:)

I'm sure with a lick of paint and a new radio set, they'd be just the job

Or an F-4 Phantom.

[Murph]

Murph -

I'm assuming then, that despite the upgrades etc, the airframes will be the original 'C' models (late 90's?) which poses the question, how much maintenance effort/expense etc will be required to keep airframes of that age operational?

Seems a bit like taking the interior from a modern car and shoving it into a 1983 Ford Escort and calling it an "upgrade"

Doesn't matter, they'll only be facing IEDs and RPGs anyway.

Regards,

Murph

[TaiidanTomcat]

Doesn't matter, they'll only be facing IEDs and RPGs anyway.

Regards,

Murph

LoL Yep. (I recognize your sarcasm BTW) This is the way wars will be fought forever now. Whatever could replace the RPG? Surely no one would be foolish enough to buy missiles, tanks, ships, or airplanes!

[ventura_kelley]

Why is it a testament to the soundness of a design when aircraft like the DC-3, C-130, and F-4 Phantom serve for 50 years, but a fools errand to expect the same from the F-15?

Why shouldn't we expect 50 years service from a 27 million dollar airplane when we would for a 2 million dollar airplane? Given the advances in technology (especially in materials technology), isn't it reasonable to expect a more robust product for the money?

[ventura_kelley]

Doesn't matter, they'll only be facing IEDs and RPGs anyway.

Regards,

Murph

Does Bin Laden have anything more advanced than a Cessna?

[dthank]

Oops. My bad, I'm a bit of an ignoramus about such things.

But heck, a 55 year old airframe?

*counts on fingers*

Something like a 1955 airframe today

IIRC the last F-86's were built around 1956 (not the Canadair ones)

:lol:

I'm sure with a lick of paint and a new radio set, they'd be just the job

If 50 year old B-52s can still perform as required, why couldn't F-15s? The money that has been thrown at BUFFs over the years to keep them airworthy and still lethal is astounding!

[GreyGhost]

Yeah but B-52s aren't pulling 6+Gs all the time either ...

Gregg

[dthank]

Yeah but B-52s aren't pulling 6+Gs all the time either ...

Gregg

Good point, Gregg. However from the description of the new mission for these "Golden Eagles", it doesn't appear that the airframes will be stressed to that degree.

[RedHeadKevin]

Does Bin Laden have anything more advanced than a Cessna?

757's, 767's...

Edited April 15, 2010 by RedHeadKevin

[TaiidanTomcat]

757's, 767's...

Good point

[Trigger]

Good point, Gregg. However from the description of the new mission for these "Golden Eagles", it doesn't appear that the airframes will be stressed to that degree.

Yup, straight and level flight isn't stressful at all.

When they were delivered, the airframes were rated for about 4,000 hours. Many aircraft are around the 12,000 neighborhood now.

[GreyGhost]

Trigger, that Eagle came down less than 15 miles from my house ...

Gregg

[Trigger]

Why is it a testament to the soundness of a design when aircraft like the DC-3, C-130, and F-4 Phantom serve for 50 years, but a fools errand to expect the same from the F-15?

DC-3s and C-130s doesn't fly at supersonic speeds and the F-4 was never as agile as the F-15. We retired the last of the front-line F-4s nearly 20 years ago because they were outdated then. And in the past 2o years, F-15s have had to do more with fewer numbers = increased airframe hours = more wear and tear on the airframe.

Why shouldn't we expect 50 years service from a 27 million dollar airplane when we would for a 2 million dollar airplane? Given the advances in technology (especially in materials technology), isn't it reasonable to expect a more robust product for the money?

"It's not the years, it's the milage"

[spejic]

Good point

No it isn't. It hasn't been done since because it's a trick that only works once.

And even if they did succeed again, you hardly need F-22's to bring them down.

[Trigger]

Trigger, that Eagle came down less than 15 miles from my house ...

Gregg

Yikes!

[Murph]

Why is it a testament to the soundness of a design when aircraft like the DC-3, C-130, and F-4 Phantom serve for 50 years, but a fools errand to expect the same from the F-15?

Why shouldn't we expect 50 years service from a 27 million dollar airplane when we would for a 2 million dollar airplane? Given the advances in technology (especially in materials technology), isn't it reasonable to expect a more robust product for the money?

Because the DC-3 and C-130 don't pull 9 "G"s on a daily basis, and BTW have you seen the status of the C-130 fleet lately? The individual F-4 airframe also had a much shorter lifespan than 50 years; take a look at the losses and production rates of that aircraft due to Vietnam. The current USAF fighter fleet is the oldest in its history and has flown more hours than projected in much heavier configurations (full weapons/fuel load) than projected leading to much higher fatigue than expected. The general public seems to be painfully unaware of the fact that starting in 1991 the USAF and Navy fighter aircraft were flying combat missions every day, and haven't stopped since. That's 19 straight years of combat operations with the same airframes, perhaps that explains why they're now falling apart in mid-air.

Does Bin Laden have anything more advanced than a Cessna?

The arrogance of betting one's national defense strategy for the next forty years on what is happening now is staggering. Especially so, since the U.S. (and every other country) has consistently shown they can not predict with certainty the shape of wars to come.

Regards,

Murph

[Wayne S]

Good point, Gregg. However from the description of the new mission for these "Golden Eagles", it doesn't appear that the airframes will be stressed to that degree.

Try 13Gs, did you miss this part?

Each fighter type will shoulder 50% of the air dominance mission now that the F-22 force has been capped at 187 aircraft.

EDIT: There is not 187 "combat capable" F-22s so that number is kind of misleading in the scheme of things.

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

Seems a bit like taking the interior from a modern car and shoving it into a 1983 Ford Escort and calling it an "upgrade"

Matt, sounds more like sticking HID headlights and a DVD player in a 79 Mustang.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Wayne S

[MattC]

That's 19 straight years of combat operations with the same airframes, perhaps that explains why they're now falling apart in mid-air.

Makes sense, I remember an ex RAF Phantom pilot telling me that they were limited to +5G during excercises as an attempt to prolong airframe life, and that with restricted flying hours. The F-15's I see "duelling" about over here (from Lakenheath) appear to be doing a lot more than that, day in, day out, and thats not in combat. I'm not sure of course how hard they are pulling, most of the tight in stuff appears to be high AOA, low speed, full AB stuff, I guess if you get the airspeed right down BEFORE you turn, you can limit the G, but still.

Add to that, that the environment in which combat ops have been taking place recently isn't the kindest on airframes.

The arrogance of betting one's national defense strategy for the next forty years on what is happening now is staggering

Too true, different circumstances I know, but look at the "no guns required" strategy, its like a chess game I suppose, wherever you leave a weakness, someone, somewhere, sometime, has the ability to sneak up an plant a big kick in your backside.

[Wayne S]

Makes sense, I remember an ex RAF Phantom pilot telling me that they were limited to +5G during excercises as an attempt to prolong airframe life, and that with restricted flying hours. The F-15's I see "duelling" about over here (from Lakenheath) appear to be doing a lot more than that, day in, day out, and thats not in combat. I'm not sure of course how hard they are pulling, most of the tight in stuff appears to be high AOA, low speed, full AB stuff, I guess if you get the airspeed right down BEFORE you turn, you can limit the G, but still.

Add to that, that the environment in which combat ops have been taking place recently isn't the kindest on airframes.

Too true, different circumstances I know, but look at the "no guns required" strategy, its like a chess game I suppose, wherever you leave a weakness, someone, somewhere, sometime, has the ability to sneak up an plant a big kick in your backside.

Iran can take their F-4s and other countries can take their MIG-21s, fill them with enough jamming to make the pilot glo on landing, then that fancy new radar in the F-15 will be obsolete.

[Spongebob]

Does Bin Laden have anything more advanced than a Cessna?

LOL. We just need some clapped out MiG-29's for that...the special Cuban ones with electrical tape covering the digits in the HUD because the Russians never taught them how to dim them.

So what happens when/if Bin Laden is dead??