Lucien Harpress Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Do you mean "Doctor Remy Hadley", a frictional character, or Olivia Wilde, the actress with no medical training? Doesn't matter. If she's a doctor? I'm cured. Just an actress? I'll die happy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfgun33 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Doesn't matter. If she's a doctor? I'm cured. Just an actress? I'll die happy. Very true. Now if she could just fix the F-22. Edited October 26, 2011 by Wolfgun33 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lucien Harpress Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 You mean them eyes CAN'T fix everything? I'VE BEEN LIED TO! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfgun33 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 You mean them eyes CAN'T fix everything? I'VE BEEN LIED TO! Sorry. Didn't mean to crush your dreams. But she's hot so does it matter? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gator52 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) Again, I ask has the accident investigation been concluded, much less the results been released? Are you saying that you've read the report already before its release? "The F-15 initial operational requirement was for a service life of 4,000 hours. Testing completed in 1973 demonstrated that the F-15 could sustain 16,000 hours of flight. Subsequently operational use was more severely stressful than the original design specification... Full-scale fatigue testing between 1988 and 1994 ended with a demonstration of over 7,600 flight hours for the most severely used aircraft, and in excess of 12,000 hours on the remainder of the fleet. A 10,000-hour service limit would provide F-15Cs to 2020, while a 12,000-hour service life extends the F-15Cs to the year 2030. The APG-63 radar, F100-PW-100 engines, and structure upgrades would be mandatory. The USAF cannot expect to fly the F-15C to 2014, or beyond, without replacing these subsystems" - globalsecurity.org What needs to be noted is that the entire USAF fleet of aircraft have been flying constantly since 1990. Combat operations including Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Northern Watch and Southern Watch, Deny Flight, Deliberate Force, Desert Fox, Allied Force, Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom along with normal training and exercises over the past 21 years have exacerbated the airframe's fatigue. "The F-15s and F-16s were designed and built in the late ‘60s and ‘70s. Some of them were produced up until the early ‘80s. But they’ve led a pretty hard life of 17 years of combat. So you have to replace them with something, because we were continuing to restrict the airplanes. In the F-15 case, we’ve got the airplane restricted to 1.5 Mach. It was designed to be a 2.5 Mach airplane. We’ve got it limited on maneuvering restrictions because we’ve had tail cracks, fuselage cracks, cracks in the wings. The problem with that is – and Mike Wynne uses this analogy – it’s almost like going to the Indy 500 race practicing all the way up until Memorial Day at 60 miles an hour, and then on game day, accelerating the car out to 200 miles an hour. It’s not the time to be doing that on game day. So in our training models and in our scenarios, we’re limiting these airplanes because they’re restricted and getting old. So there’s two parts to the recapitalization of the fighter inventory. The first part is the existing stuff is old and it’s getting broke, and it’s getting harder to get it out of depot on time. And our availability rates and our in-commission rates are going down. The ability to generate the sorties on those old airplanes is in the wrong direction.” - Michael Moseley Former USAF Chief of Staff October 2007 govexec.com “The difficulty is that issues have been found with F-15s built between 1978 and 1985, across A through D models at several bases, so no one source of the problem can be isolated…. This isn’t just about one pilot in one aircraft with one bad part…. I have a fleet that is 100 percent fatigued, and 40 percent of that has bad parts. The long-term future of the F-15 is in question…. We don’t have a full and healthy fleet, so we’ve gotten behind on training missions, instructor certifications, classes and exercises…. We’re going over each and every aircraft to make a determination. We will take some F-15s out of the inventory. It just doesn’t make sense to spend the time and money if it won’t be worth it for some aircraft.” - Gen. John D.W. Corley Former Commander, ACC January 2008 af.mil “I worry about the health of our aging fleet and how sometimes it is not well understood by those our Airmen protect…" - Lt. Col. Gary L. North March 2008 Got it...what's the avg number of hours on a 15C these days? I'm not denying the 15s are old, the statement about them being 3x over on structural hours got me curious. Jonah Edited October 27, 2011 by Gator52 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) Mr. Stark if the USMC can't get the F-35B, I would be more than happy to take the F-22 (The Navy reaction would be priceless) Everything about the F-15s hours are true. Its easy to sit back and think of the F-15 as an evergreen, but the maintenance cost not only grows exponentially but the time the aircraft are down, is amplified at every turn. more money, more maintenance, and more time lost. all while trying to do it with less money and fewer people. its not a gentle decline, its a breakneck fall. eventually the F-15 hits a "tipping point" and it can no longer be worth paying for what little it still does-- and then you have to buy the new aircraft anyway. I can't think of a worse way to go about it actually. Paying more for less, with little service life left. In economics you ideally pay more for something newer and improved with the idea that you get the most service life, performance, and value. You never want to overpay for something old, that needs maintenance, and will have a limited service life. Its the reason you pay for puppies and not 15 year old dogs that need surgery. War doesn't leave a lot of "wiggle room" either. If you go into the fight at 50 percent you aren't "half alive" you're dead already. One guy flies away a victor and the other is a smoking crater. There are no half measures. You can't send two 50 percent fighters against one 100 percent fighter and think its equal. trust me its not. If you want to "support the troops" how about getting them some new stuff that kills the enemy quicker and makes life easier all around? Edited October 27, 2011 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Diamondback Six Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Mr. Stark if the USMC can't get the F-35B, I would be more than happy to take the F-22 (The Navy reaction would be priceless) LOL Watching the Squids pee more saltwater than they've ever sailed over at the Jarheads having GOOD toys instead of whatever sloppy-seconds USN feels like givin' 'em would rock... :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 LOL Watching the Squids pee more saltwater than they've ever sailed over at the Jarheads having GOOD toys instead of whatever sloppy-seconds USN feels like givin' 'em would rock... :D Um, when the F/A-18 Hornet first reached Fleet Squadrons, it was three Marine Squadrons that stood up first ... Even before the Navy ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) Um, when the F/A-18 Hornet first reached Fleet Squadrons, it was three Marine Squadrons that stood up first ... Even before the Navy ... Gregg But this was the Tomcat era We all know how untouchable the Tomcat was Edited October 27, 2011 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 But this was the Tomcat era We all know how untouchable the Tomcat was Hey, you're the one with "Tomcat" in your name ... :P Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 :lol: Gregg. , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Ross ... >>> Article <<< Guess it's not covered in the Manufacturer's Factory Warranty ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Ross ... >>> Article <<< Guess it's not covered in the Manufacturer's Factory Warranty ... Gregg Another brief article here: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/lockheed-oxygen/ Good for Lockheed, they definitely can use another $24 mil. Now they can conduct a "Hypoxia Root Cause Analysis" on the taxpayer's dime. Once that is complete, they can then submit a change order for real money to fix the problem (or if they can't find the problem on the first go-round, just go back to the AF and ask for more for an additional study). It's a win-win for these guys. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Another brief article here: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/lockheed-oxygen/ Good for Lockheed, they definitely can use another $24 mil. Now they can conduct a "Hypoxia Root Cause Analysis" on the taxpayer's dime. Once that is complete, they can then submit a change order for real money to fix the problem (or if they can't find the problem on the first go-round, just go back to the AF and ask for more for an additional study). It's a win-win for these guys. You know eventually you are going to have to stop going after Lockheed and start wondering why Boeing doesn't undercut them and exploit more of their mistakes. The strategy so far is to watch their opponent make mistakes, and kinda stand there. Can they only get really mad if its a Euro plane or what? Free Money Boeing if you want it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Got it...what's the avg number of hours on a 15C these days? I'm not denying the 15s are old, the statement about them being 3x over on structural hours got me curious. Jonah And some more... http://www.meetingdata.utcdayton.com/agenda/asip/2010/proceedings/presentations/P4202.pdf Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.