Singapore purchases 12 more F-15SG
-
Like many have said, the USAF didn't do structural upgrading for their F-15s during their Mid-Life Upgrade.Originally posted by ferryman2393:i for one am not laughing my azz off. but i am intrigued as to why the aircraft could have 'structural failure'. if that particular frame is nearing its service life i'm sure they would have sent it for refurbishment or whatnot. that would put the service programs under question.
that's why the rest are getting nervy.
not the kind of thing u'd expect from made-in-usa factories? -
Now SAUDI ARABIA follow suit for GROUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE:13/11/07
SOURCE:Flight International
F-15 operators follow USAF grounding after crash
By Graham Warwick
Over 1,100 aircraft out of action as Israel, Japan and Saudi Arabia follow suit
US Air Force pleas for funds to replace its ageing aircraft took on a new edge with the indefinite grounding of its fleet of almost 700 Boeing F-15s following a 2 November crash suspected to have been caused by structural failure.
F-15 operators Israel (95 aircraft), Japan (160) and Saudi Arabia (145) followed suit after the USAF suspended all non-essential flights. US F-15E strike fighters based in Iraq and Afghanistan and F-15C interceptors assigned to North American air defence remain on ground alert to fly if required, although their missions have been taken over by other US and allied aircraft. Boeing confirms that it is "providing engineering support" to the USAF during its investigation.
The Missouri Air National Guard F-15C, built in 1980, was engaged in air-combat training with three other F-15s when it crashed. The pilot ejected, sustaining minor injuries. Reports that the aircraft separated aft of the cockpit have not been not confirmed by the USAF, but the aircraft's forward fuselage is not discernable in video of wreckage site.
In April 2002, an F-15C crashed into the Gulf of Mexico after the leading edge of its left vertical stabiliser broke off during a high-speed dive to Mach 1.97. The F-15's leading edge and upper aft portion of the vertical stabilisers are being replaced during depot maintenance, and the USAF says it has completed 463 of its 664 aircraft - including the one involved in the Missouri accident, which was repaired in August 2003.
The air force plans to keep the F-15C in service until 2025 and its newer F-15Es until 2035, and recently awarded contracts to upgrade up to 179 Cs and all 224 Es with Raytheon's APG-63(V)4 active electronically scanned array radars.
Lockheed Martin's F-22 was designed to replace the F-15, but production is planned to end in 2011 after providing just 183 of the 381 aircraft the USAF says it needs. The service has requested Department of Defense approval to buy a further 20 F-22As, which would extend production by a year, but require more than $4.4 billion in additional funding.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/13/219288/f-15-operators-follow-usaf-grounding-after-crash.html -
Like many have said, the USAF didn't do structural upgrading for their F-15s during their Mid-Life Upgrade.
that's about what i'm getting at. the USAF 'thought' that they didn't require structural upgrading during the mid life upgrade or whatever it is. apparently they 'thought' wrong? boeing must have been the advisor for their maintenance regimes for their f15. what was boeing's excuse? so far, nil? -
Aiyah, why people keep thinking the F15SG is to replace the A4SU? If you look at the squadron numbers and the aircraft, you will realize that the F16C/Ds have been replacing the A4s for a while already.Originally posted by ^Delta^:The combined requirement as stated by Singapore's Air force Chief in 2005 was a total of around 60 to 80 new warplanes to replace the A-4SU and F-5S/T fleets.
Expect additional orders on top of this one
The A4s used to serve in 142, 143 and 145 squadrons. F16s now serve in 140 (ex Hunter and F16A/Bs), 143 and 145. Hence only 142 is left, which is probably designated for the F15SGs.
Anyone have any idea if 141 squadron is still active?
Before anyone starts worrying about information sensitivity, this information can be found in books and on the web. -
i believe 141 operates the RF-5F....Originally posted by insouciant:Aiyah, why people keep thinking the F15SG is to replace the A4SU? If you look at the squadron numbers and the aircraft, you will realize that the F16C/Ds have been replacing the A4s for a while already.
The A4s used to serve in 142, 143 and 145 squadrons. F16s now serve in 140 (ex Hunter and F16A/Bs), 143 and 145. Hence only 142 is left, which is probably designated for the F15SGs.
Anyone have any idea if 141 squadron is still active?
Before anyone starts worrying about information sensitivity, this information can be found in books and on the web.
if i recall.. 141 was formerly a hunter squadron... together with 140 -
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/14/219559/updated-us-air-force-clears-boeing-f-15es-to-fly-after-inspections.html
DATE:14/11/07
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
UPDATED: US Air Force clears Boeing F-15Es to fly after inspections
By Graham Warwick
US Air Force Boeing F-15E Strike Eagles have been cleared to return to flight. All F-15s had been grounded since the US Air National Guard F-15C crash in Missouri on 2 November caused by suspected structural failure.
The USAF is allowing wings operating the more than 200 newer E-model F-15s to return their aircraft to flying status after completing a so-called "time compliance technical order" (TCTO) inspection. The targeted inspections are a result of preliminary data from the crash site, says the USAF.
Before returning to flight, the F-15Es must undergo visual and non-destructive inspection of the hydraulic lines, fuselage longerons, and straps and skin panels around the environmental control system bays, the USAF.
The USAF says the TCTO inspection was developed as the result of an engineering analysis conducted after the 2 November crash. An analysis is under way for the older F-15A-Ds, and will result in a similar inspection, says the USAF, but details have yet to be defined.
The F-15A-Ds are expected to remain grounded until after the accident investigation board submits its report, which is due within 30 days of the crash, says the USAF.
The investigation is focusing on the area aft of the cockpit, where the accident F-15 is reported to have separated in flight during one-versus-one air combat training.
F-15E cutaway drawing from Flight's archive © Flight
Israel and Saudi Arabia are expected to follow suit and lift the grounding of their versions of the F-15E, the F-15I and F-15S respectively. Boeing will also be able to resume deliveries of new F-15Ks to South Korea.
Six US senators, meanwhile, have demanded that the US Department of Defense make public the results of three studies that are said to conclude the 183 Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptors planned for the US Air Force are not sufficient.
The USAF is seeking additional funding to buy more F-22s to replace its ageing F-15s. -
hmmm I feel that F-15 though have very advance avonic and stuff but the airframe is kinda old . It is a 30 years old plane till now.
-
oh well ...in that case please mr bush gives us some F22
-
Are you saying the design of the air frame is old or the actual airframe itself is old? While the design of the F-15 might be old the ones RSAF are getting are old brand new.Originally posted by raymond_sianz:hmmm I feel that F-15 though have very advance avonic and stuff but the airframe is kinda old . It is a 30 years old plane till now.
And even then, it is a proven design so we know it works and it works damn well at that. -
Thank you.Originally posted by Alvin.Yeoh:Are you saying the design of the air frame is old or the actual airframe itself is old? While the design of the F-15 might be old the ones RSAF are getting are old brand new.
And even then, it is a proven design so we know it works and it works damn well at that.
Some people don't realize chassis designs for cars haven't changed much in the past 50 years either. -
u think they giving us old airframes?..Originally posted by raymond_sianz:hmmm I feel that F-15 though have very advance avonic and stuff but the airframe is kinda old . It is a 30 years old plane till now.
of cos brand new made ones la -
Well........some ppl here equate old designs with old frames and chassis.....even though these ppl call themselves educated......Originally posted by Rockhound:u think they giving us old airframes?..
of cos brand new made ones la
-
Well said.Originally posted by FireAndHell:Well........some ppl here equate old designs with old frames and chassis.....even though these ppl call themselves educated......
Sadly there are lots of such ppl ard. -
And you see why I refuse to waste my time.
-
After the "OMG! The Russians, the Chinese and the Indians have better planes than our F-15s". (Ex with Indian Air Force SU30MKI)
The USAF is now trying the "OMG! Our F-15s are dropping out of the sky".
They sure are using whatever means to get the budget for more Raptors.
Next, we may start seeing USAF F-15s falling apart while on ground.
If the Israelis could fly their F-15 and land it with just 1 wing and it didn't broke up in mid-flight with such structural damage, I just can't imagine how it could have just broken up in mid-flight if the aircraft was properly serviced and maintained.
Structural failures don't just appear suddenly. -
What a pity, you can't even differential betweenOriginally posted by BabyRex:After the "OMG! The Russians, the Chinese and the Indians have better planes than our F-15s". (Ex with Indian Air Force SU30MKI)
The USAF is now trying the "OMG! Our F-15s are dropping out of the sky".
They sure are using whatever means to get the budget for more Raptors.
Next, we may start seeing USAF F-15s falling apart while on ground.
If the Israelis could fly their F-15 and land it with just 1 wing and it didn't broke up in mid-flight with such structural damage, I just can't imagine how it could have just broken up in mid-flight if the aircraft was properly serviced and maintained.
Structural failures don't just appear suddenly.
an old design with an old airframe
and an old design with a new airframe ?
-
Wondering whether you even READ others posting or CHECK what you have quoted before making any comments.Originally posted by justcooler:What a pity, you can't even differential between
an old design with an old airframe
and an old design with a new airframe ?
What a pity! You can't even read!
-
dude you misunderstood! lolololol i bet you read it in one blink...onlyOriginally posted by justcooler:What a pity, you can't even differential between
an old design with an old airframe
and an old design with a new airframe ? -
From what I understand from some of the Eagle drivers, there has been a history of "lack of maintenance" esp with regards to the Alpha and Bravo series of the F-15s flown by the ANGs. A lot of that was attributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, where the enemy they've been training to fight all this while, just dropped dead. Funding was directed away into other more "humanitarians" needs and I guess, that repercussion is felt through the USAF til today.Originally posted by BabyRex:After the "OMG! The Russians, the Chinese and the Indians have better planes than our F-15s". (Ex with Indian Air Force SU30MKI)
The USAF is now trying the "OMG! Our F-15s are dropping out of the sky".
They sure are using whatever means to get the budget for more Raptors.
Next, we may start seeing USAF F-15s falling apart while on ground.
If the Israelis could fly their F-15 and land it with just 1 wing and it didn't broke up in mid-flight with such structural damage, I just can't imagine how it could have just broken up in mid-flight if the aircraft was properly serviced and maintained.
Structural failures don't just appear suddenly.
In a way, I'd sympathize the USAF for being the hardest hit. The Navy still got their F/A-18E/Fs, but had to end up scrapping their entire Tomcat fleet for it. The USAF scrapped their Ravens and haven't got a dedicated jammer since. That few years of funding decrease hurt them. -
The airframe in question is the F-15 c/ds, the F-15 E frame that we are buying brand new is bigger and further reinforced so that it can be a "Strike Eagle" and can carry larger payloads. 30 years of flying and only facing structural problems now ....that's pretty impressive. Hard to even find cars that can still run after 30 years no?
Even the RESET program where the US strips the old Abrams down to bare bones inspect every part and replace defective ones is for tanks that were made in the 1980s. So yeah draw your own conclusions. -
You are right!Originally posted by CM06:The airframe in question is the F-15 c/ds, the F-15 E frame that we are buying brand new is bigger and further reinforced so that it can be a "Strike Eagle" and can carry larger payloads. 30 years of flying and only facing structural problems now ....that's pretty impressive. Hard to even find cars that can still run after 30 years no?
Even the RESET program where the US strips the old Abrams down to bare bones inspect every part and replace defective ones is for tanks that were made in the 1980s. So yeah draw your own conclusions.
The USAF's was expecting the Raptors to replace all the F-15 A/B/C/D but not the Es, probably the reason for the lack of structural overhaul. The Es are not that old and probably not due for anything major yet ( 1st delivery in 1988 ).
Unfortunately, USAF was shortchanged and currently had only <200 Raptors approved. Now that an opportunity (though an unfortunate one) is presented to ask for more Raptors, don't you think the big guns won't milk this to the fullest. Ever wonder why the Es can be quickly put back on the flightline? The longer the A/B/C/Ds are grounded, the stronger the case for more Raptors. Its the other operators (Japan, Israel, Saudi) who had to downgrade their air defences, while the Pentagon plays politics. -
Structural problems were screaming since 2002 when a vertical stabilizer detached in flight. The pilot ejected and died. That didn't affect the decision for just barely 180 Raptors.
-
ThatÂ’s mainly because F-22 simply at this stage is far less capable in the A2G role than F-15E and its variants. F-22 has to store any munitions in the internal bay, the limitation greatly constrains RaptorÂ’s choice of weapon. A role that F-22 canÂ’t fulfill, of course F-15E is not intended to be replaced by F-22.Originally posted by BabyRex:You are right!
The USAF's was expecting the Raptors to replace all the F-15 A/B/C/D but not the Es, probably the reason for the lack of structural overhaul. The Es are not that old and probably not due for anything major yet ( 1st delivery in 1988 )... -
The F-22A is intended as a replacement for the F-15A/B and (hopefully, eventually) the F-15C/D if more are built beyond the currently approved number of 183. With 183 F-22As distributed among 7 squadrons, it is a far cry from the original program requirement for 750. The USAF would be severely stretched.Originally posted by coolant:ThatÂ’s mainly because F-22 simply at this stage is far less capable in the A2G role than F-15E and its variants. F-22 has to store any munitions in the internal bay, the limitation greatly constrains RaptorÂ’s choice of weapon. A role that F-22 canÂ’t fulfill, of course F-15E is not intended to be replaced by F-22.
The FB-22 has been the proposed replacement for the F-15E but the status of this program is still uncertain. Its a pity indeed. Politics are the greatest enemy of any modern weapons program, not foreign adversaries.
FB-22 concept pictures below:
-
the fact is FB-22 as a project is formally died, and USAF now formally calls all their Raptor as F-22 by getting rid of A from F/A-22, where A stands for Attack.