USAF F-15 Fleet Grounded
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
USAF F-15 Fleet Grounded
Air Force suspends some F-15 operations
11/4/2007 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The Air Force suspended non-mission critical F-15 flight operations on Nov. 3 following the crash of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C aircraft Nov. 2.
The cause of that accident is still under investigation, however, 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 will ensure mission requirements are met for worldwide operations normally accomplished by the F-15. Current F-15 flying locations include bases in the continental United States, Alaska, England, Hawaii, Japan and the Middle East.
There are more than 700 F-15s in the Air Force inventory. The F-15 reached initial operational capability for the Air Force in September 1975..........
11/4/2007 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The Air Force suspended non-mission critical F-15 flight operations on Nov. 3 following the crash of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C aircraft Nov. 2.
The cause of that accident is still under investigation, however, 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 will ensure mission requirements are met for worldwide operations normally accomplished by the F-15. Current F-15 flying locations include bases in the continental United States, Alaska, England, Hawaii, Japan and the Middle East.
There are more than 700 F-15s in the Air Force inventory. The F-15 reached initial operational capability for the Air Force in September 1975..........
Japanese have grounded their F-15s too. And having already grounded their F-2s last week that leaves the Mighty Tomb to defend their airspace.
Life in the old dog yet.
T
Life in the old dog yet.
T
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Air Force grounds F-15s in Afghanistan after Missouri crash
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A mandatory grounding of Air Force F-15s has been expanded to cover those flying combat missions over Afghanistan after a crash in Missouri last week, Air Force officials said Monday.
The F-15Es in Afghanistan can fly only in emergency situations to protect U.S. and coalition troops in a battle, according to Maj. John Elolf, a spokesman for the U.S. Air Force Central Command.
Maj. Cristin Marposon, an Air Force spokeswoman, told The Associated Press the country's fleet of 676 F-15s, including mission critical jets, was grounded on November 3 for "airworthiness concerns" after the crash of an older model F-15C on Friday. The cause of the crash is still under investigation, but Air Force officials said it was a structural failure and the plane broke apart in flight.
A spokeswoman for Boeing, the aircraft's manufacturer, told AP the company was cooperating with the Air Force but could not provide additional comment because of the pending investigation.
Col. Robert Leeker, commander of the 131st Fighter Wing, said Friday the plane had been among four planes split into pairs and were engaging in one-on-one training flights in which speeds of 400 to 450 mph are typical, according to AP. A pilot, a 10-year veteran of the guard whose name and rank were not released, safely ejected from the aircraft when it crashed in Dent County, Missouri, AP reported. The pilot suffered a dislocated shoulder, a broken arm and minor cuts and bruises.
Now only "mission critical" F-15s will fly.
Pentagon officials said the U.S. Navy has had to move the only aircraft carrier in the region from the Persian Gulf to the North Arabian Sea to fill mission gaps for the F-15s. Several dozen F/A-18 fighters from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise will fly missions with other Air Force aircraft to fill mission gaps..........
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A mandatory grounding of Air Force F-15s has been expanded to cover those flying combat missions over Afghanistan after a crash in Missouri last week, Air Force officials said Monday.
The F-15Es in Afghanistan can fly only in emergency situations to protect U.S. and coalition troops in a battle, according to Maj. John Elolf, a spokesman for the U.S. Air Force Central Command.
Maj. Cristin Marposon, an Air Force spokeswoman, told The Associated Press the country's fleet of 676 F-15s, including mission critical jets, was grounded on November 3 for "airworthiness concerns" after the crash of an older model F-15C on Friday. The cause of the crash is still under investigation, but Air Force officials said it was a structural failure and the plane broke apart in flight.
A spokeswoman for Boeing, the aircraft's manufacturer, told AP the company was cooperating with the Air Force but could not provide additional comment because of the pending investigation.
Col. Robert Leeker, commander of the 131st Fighter Wing, said Friday the plane had been among four planes split into pairs and were engaging in one-on-one training flights in which speeds of 400 to 450 mph are typical, according to AP. A pilot, a 10-year veteran of the guard whose name and rank were not released, safely ejected from the aircraft when it crashed in Dent County, Missouri, AP reported. The pilot suffered a dislocated shoulder, a broken arm and minor cuts and bruises.
Now only "mission critical" F-15s will fly.
Pentagon officials said the U.S. Navy has had to move the only aircraft carrier in the region from the Persian Gulf to the North Arabian Sea to fill mission gaps for the F-15s. Several dozen F/A-18 fighters from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise will fly missions with other Air Force aircraft to fill mission gaps..........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
......Air Force officials said the crash on Friday involved a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C on a training flight with other fighter jets doing combat simulations. After the pilot ejected, the aircraft crashed in a wooded rural area in Dent County, Mo........
Preliminary reports on the recent crash indicate that the jet broke apart just behind the cockpit while in flight, suggesting a major structural failure, according to two people familiar with the incident. The Air Force's Safety Investigation Board is on the scene of the crash and is expected to determine a cause within 60 days.
The Air Force said it is possible that the F-15s could be grounded for days or much longer if top officials decide that all the aircraft must be thoroughly inspected..........
Preliminary reports on the recent crash indicate that the jet broke apart just behind the cockpit while in flight, suggesting a major structural failure, according to two people familiar with the incident. The Air Force's Safety Investigation Board is on the scene of the crash and is expected to determine a cause within 60 days.
The Air Force said it is possible that the F-15s could be grounded for days or much longer if top officials decide that all the aircraft must be thoroughly inspected..........
If this is as serious as it initially looks, the USAF are going to have a major capability shortfall. They might get their 381 F-22's after all then!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well D-IFF Ident if you have anything to do with, well anything vaguely military or aviation related and think that the fact the F-3 can't replace the F-15Es in the Stan is news then we're in an even worse state than I thought.....
Idiot.
Idiot.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point was that D-IFF's post just doesn't make sense (sarcasm or not). Although the aircraft that crashed was a F15C (hope the pilot recovers quickly, btw), the aircraft doing current ops are F15Es - so surely the post should have been "Should we await with bated breath the deployment of the GR4?" Or was it some joke about an air-to-air fighter covering an air-to-ground task that I just don't get?
I suspect that it is a misunderstanding on D-IFF's part that a) the F-15C is on ops (by which I mean Iraq/Afghan) and/or b) The F3 couldn't cover the QRA type "ops" job that the F-15C is doing. Please correct me if I am wrong/clarify for the idiot at the back (me). Alternatively it could have been some not-so-subtle fishing, in which case I think he just landed a couple!
Sorry if I am being a little thick here, but I hate it when I just don't get a whole thread (or thread drift/hijack!)
I suspect that it is a misunderstanding on D-IFF's part that a) the F-15C is on ops (by which I mean Iraq/Afghan) and/or b) The F3 couldn't cover the QRA type "ops" job that the F-15C is doing. Please correct me if I am wrong/clarify for the idiot at the back (me). Alternatively it could have been some not-so-subtle fishing, in which case I think he just landed a couple!
Sorry if I am being a little thick here, but I hate it when I just don't get a whole thread (or thread drift/hijack!)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, I'm all for banter and will gladly show you the hook in my mouth if it was an attempt at fishing but sarcasm?
I'd suggest you should be the ones to check the dictionary and not just for how it is spelt. As for my assessment of idiocy well you could always check the dictionary for a definition of that too.
I'd suggest you should be the ones to check the dictionary and not just for how it is spelt. As for my assessment of idiocy well you could always check the dictionary for a definition of that too.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such a shame that a spot of banter requires clarification nowadays; I am loath to explain jokes to those who don't "get them". However, I forgot about the pedants that lurk herein, and the petulant, and the rash.
I suggested the F-3 both because it is the closest the RAF has to the F-15C, from which the F-15E was evolved, and because the F-3 has arguably the least impressive deployment record in the RAF's recent history. I hoped that would make it the most ironic comparison. Also, since F-18s have been covering many of the missions skipped by the grounded F-15s, a fighter like the F-3, arguably evolved from, if not with, a ground attack airframe, makes for an interesting comparison. The comparison in this instance being against mutli-role aircraft developed from a fighter and being so successful. I won't be drawn on opinions of the successes and failures of the F-3, I don't think it is relevant.
I could have chosen the GR-4, yes, but to be more precise I should have suggested both the GR-4 and the F-3, if I was actually hoping to get anywhere near the capability of the truly multi-role F-15E. I could, in fact, have chosen any aircraft of the RAF's inventory and I doubt any of them could replicate the mission profile of the F-15E.
Getting vaguely back to the thread, the lesson the RAF could learn here (I emphasise the could) is that the US had sufficient redundancy in their air power to continue operations, in this case by moving a carrier fleet closer to the AOR. If the RAF was to ground a fleet, lets say the Harrier for arguments sake - since they are known to operate in the same AOR as the F-15E, then would the RAF be able to continue to support the Operation at the same level? That is the same level today, now, not in a few months time. Taking this thought further, how would the RAF cope with the grounding of, say, the Nimrod fleet (might it be significant they were not grounded for long after recent incidents and accidents?), or the VC10 fleet, Pumas or Chinooks for an indefinite period. Would capability honestly be sustained? Do we/you/they have too many eggs in too few baskets?
And to get back to the thread proper, with apologies to those who only came here to read about the F-15 story, my sincerest thoughts to the injured pilot and wishes for a speedy return to the saddle. I hope the engineers work out the problem with haste and with due import; that the IPTs in the RAF would do the same....
As for arty - not relevant whether I am involved in aviation or anything vaguely military related, this forum is for the discussion of such by anyone interested, not specifically for those involved. If it were, then we'd lose half the members. Judging by your tone, however, I'm going to guess that you are in the RAF, probably a WSO in the back of an F-3 sometimes as often as once each week, and probably got an axe to grind since you failed pilot training, and far enough into the course to be really upset, maybe low level Nav?
I suggested the F-3 both because it is the closest the RAF has to the F-15C, from which the F-15E was evolved, and because the F-3 has arguably the least impressive deployment record in the RAF's recent history. I hoped that would make it the most ironic comparison. Also, since F-18s have been covering many of the missions skipped by the grounded F-15s, a fighter like the F-3, arguably evolved from, if not with, a ground attack airframe, makes for an interesting comparison. The comparison in this instance being against mutli-role aircraft developed from a fighter and being so successful. I won't be drawn on opinions of the successes and failures of the F-3, I don't think it is relevant.
I could have chosen the GR-4, yes, but to be more precise I should have suggested both the GR-4 and the F-3, if I was actually hoping to get anywhere near the capability of the truly multi-role F-15E. I could, in fact, have chosen any aircraft of the RAF's inventory and I doubt any of them could replicate the mission profile of the F-15E.
Getting vaguely back to the thread, the lesson the RAF could learn here (I emphasise the could) is that the US had sufficient redundancy in their air power to continue operations, in this case by moving a carrier fleet closer to the AOR. If the RAF was to ground a fleet, lets say the Harrier for arguments sake - since they are known to operate in the same AOR as the F-15E, then would the RAF be able to continue to support the Operation at the same level? That is the same level today, now, not in a few months time. Taking this thought further, how would the RAF cope with the grounding of, say, the Nimrod fleet (might it be significant they were not grounded for long after recent incidents and accidents?), or the VC10 fleet, Pumas or Chinooks for an indefinite period. Would capability honestly be sustained? Do we/you/they have too many eggs in too few baskets?
And to get back to the thread proper, with apologies to those who only came here to read about the F-15 story, my sincerest thoughts to the injured pilot and wishes for a speedy return to the saddle. I hope the engineers work out the problem with haste and with due import; that the IPTs in the RAF would do the same....
As for arty - not relevant whether I am involved in aviation or anything vaguely military related, this forum is for the discussion of such by anyone interested, not specifically for those involved. If it were, then we'd lose half the members. Judging by your tone, however, I'm going to guess that you are in the RAF, probably a WSO in the back of an F-3 sometimes as often as once each week, and probably got an axe to grind since you failed pilot training, and far enough into the course to be really upset, maybe low level Nav?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Behind the wire.
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D-IFF
I hope you like the taste of humble pie. 
to say you were off the mark with Artyhug is a slight understatement... Get back to writing your column.
Oh and in case you were wondering the breakdown of the Military Aircrew Forum is (174 Viewing)
A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
That would suggest to me Aircrew, Groundcrew and Military support services. Not spotters or Journos. May I suggest you try the Wannabes forum
to say you were off the mark with Artyhug is a slight understatement... Get back to writing your column.Oh and in case you were wondering the breakdown of the Military Aircrew Forum is (174 Viewing)
A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
That would suggest to me Aircrew, Groundcrew and Military support services. Not spotters or Journos. May I suggest you try the Wannabes forum
D-IFF's previous postings about JPA, LOA and the like would suggest to me that he's service (or recently ex-service) and not journo.
Some here are intelligent enough to judge their fellow PPRuNers according to what they write, rather than on what they do for a living, and by their support for military aviation and the services.
Some of us journos are undeniably to$$ers.
But then so are some of you!
Some here are intelligent enough to judge their fellow PPRuNers according to what they write, rather than on what they do for a living, and by their support for military aviation and the services.
Some of us journos are undeniably to$$ers.
But then so are some of you!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some here are intelligent enough to judge their fellow PpruNers according to what they write, rather than on what they do for a living, and by their support for military aviation and the services.
Sorry I'll get back to my smokes and pancakes and the mighty Viper.......
Besides I have a soft spot for F3 WSO's.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High, art and any other upset 'FJ aircrew' - let's not hijack the thread any longer with who has the biggest willy competitions - let it get back to the topic. It matters not my profession, I don't have the time for your petty playtime squabbles any more.