It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

82 F-16Ds grounded

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   
The Air Force has announced that 82 of 157 two seat F-16Ds have been grounded after post flight maintenance discovered cracked longerons between the two cockpits. Longeron cracking caused an F-15C to break apart in flight in 2007, and grounded that fleet as well.

The average age of the F-16D fleet is 24, with 5,500 flight hours. Lockheed is currently performing fatigue testing on a Block 30 aircraft, aimed at extending the life cycle another 10-15 years.


The US Air Force announced late on 19 August the grounding of 82 of 969 Lockheed Martin F-16s still in service after finding structural cracks.

The grounding, which involves only the two-seat F-16D, could be lifted to allow aircraft to fly a limited number of flight hours with a temporary fix, the air force says.

Engineers are still analysing options for a permanent repair, the air force says.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
The tooling induced surface micro fractures are rearing their ugly head again.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   
They need to can the F-35 and buy new F-16s. Just the opinion of a broken down Block 30 guy.....



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
They need to can the F-35 and buy new F-16s. Just the opinion of a broken down Block 30 guy.....

Except the F-16 can not perform the missions the F-35 can. It's like saying we need to get rid of destroyers and build more aircraft carriers. The problem being you need both.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Buy some Euro fighter Typhoons to replace your F16's.....



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: PurpleDog UK
Buy some Euro fighter Typhoons to replace your F16's.....

I would imagine it's much cheaper to fix what we have, especially when we have all the spare parts to fix them later on.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Uhhmm, except the F-35 cannot perform the missions that it is supposed to do. And frankly probably never will measure up to its original expectations. The F-16 at least can perform missions right now and the more advanced versions like Block 60 or better probably offer a more relevant capability anyway. Frankly this is all academic, the US and its sales target nations simply will never be able to afford the F-35 in the numbers that have been originally bandied about. There will never be 3000+ built, because the cost is already supersonic. Far better to further develop some of the F-35's technology without the constraints and complexity of integrating it all together in the F-35 and insert it into existing airframe designs like the F-16 while revisiting the whole concept of what will REALLY be relevant and needed in the future. Because as we see here time is running out for the legacy fleet.

LEE.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:41 AM
link   
m.youtube.com...

Still made me smile to watch this....



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

Well those who I believe to have much more knowledge than you claim the F-35 is a multi role aircraft that is absolutely needed. Will it be what it was initially sold as? Probably not, although who knows what the final incarnation will see.

That doesn't make it a failure.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What role do you think it cannot perform? Granted, it isn't a carrier airplane, but, crank up the F/A-18E/F assembly lines.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

Way back, when my unit was still going to have a manned mission, we were listed as one of the Guard units that was going to get F-35s. Our 21 F-16s, were going to be replaced by FOUR F-35s.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What role do you think it cannot perform? Granted, it isn't a carrier airplane, but, crank up the F/A-18E/F assembly lines.


I would recommend you ask Zaphod, he is far more knowledgeable than me. I will gladly run my mouth all night on a topic I know about, I don't talk about what I don't personally have a firm grasp on.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

The technology required, and trust me, it IS required, isn't something that can be refit onto existing airframes within the timeframe that currently exists. At this point it's the F-35 or nothing.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: PurpleDog UK
Buy some Euro fighter Typhoons to replace your F16's.....

I would imagine it's much cheaper to fix what we have, especially when we have all the spare parts to fix them later on.


Replacing longerons can get very pricey. Sounds like the front end of the aircraft could fall off. if it is a main structural longeron the aircraft may head to the bone yard.

It may be possible to repair them but if not replacement is not likely as you would basically need to break the aircraft all the way down to replace them. Not sure though. Never worked F-16 and not sure what longeron is cracking.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: PurpleDog UK
Buy some Euro fighter Typhoons to replace your F16's.....

I would imagine it's much cheaper to fix what we have, especially when we have all the spare parts to fix them later on.


Replacing longerons can get very pricey. Sounds like the front end of the aircraft could fall off. if it is a main structural longeron the aircraft may head to the bone yard.

It may be possible to repair them but if not replacement is not likely as you would basically need to break the aircraft all the way down to replace them. Not sure though. Never worked F-16 and not sure what longeron is cracking.

Even then it's better than going typhoon because anything that is beyond repair can be stripped for parts to keep other birds in the air.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

A much larger portion of the F-15 fleet suffered longeron cracks, resulting in one aircraft breaking apart in flight. There's already a baseline to work from as far as repairs go. This could include anything from donor aircraft, and taking a longeron from a plane in the boneyard, to strengthening the existing longeron.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
One fix is to restrict the flight envelope to something less than the maximum of 9Gs to maybe 6Gs.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
OccamsRazor04


Well those who I believe to have much more knowledge than you claim the F-35 is a multi role aircraft that is absolutely needed
Who exactly is it you say you believe that claims that the F-35 is needed? Lockheed Martin, the US DoD guys that are lining up post military career jobs, senator's/congressman whose constituency has work promised to it that see's them re-elected, some guy on ATS or down the road? The F-35 program is a sham and the epitome example of turning a silk purse into a sows ear, it doesn't work, period. All it is, is arguably the greatest pork barreling sham ever created. It is nothing more than a job creation/profit scam/re-election scheme rolled into one. It is years late as evidenced by the original DoD/Lockheed Martin timetables, it is massively over budget and per unit cost, and it doesn't do what it was promised. Plus it keeps breaking on an all too familiar basis and lets not forget that slightly inconvenient problem of the contract breach over the alternate engine that saw the (arguably) better powerplant axed supposedly to "save money". And it simply cannot be afforded by anything other than fairytale economics. And that is before we get to the really sinister parts of this program. Do yourself a favour Occam (and others), do some more research on what is wrong with F-35 and what is truly driving it. I have been following this whole program since the earliest days and it cannot be afforded or purchased in anything like the dollars that a swathe of officials (both LM, US DoD and various allied governments/airforces) have promised on record that it would cost. You tell me how it can be afforded when even the cheapest A model is by most (non LM) estimates somewhere north of 140 million, the B model well over 200 million and the C model over 300 million?

Zaph

The technology required, and trust me, it IS required, isn't something that can be refit onto existing airframes within the timeframe that currently exists. At this point it's the F-35 or nothing
I have no argument that the technology isn't required Zaph(although I believe not in the airframe/mission it is always linked too), and I'm not talking about the publicly available stuff but rather the technology lying underneath the skin that is the reason it can be sold to quit a few countries without risk of technology transfer (you know what I actually mean Zaph), my problem is that the airframe is wrong and it requires more than one airframe type for these mission sets t be efficiently carried out. I also disagree that it cannot be retrofitted onto existing platforms in an acceptable time frame because the chief naysayer in that is the F-16/F-22 manufacturer itself and that's LM who in a make believe world would hypothetically stand to gain more from selling F-35's over Raptors and Falcons (reality notwithstanding) . That and the F-35 is in 99% of cases vastly expensive and unaffordable overkill. Particularly if the US and its allies only have the stomach these days for PR wars in places that consider a .50 cal a "heavy" weapon. Much of what has happened the last ten years in the Middle east and now in Iraq/Syria could be achieved with turboprops, A-10's Ac-130's or at worst F-16 class fighters. Move up the case from that towards Russia and China and you need F-22 or better.

I don't know where to begin, first the marines need to get out of STOVL whose gimmick use by date has passed now which means NO F-35B. Give them SH's tell them to like it, and cancel any further America class, this is a ridiculous situation operating effectively two fixed wing naval aviation operations side by side in a budget situation that is going to get a lot worse. Second the US Navy needs a twin engine air superiority fighter (which is what they originally wanted, and why they actually don't like the F-35C), not a transonic "pig rolling in the mud platform".

None of this can take away from the fact that the whole F-35 program stinks to high heaven of graft, corruption, corporate greed, incompetence and a lack of clear direction. The single best thing that could happen to all of US and allied weapon procurement is that this program be publicly terminated and the reasons stated loud and clear. That and a lot of people should also lose their jobs or go to jail for lumbering the taxpayer with a system that doesn't work years after it should have and sucks badly needed funds from other areas that are arguably more important.

For now F-16, F-15 and F/A-18 family derivatives are good enough till somebody with brains, integrity and drive can get US Tac Air back on track.

LEE.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

It was tried. Legacy aircraft don't have the power requirements to run it, and what they currently require to stay alive in the coming battlespace.

And the info I got came from guys in the know, not LM. They want the F-35. Even if only some of the systems work well, they want it, and we need it.
edit on 8/21/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

That's one thing that's been done. They're allowed a limited number of hours, in a G limited envelope.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join