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.

 

F15`s grounded again

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
However since civilians run the DoD, White House and Congress logical and rational decisions are, naturally, not forthcoming. And there is only a finite amount of funs allocated per year, unless that also increases significantly the ideal and logical option will continue to be ignored.


Personally thats one of the reasons I care less and less especially since its not like ti my military and I need to spend enough time thinking about that.




posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
The AIB report is out on the HiANG crash in February. "No clear cut and convincing evidence of failure" however there is evidence that both rudders failed to the mid left position. Most likely due to the failure of the Aileron-Rudder Interconnect. The findings were based on interviews with the pilot, and telemetry data automatically transmitted back to Oahu.

[edit on 5/7/2008 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 5/7/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by fulcrumflyer
 


Wow, this is kinda Surreal. This is the first time I have ever googled my Dad, (Lt. Col Gene Earl Jackson) and I ran across this. Kinda strange putting everthing together now so many years later, I was 12 when this happend. Hmm, life is interesting isn't it. Be blessed folks. Lifw*



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

KABUL — A U.S. military F-15E fighter jet crashed in Afghanistan early Saturday, killing two crew members, a U.S. military spokesman said. U.S. military spokesman Col. Greg Julian said a second fighter aircraft traveling with the jet that went down saw no evidence of enemy fire. No fighter jets have crashed in Afghanistan in years. Militants are able to shoot down helicopters with rockets, but are not known to have the anti-aircraft weaponry necessary to bring down a high-flying jet.


Huffington Post


Still early days but the fact that the other aircraft saw no evidence of enemy fire bringing down this one must raise eyebrows and make people wonder if there is still a problem?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I am concerned about the fact defense contractors and the Joe the Plumbers of America will use this incident as a way to justify the wasteful spending on more F-22A Raptors. There is simply no need for more F-22s. I am sorry that people's jobs are at risk, but its wrong for them to falsely claim that America's national security is threatened in order to justify their continued employment.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I am concerned about the fact defense contractors and the Joe the Plumbers of America will use this incident as a way to justify the wasteful spending on more F-22A Raptors. There is simply no need for more F-22s. I am sorry that people's jobs are at risk, but its wrong for them to falsely claim that America's national security is threatened in order to justify their continued employment.

If it were structural failure then it certainly is a reason for more F-22's. If there was no need for more F-22's, I wonder why the USAF considers 183 of them 'high risk' - and the USAF are not Joe Plumbers.

[edit on 19/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
if the numbers for hours flown are true then the F-15 lfeet esoecially the A`s and C`s (but some E`s as well) are time expired but due to lack of a replacement are still being used.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

If it were structural failure then it certainly is a reason for more F-22's. If there was no need for more F-22's, I wonder why the USAF considers 183 of them 'high risk' - and the USAF are not Joe Plumbers.

[edit on 19/7/2009 by C0bzz]


If it were structural failure, then it would be a reason to do *something*, but not necessarily overreact and spend $100m plus on a new fighter when its been proven time and again that that fighters capabilities are overkill for 99% of missions carried out today.

If something needed to be done, then chances are each and every airframe in the USAF inventory (active and stored) would undergo a deep inspection to determine level of airframe condition, rotated out of service as necessary (or pulled from storage if a stored airframe is in a better condition than a current service airframe), put through a significant check by Boeing and reentered into service.

That, or new build F-15s for significantly less than a new build F-22.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Not to mention we have a very pressing need for more troops than aircraft. In fact, the Army is considering a temporary expansion.

How are we going to do that if we're spending all that money on F-22s?



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
And pray tell, when you buy jets with the intention of keeping them twenty, thirty, fifty (B-52) years, who does or should care about the problems of "today"? The problems of today should have been factored in the design philosophy of the jets we bought decades ago.

The jets being made today should be able to fulfill the problems of tomorrow. Which I hope for not too much longer will be having to eradicate the Afghanistan government's problem-children.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

I saw Lt. Gene Jackson's F-15 fighter jet crash on March 9,1987. His jet touched the roof of my base housing on Hansom Place just before crossing the highway and crashing. Did anyone else witnesss this accidcent, if so let me know. Thanks. Email me at james300sdl@excite.com SSgt James Maddox 49th TFW 83-88.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join