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.

 

F-15E - Problems

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I'm unable to give specifics but watch the military aviation news to see if the Air Force reveals any information about structural problems with the Strike Eagle.

The problems with the F-15A/C are now well known, but the military has been quick to state that the "E" model is newer and therefore free from defects, this is not true, and they are desparately trying to keep a lid on it.

Of course, all this is just speculation on my part, it's not like there have been any unreported crashes or anything.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Retseh]




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
It's not just that the -Es are newer airframes. They were extensively rebuilt and strengthened during the conversion to Strike Eagles. They also haven't had quite as much strain placed on the airframes as the air-superiority versions have. They should be fine, in the short term. Eventually, they'll wear out, just like anything else does, but that's an issue for a future Defense budget.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
That's the point, they are not fine at all.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
That's your "feeling" (to quote from the original post). Do you have some source to support the opinion, or is it simply based on the fact that the -Es are F-15s, and therefore, must have the same structural problems as earlier models?

If you have a source, by all means, cite away. If not, then keep in mind that (as I said before), the -E models were extensively rebuilt and strengthened during the conversion process, and haven't been subjected to the same mechanical stress as the air-superiority models.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
One went down in the sand box in October, I don't want to provide too many details, but a wing detached in flight and both crew members were killed, the aircraft was very low at the time.

This information has not been released to the press.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   


www.af.mil...

This is the latest info on the problems with the F-15. Doesn't seem to include the E model. The article is dated 12\5\07. I would think that if the accident involving an E model happened in October, then the airforce would have included it too.




[edit on 11-1-2008 by assassini]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
The Strike Eagles are conversions of older Eagles?

I thought that Strike Eagle production lines started from scratch and that unlike the bulk of F-15 some of which have been flying since 1979 the first Strike Eagles didnt leave the factory any earlier than the early 90's.

Not "retreads".

The faulty longaron(sp) structural support beams near the front structure of the defective Eagles that the Air Force is now saying is the cause of all this is a criminally negligent oversight by the manufacturer.
Seems to me they were trying to save a few bucks by hiding some cheap parts in the airframe.

According to the air force its maintenance procedures, written by the manufacturer, left examining certain parts of the airframe completely out hence maintenace crews never went near it. Which is how it was missed for so long.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Strapping Young Lad
 


The first prototype was a modified B model. It flew in 1980. Then there were 3 more built in 1985. The first new production E models started service in 1988 and are still being built today. They are not rebuilt B or D models. The landing gear and internal structure are different, and the empty weight was increased by over 2000lbs. E models were also designed to use both P&W and GE engines.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by assassini


www.af.mil...

This is the latest info on the problems with the F-15. Doesn't seem to include the E model. The article is dated 12\5\07. I would think that if the accident involving an E model happened in October, then the airforce would have included it too.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by assassini]


Like I keep saying - that's the point. An F-15E DID crash in Iraq and they HAVEN'T reported it. Planes have pilots and WSOs, when they die there is a funeral, people talk at funerals.............



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


If you cannot give specifics then I don't think you should say the F-15E Strike Eagle has problems.
To me, your statement sounds like an opinion.

You state the USAF's claim that the F-15E Strike Eagle is newer therfor free from defects is wrong, and they are lying about it.. Could you tell us why the USAF's claim is wrong?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nikolas
reply to post by Retseh
 


If you cannot give specifics then I don't think you should say the F-15E Strike Eagle has problems.
To me, your statement sounds like an opinion.

You state the USAF's claim that the F-15E Strike Eagle is newer therfor free from defects is wrong, and they are lying about it.. Could you tell us why the USAF's claim is wrong?


Firstly, I believe the phrase I used was "not true", I accused the Air Force of witholding information, not lying. I know for a fact that an E model crashed as a result of structural failure in October of last year and it has not been reported. A personal friend of mine who himself was a WSO in an E model attended the funeral of one of the crew who was killed. He specifically stated that USAF has deliberately kept the incident under wraps according to the other flight crew who attended.

Since that does appear to fit the generally accepted definition of a conspiracy, and this being a conspiracy oriented forum, I thought some members may be interested.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Since we cannot verify what you state please ask your "sources" for the serial number of the Mudhen that supposedly crashed, unit info would be appreciated as well. This will help establish if said aircraft is in service or not, however it cannot establish cause of crash, if there was one. Even if it was "structural failure", there is no reason to think it was related to a longeron problem or that there is a widespread problem with the E models. Hence why, even for a conspiracy forum, your statements are unfounded and presumptuous.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23 Hence why, even for a conspiracy forum, your statements are unfounded and presumptuous.


You really do need to visit the 9/11 forum more often

Also, since the wing detached, even the most ill informed would realise that longerons are not involved here.

It's highly doubtful that I will get specifics, so I suggest you assign this information the value you deem most appropriate.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Retseh]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by assassini
reply to post by Strapping Young Lad
 


The first prototype was a modified B model. It flew in 1980. Then there were 3 more built in 1985. The first new production E models started service in 1988 and are still being built today. They are not rebuilt B or D models. The landing gear and internal structure are different, and the empty weight was increased by over 2000lbs. E models were also designed to use both P&W and GE engines.


wow all of this in like 3 hours ok I got catch up but first off the structure isn't immune to failure. It can fail just like any other airframe. The longeron issue on the A-D models was partly (not completely as airfroce stance) due to the incorrect manufacturing of the longeron which was not the required thickness. See more on my posting in the other F-15 thread. This issue is different but those posting here would benifit to see the info presented in this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thickness issues don't need much to be serious as showen here.


The production timeline as stated above is correct with the first production model of the F-15E was delivered to the 405th Tactical Training Wing, Luke AFB, Ariz., in April 1988. And this was the completely new airframe from the production plant.

If it is an issue with the wing it could be front and rear spars, stringers or ribs. I think the first step is finding a report or news of any kind on a F-15E going down in iraq or Afghanistan in the past year. Good hunting I'll be doin the same!

Intial findings very basic are that the F-15E has sustained two losses to ground fire in the Gulf War in 1991. One F-15E was lost in the 2003, Invasion of Iraq, probably due to ground fire.

More info on one of the pilots of the 2003 crash

0, of Amarillo, Texas.
Das was the pilot of an F-15E that went down during a combat mission in Iraq. He was assigned to the 333rd Fighter Squadron, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. Died on April 7, 2003.

www.fallenheroesmemorial.com...

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Retseh,

OK, I can see what your saying here.

There is a structural problem with the Strike Eagle.

It is a different problem than with the earlier Eagles because the Strike Eagle is a beefed up version and the failure is in a different area of the airframe.

The USAF is keeping a lid on public disclosure because....

A) It can be disguised as a combat loss, and..

B) You don't tell you enemy that your stuff doesn't work.

You got the info via the crews.

Fair enough - (but not really a conspiracy in that sense) - can't see there's any more to be said unless someone can dig up confirmation or can negate it.

However, one structural failure doesn't necessarily infer a fleet-wide problem.

Do you have any info on whether inspections or investigations into the crash are underway?

Data diggers, go for it.

The Winged Wombat.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
I know for a fact that an E model crashed as a result of structural failure in October of last year and it has not been reported. A personal friend of mine who himself was a WSO in an E model attended the funeral of one of the crew who was killed.


So we are looking for any info on a crash in october of 2006 or 7? since we are in Jan which year are you refering to? As my previous post said the most resent loss that I've seen of a E model is in 2003. If you can help clarify what year that would be great.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
Since we cannot verify what you state please ask your "sources" for the serial number of the Mudhen that supposedly crashed, unit info would be appreciated as well. This will help establish if said aircraft is in service or not, however it cannot establish cause of crash, if there was one.


Also Westy request for the serial and unit that it was a part of would help for sure to confirm it but we need info to go further with this as people (myself included) on the aviation fourm are hyper critical of details that are provided and no details will get you very little belivers in this community (harsh but true and skeptical)

[edit on 22-1-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
An F-15E DID crash in Iraq and they HAVEN'T reported it.


So the info is as follows a F-15E Strike Eagle suffered some sort of a structual failure most likely the wing. The Pilot and WSO died in the crash which happened in Iraq in Oct of the past year (07-06?). The airforce and news media denied it happened and it has not been covered.

Personally I think if what you say is true we would see some info somewhere of the crash. With all the reports on choppers and 16 crashs in Iraq the chance of media of some sort not reporting it is next to none.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Two different structural failures...wow...no wonder we have dumped so much for the Raptor

It seems the Pentagon will cut slash and hack any program to get as many Raptors as fast as possible. I remember it was a bit more than a year before the first Raptor squadron was even operational that the number of Raptors we wanted, around 300, was slashed in half because they cost so much and that the money could be well used for other things.

Living in DC it was pretty hard not to miss the double fisted reaction of the Generals that still seem to swear by this aircraft as they knocked down program after program to free up as much money as possible for more Raptors. Really. Even now in 08 congress even mentions anything about the Raptor funding the Pentagon just loses it. Its like trying to take coc aine away from a lab monkey. Man they will throw their sh** at you!

The Raptor I guess is just that damn good. As will all of its variants including the F-35.

So now the mystery is.....what was wrong with the grounded Strike Eagles? This truly is a huge stab in the back by the producer. Ive spent nearly my whole life thinking the Eagle was the most badass thing to ever fly let alone the Strike Eagle.

(trembling)....somewhere...somehow...somebodies gonna PAY!!

oh...thats right, its about tax season again isnt it...



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Strapping Young Lad
 


The Eagle is the most BA western plane that has been flying for years now. So don't get to sad but the raptors tech and development is 20 years younger so its like saying thanks Dad you gave me the knowledge and paved the way but now tis my turn to kick some @ss.

I think you are miss informed though the F-15E squadrons where only stood down for a week so that the checks could be done to the aircraft and then they have been flying ever since.

The OP has yet to come back on to this thread and help in the search for any hints of info that this crash happened some time in the past year and I did some hunting with no real results so I'm fine with leaving it as someone scared off by actually needing to back up statements.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join