Our Air Force helping the USAF
Nice to be able to pitch in as part of continental defence (and note the French in Afghanistan):
The USAF F-15 fleet has just been grounded again, except for F-15Es. Back to Elmendorf?
Canadian CF-18 fighter jets helped plug a hole in U.S. air defences for almost two weeks this month after American jets were grounded as part of a crash investigation.
The request to fill in for U.S. F-15s over the Alaskan coast was considered an urgent priority for NORAD, especially in light of the return of Russian strategic bombers to Arctic patrols.
Although not unprecedented, defence officials said the now-concluded operation was one of those “extremely rare” occasions when Canada was able to contribute to the defence of its much larger neighbour.
The aircraft are now back at their home base in Bagotville, Que., and the air force was able to lift what was described as a veil of operational security [why - MC?].
“I can’t say precisely how many CF-18s were involved, but certainly there were a few,” said Maj. Mike Lagace, a spokesman for Canadian NORAD operations, based in Winnipeg.
“We really don’t want to say very much in case they’re called on again.”
On Nov. 2, an American F-15C — an older variant of the hardy fighter-bomber — suffered a catastrophic failure over Missouri and crashed, resulting in the grounding of 700 frontline aircraft.
The pilot ejected to safety.
Urgent inspections were carried out on the entire F-15 fleet with newer models eventually restricted to “mission-critical” sorties only.
U.S. Air Force Gen. John D.W. Corley, who heads Air Combat Command, said in a statement that the grounding had “significant operational impact” but that U.S. and coalition partners were able to make up the difference.
In Afghanistan, French Mirage 2000 jet fighters were called to replace American F-15s in providing close air support for NATO, including Canadians troops [emphasis added].
Japan also grounded its F-15s following the U.S. crash.
F-15s have been a pillar of U.S. air power since the mid-1970s, but the air force said in 2004 it intended to replace them gradually with Lockheed Martin’s modern F-22 Raptor.
NORAD — the joint American-Canadian air defence command — had initially hoped to be able to fill the Alaskan gap with F-22s, but not enough of them were available, said Canadian defence officials.
The Canadian fighter jets were stationed at Elmendorf Air Force Base, near Anchorage, Alaska, and worked alongside the American 611th Air Operations Squadron, conducting sovereignty patrols on behalf of the Americans.
“It shows the joint capability where Canadian and American forces work as one,” said Lagace.
The resumption of Russian Tu-95MS bomber flights this summer along the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic borders have kept NORAD “quite busy” and the pressure has not eased, he said.
After almost of decade of infrequent forays, the Russians startled Western militaries by resuming high Arctic long-range patrols, which had been a prominent feature of the Cold War.
Flying in pairs for up to 12 hours, the Tu-95MS strategic bombers trace the edge of American, Canadian and often Danish air space near Greenland, forcing NORAD fighters to scramble to meet them.
The USAF F-15 fleet has just been grounded again, except for F-15Es. Back to Elmendorf?
7 Comments:
1) Thanks.
2) Brings up an interesting issue. The F-15 problem is analogous to the mono-crop problem. If all your rubber is from one species, one disease may wipe it out, e.g., North American chestnuts, or elms. The F-15 problem is an argument for maintaining at least two airframes with roughly comparable characteristics so that even if problems surface in one, you still have the other to function as a stop-gap. Implication: the US needs Canada not to buy the same fighters as the US uses.
Nice job (for the most part) by CP... one tiny quibble though. The F-15 C-mod is all fighter, no bomber. A-D-mods were covered by the flight restriction, but the E-mods (the true fighter/bombers) have a reinforced, redesigned airframe and aren't vulnerable to fatigue at the same stress points.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I wonder how much of this problem is actually AF-manufactured PR. The USAF originally wanted to get something like 300 F-22s. Given their breath-taking price of about $300 million or more each, it's been decided to only buy about 180 of them. Likewise, other new aircraft purchasing numbers are much lower than the AF bureaucrats (in uniform or not) would like.
C-17s; a new tanker aircraft to replace the mainly 1960's KC-135s; the F-35s, C-130Js...All of these are needed and Congress is looking at eye-popping individual unit prices on all of them too and planning on cutting back numbers to be purchased.
Not to mention budgets for the other Services. The Navy especially needs huge amounts of money to retire older combat ships, buy new ones. None of that is cheap, either. Ditto for the Army and Marines, which have been authorized to expand by some significant numbers of personnel.
The AF and the flyer jocks who run it are not happy with this purchase numbers cutback decision. So, some subtle grandstanding about F-15s falling apart, a bit of exaggeration, hyperbole...That's good political maneuvering and PR for the next fiscal year budget. Starting with getting money for more F-22s.
For one thing, were I a Congressman or Senator, I'd tell the AF to not be in such a damned hurry to retire late model F-16s, that have low flight hours and are in excellent shape. Of course, that conflicts with purchases of the AF's F-16 replacement, the F-35.
Budget and turf! Just my theory. Anyone have any comments on that?
Dave see this article, esp. near the end:
"The Real Story Behind the F-15 Stand-Down: News Analysis
When four of the world’s premier jet fighters crash, the military pays attention. When every F-15 in the world is ordered to stay on the ground, the rumor mill gets in gear. Investigators open up in a PM exclusive (Nov. 16)"
Mark
Ottawa
Mark, thanks very much for posting that link. That was a very informative article. So, it's some potential metal fatigue mainly in the strips that transfer aerodynamic load from the skin to the airframe.
What's reassuring, according to what the article said, is that so far, the problems aren't showing up on any other aircraft. By the time they're done with this immediate compliance tech. order inspection, I imagine there'll be a few identified. But they'll be fixed and the AF will know all the birds are now OK.
When I was in the USAF back in the 70's, I worked on old B-52Gs. Man, did those old birds suck up maintenance hours! Those B-52Gs are all scrapped now, under one of the Arms Limitations Treaties with Russia. Sad feeling when I saw photos at a website of them lying in the boneyard with their wings cut off.
The last ones the USAF has flying are the B-52Hs, not a helluva lot younger, built in the early 60's! There have been numerous cases of young new flying crew being assigned to BUFFs (Air Force nickname - Big Ugly Fat F****R) that their fathers previously flew on! I remember the first time that happened, it was published in the Air Force Times. Now, it's happened enough to not even be news anymore.
I remember the feel of being in the old BUFFs. It honest to God felt like being on a really old, tired Greyhound bus. When they'd open up internal panels to do avionics repairs or maintenance, you could see large numbers of big vacuum tubes! We had some terrific folks working on them AND flying them but I was glad I never had to fly on one.
Dave: Remember Dr Strangelove, when the Buffs were young!
Mark
Ottawa
Post a Comment
<< Home