They were interviewing an F-15 pilot and they spoke a bit about the plane. It was mentioned that the planes are of 1977 vintage. The lady back at the CNN desk says in the usual “banter” with the field reporter after the report, “Gee. I wouldn’t have thought that they’d have 24 year old aircraft guarding our airspace. You’d hope it’d be something newer” or something to that effect.
Then they interviewed personel at an Air Refueling Wing. THEY mentioned that the newest of their aircraft is 1960 vintage, with the one they were looking at in particular was made in 1957.
“Wow. The fighters were 1977 but the newest of these is 1960? I’d never have known. Maybe this will give the powers at be some motivation to buy something newer” (or something like that). You could tell she didn’t seem comfortable with the thought that aircraft almost as old as her were taking part in guarding the skies.
Listen. I’m sure the AF and ANG would LOOOVE some new planes, but they don’t have that luxury right now. There just isn’t enough F-22s to go around. That 1977 fighter you were mocking (while not coming right out and saying you thought it was a wreck) is still one of the PREMIER Fighters in the world. It has never been defeated in combat. For every hour these aircraft aircraft (both the tanker and fighter) spend in the air, they get double/triple that in maintenance time on the ground. In adition to that, the electronic warfare systems are modern. That 1957 KC135 is probably in better shape then your 2000 BMW. Please don’t go around trying to scare people by saying their countries AF is using OLD planes. There is nothing wrong with them.
I’m wondering, bernse. I’ve heard tell that commercial airliners begin to suffer metal fatigue at around the 20 year mark, and should be retired before a piece of the fuselage comes off in mid-air. Since you know more about warplanes than I, could you tell me if such a problem affects these planes? And if they do in fact “get double/triple [flight time] in maintenance time on the ground”, why does the government spend that amount of time, money and manpower on older aircraft instead of buying new ones? What do these planes cost?
I am also a bit surprised at the age of some of the planes that are still being used to defend our country, but I guess I felt that something that complex and powerful couldn’t possibly be older than I am. However, I don’t comment to others on subjects I havent the foggiest idea about. That CNN anchor should be thwacked.
You are right. Some commercial airlines can suffer metal fatigue after only 15-20 years. The thing to remember though is that its not really the age of the aircraft that cause it (although I would imagine it does factor a bit) but more so the number of cycles its been through… take off/landings… or better yet number of times its been pressurized.
An average commercial airliner (say a short/medium haul craft like a 737) can do that, oh, say 3-6 times a day. A KC135 probably only goes through that (now I am just giving an educated guess here) a few times a week… if that. A modern 737 may very well have had more cycles/flight time in a year than a Military plane would in 10… or more.
A 1977 F-15 on active duty now will not have many “tech” parts in at that are original.
The avionics, FCR, ECM, (radars/offensive/defensive systems), engines have almost certainly been changed out several times in its lifespan. The Eagle is still one of the best designs for a fighter in the past 30 years. Even with the F22 starting to get deployed (I believe) the Eagle is still the frontline fighter.
Why aren’t there newer aircraft? Well, there is. Most active duty craft stationed overseas (fighters) will be “newer” models. However, at 20-30million a piece to replace, why bother buying new ones when you can upgrade an older one to keep it up to date?
I wouldn’t be suprised if the past few weeks will be a catalyst to spend more $$$ in defense. Its already started.
According to the military information page, the first ‘combat’ F-15 was delivered in 1976. It also says that the F-15 underwent a production upgrade in 1985, so presumably not all are from the 1970’s. It also appears that you can tell how old the plane is by the version letter, i.e. F-15B ~ 1976, F-15C or D ~ 1979, and then F-15 C, D, E from the 1985 production upgrade. But who knows? These dates are all for introductions, so who’s to say that production didn’t continue into the 1990’s?
Are you sure that the interviewees were talking about the ages of actual planes, rather than the history, or “lifespan” of the F-15?
Yes. They were talking about the actual age of the airframe that they were standing next to.
It is very common for 1st generation planes to take part of an “upgrade” that will bring them up to a newer spec. You may have a 1977 F-15A brought up to F-15C spec. However, the airframe was still made in 1977.
For example, ss far as I know Canada’s CF-18s are still a F-18A spec but there is/was talk of bringing them up to the “current” F-18C spec. They’ll still be 20 year old planes though.
Sidenote, B models are usually just 2-seat trainer versions of an A. Pretty rare to get an Aupgraded to a B.
Okay. It seemed possible, so I thought I’d ask. By the way, do you know when the last F-15 was produced?
To address the original point, did the reporter say why “this would give the powers that be motivation to buy something newer”? This seems like a particularly ignorant remark. Does she think that the military doesn’t know the age of its own equipment, or that hi-tech warplanes are something you can pick up at the grocery store? But then, obviously her opinions are important because she’s on television.
This page about the KC135, with too much info to quote, but which basically states that some components of these planes need upgrading, but that they plan to use them for a while yet. There’s an interesting Graph with # of flight hours | year. This quote:
So I agree, that woman on CNN was wayyy off. I saw her and I got mildly ticked off, but now that you’ve started that thread,bernse I had to go and check it out. Thanks for starting this thread!
I’m involved in the local float plane industry, and it’s amazing how planes over 50 years old are kept flying. I’m sure every component in these old planes including every square inch of the surface has been replaced several times over. A host of mandatory checks primarily based on engine time, and aircraft maintenance engineers who record “snags” or items needing attention beside their signature ensure that flying is by far the safest way to travel no matter how old the arcraft is.
While living in Yellowknife, I would routinely insure personally owned and used aircraft. There were very few indeed that were less than 30 years old.
One in particular comes to mind, a 1947 Canuck. Ahhhh what a beauty! Of course, I don’t think anything on it was original. It was one of the original float planes up there that also had ski attachments. So cool!
CNN and other news agencies made similar gaffes in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. They frequently mis-identified aircraft, made wild speculations about capabilities, and generally invented stuff that sounded good. One would think that a reporter assigned to a military story would make some attempt to learn a little on the subject, if for no other reason than asking intellegent questions to make for an interseting story.
The ‘general public’ seems to know relatively little about the military, despite the fact that the US Armed Forces are easily one of the most public in the world. Hell, you can get their own training documents online but still, comparatively few people are educated about it, even here on the SDMB. The news agencies reflect this fact and present woefully simplistic or downright inaccurate news. It’s a shame, but hey. Their audience generally isn’t interested enough to care much anyway, as long as it looks cool.
