Aging Fleet . .

[CaptnKirk]

For those who think that our aircraft last forever . . .

When an airframe manufacturer designs and build an airplane, it is built for a duration of 20 years.
Anything beyond that is 'extra', considering the fatigue life of the metal, the joining of the structure and their associated fasteners,
and the influence of corrosion - both through the elements such as air (oxygen) and water, and 'intergranular' -
the action of the metalic matrix itself setting up internal galvanic stresses which act like little batteries inside the structure.
Cyclic vibration and load reversals within the structure slowly cause the microscopic metal matrix to fail.

This is but one reason that we need to build both the F-22 and the F35 aircraft - if they don't build enough
there won't be anything servicable in another decade.

Even the 'Buffs' (B-52's) are living on borrowed time.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
For those who think that our aircraft last forever . . .

When an airframe manufacturer designs and build an airplane, it is built for a duration of 20 years.
Anything beyond that is 'extra', considering the fatigue life of the metal, the joining of the structure and their associated fasteners,
and the influence of corrosion - both through the elements such as air (oxygen) and water, and 'intergranular' -
the action of the metalic matrix itself setting up internal galvanic stresses which act like little batteries inside the structure.
Cyclic vibration and load reversals within the structure slowly cause the microscopic metal matrix to fail.

This is but one reason that we need to build both the F-22 and the F35 aircraft - if they don't build enough
there won't be anything servicable in another decade.

Even the 'Buffs' (B-52's) are living on borrowed time.

The FAS on the B-52h 'Stratofortress'.

Service Life

Updated with modern technology, the B-52 will continue into the 21st century as an important element of US forces. There is a proposal under consideration to re-engine the remaining B-52H aircraft to extend the service life. B-52 re-engine plans, if implemented, call for the B-52 to be utilized through 2025. Current engineering analysis show the B-52's life span to extend beyond the year 2040. The limiting factor of the B-52?s service life is the economic limit of the aircraft's upper wing surface, calculated to be approximately 32,500 to 37,500 flight hours. Based on the projected economic service life and forecast mishap rates, the Air Force will be unable to maintain the requirement of 62 aircraft by 2044, after 84 years in service

The May 1997 Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), prescribed a total fleet of 187 bombers (95 B-1, 21 B-2, and 71 B-52). Since the QDR, two B-1s have been lost in peacetime accidents. However, the Report of the Panel to Review Long-Range Air Power (LRAP) concluded the existing bomber fleet cannot be sustained through the expected life of the air frames and that additional aircraft will eventually be required. To address this issue, the Air Force will add five additional B-52 attrition reserve aircraft, bringing the B-52 total from 71 to 76 for a total bomber force of 190. The B-52 fleet will remain the same with 44 combat-coded aircraft.

 

[techs]

The huge cost of fthe f-22 and f-35 make it extremly difficult to acquire in the numbers needed to equip the whole air force. I have advocated for another LWF (Light Weight Fighter) competition like we had for the F-16 to build a lower cost fighter which we can buy enough of.
The f-22 could create air dominance and the f-35 act like the f-117a to suppress air defenses and attack high value, highly defended targets.
Once the f-22's and f-35's have done their jobs the new lwf could operate freely.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: techs
The huge cost of fthe f-22 and f-35 make it extremly difficult to acquire in the numbers needed to equip the whole air force. I have advocated for another LWF (Light Weight Fighter) competition like we had for the F-16 to build a lower cost fighter which we can buy enough of.
The f-22 could create air dominance and the f-35 act like the f-117a to suppress air defenses and attack high value, highly defended targets.
Once the f-22's and f-35's have done their jobs the new lwf could operate freely.

One of the major reasons the military only wants to deal with the F-22 and F-35 (and variants) is to get rid of the multitude of different aircraft that must be trained for and maintained. Between the Air Force, Navy, and Marines it really adds up costs.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: techs
The huge cost of fthe f-22 and f-35 make it extremly difficult to acquire in the numbers needed to equip the whole air force. I have advocated for another LWF (Light Weight Fighter) competition like we had for the F-16 to build a lower cost fighter which we can buy enough of.
The f-22 could create air dominance and the f-35 act like the f-117a to suppress air defenses and attack high value, highly defended targets.
Once the f-22's and f-35's have done their jobs the new lwf could operate freely.

One of the major reasons the military only wants to deal with the F-22 and F-35 (and variants) is to get rid of the multitude of different aircraft that must be trained for and maintained. Between the Air Force, Navy, and Marines it really adds up costs.

Even with the f-22 and f-35 and the new lwf that makes three fighter/attack planes.
Thats less than they field now.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: techs
The huge cost of fthe f-22 and f-35 make it extremly difficult to acquire in the numbers needed to equip the whole air force. I have advocated for another LWF (Light Weight Fighter) competition like we had for the F-16 to build a lower cost fighter which we can buy enough of.
The f-22 could create air dominance and the f-35 act like the f-117a to suppress air defenses and attack high value, highly defended targets.
Once the f-22's and f-35's have done their jobs the new lwf could operate freely.

One of the major reasons the military only wants to deal with the F-22 and F-35 (and variants) is to get rid of the multitude of different aircraft that must be trained for and maintained. Between the Air Force, Navy, and Marines it really adds up costs.

Even with the f-22 and f-35 and the new lwf that makes three fighter/attack planes.
Thats less than they field now.

It makes no sense to develop an entirely new fighter for that role that only the Air Force will probably use. Might as well continue to upgrade and replace the F16s as needed since we already have invested all the money and training into them.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: techs
The huge cost of fthe f-22 and f-35 make it extremly difficult to acquire in the numbers needed to equip the whole air force. I have advocated for another LWF (Light Weight Fighter) competition like we had for the F-16 to build a lower cost fighter which we can buy enough of.
The f-22 could create air dominance and the f-35 act like the f-117a to suppress air defenses and attack high value, highly defended targets.
Once the f-22's and f-35's have done their jobs the new lwf could operate freely.

One of the major reasons the military only wants to deal with the F-22 and F-35 (and variants) is to get rid of the multitude of different aircraft that must be trained for and maintained. Between the Air Force, Navy, and Marines it really adds up costs.

Even with the f-22 and f-35 and the new lwf that makes three fighter/attack planes.
Thats less than they field now.

It makes no sense to develop an entirely new fighter for that role that only the Air Force will probably use. Might as well continue to upgrade and replace the F16s as needed since we already have invested all the money and training into them.

That's a possiblity. Yet, I can't help think a new lwf with more capablilities like the A-10 would be a better fit.

 

[Genx87]

I believe the point of the F35 was to consolidate the costs of maintaining the fleet across the branches. Each branch has their own platforms and that adds to costs big time.

In the private sector the most profitable airlines are the low cost carriers who service one plane type. Same idea, different application.

 

[theeedude]

Do you guys really think the military wants to save taxpayers money?
I know too many people working at defense contractors to believe that for a second.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you guys really think the military wants to save taxpayers money?
I know too many people working at defense contractors to believe that for a second.

Save? I wouldnt say save but they do want to get as much for the buck. Military spending as a % of GDP has fallen big time since the 50s. They cant simply tap congress for money, especially with a good chance it will be democratic with a democrat president next Fall.

The military industrial complex has given way to a bigger beast called the Social Industrial Complex.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you guys really think the military wants to save taxpayers money?
I know too many people working at defense contractors to believe that for a second.

The money saved over the long term from having a more standardized fleet can be spent on other projects. Basically you end up getting more for less $.

 

[techs]

I believe the Air Force wants its new, shiny high tech planes and will say anything to get them.

 

[piasabird]

So how long have the Shinook helicopters been in service?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you guys really think the military wants to save taxpayers money?
I know too many people working at defense contractors to believe that for a second.

Save? I wouldnt say save but they do want to get as much for the buck. Military spending as a % of GDP has fallen big time since the 50s. They cant simply tap congress for money, especially with a good chance it will be democratic with a democrat president next Fall.

The military industrial complex has given way to a bigger beast called the Social Industrial Complex.

Not fast enough for me.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you guys really think the military wants to save taxpayers money?
I know too many people working at defense contractors to believe that for a second.

Save? I wouldnt say save but they do want to get as much for the buck. Military spending as a % of GDP has fallen big time since the 50s. They cant simply tap congress for money, especially with a good chance it will be democratic with a democrat president next Fall.

The military industrial complex has given way to a bigger beast called the Social Industrial Complex.

What Genx forgets to mention is that military spending around the world is down. WAY down. And nowadays America spends more on the military than THE ENTIRE WORLD COMBINED..
He is honest, however, in calling attention to the fact that there has been a big shift and that now much more is being spent around the world on the well being of people than on the military.
Great going, world.:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you guys really think the military wants to save taxpayers money?
I know too many people working at defense contractors to believe that for a second.

Save? I wouldnt say save but they do want to get as much for the buck. Military spending as a % of GDP has fallen big time since the 50s. They cant simply tap congress for money, especially with a good chance it will be democratic with a democrat president next Fall.

The military industrial complex has given way to a bigger beast called the Social Industrial Complex.

What Genx forgets to mention is that military spending around the world is down. WAY down. And nowadays America spends more on the military than THE ENTIRE WORLD COMBINED..
He is honest, however, in calling attention to the fact that there has been a big shift and that now much more is being spent around the world on the well being of people than on the military.
Great going, world.:thumbsup:

The world has nothing to do with you bunkie.

Look at our budgets since the 1950's. The % spent on social projects compared to military has gone up by magnitudes. 2/3rds of the budget is spent on non-discretionary projects. 65% of the fed budget is social spending on some form. Military spending represents about 1/6th of the budget. Huge difference. They want these aircraft to free up money for other projects.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you guys really think the military wants to save taxpayers money?
I know too many people working at defense contractors to believe that for a second.

Save? I wouldnt say save but they do want to get as much for the buck. Military spending as a % of GDP has fallen big time since the 50s. They cant simply tap congress for money, especially with a good chance it will be democratic with a democrat president next Fall.

The military industrial complex has given way to a bigger beast called the Social Industrial Complex.

What Genx forgets to mention is that military spending around the world is down. WAY down. And nowadays America spends more on the military than THE ENTIRE WORLD COMBINED..
He is honest, however, in calling attention to the fact that there has been a big shift and that now much more is being spent around the world on the well being of people than on the military.
Great going, world.:thumbsup:

The world has nothing to do with you bunkie.

Look at our budgets since the 1950's. The % spent on social projects compared to military has gone up by magnitudes. 2/3rds of the budget is spent on non-discretionary projects. 65% of the fed budget is social spending on some form. Military spending represents about 1/6th of the budget. Huge difference. They want these aircraft to free up money for other projects.

I guess reality has nothing to do with you. When the rest of the world severly curtails defense spending you are still measuring it by the standards of the Cold War.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you guys really think the military wants to save taxpayers money?
I know too many people working at defense contractors to believe that for a second.

Save? I wouldnt say save but they do want to get as much for the buck. Military spending as a % of GDP has fallen big time since the 50s. They cant simply tap congress for money, especially with a good chance it will be democratic with a democrat president next Fall.

The military industrial complex has given way to a bigger beast called the Social Industrial Complex.

What Genx forgets to mention is that military spending around the world is down. WAY down. And nowadays America spends more on the military than THE ENTIRE WORLD COMBINED..
He is honest, however, in calling attention to the fact that there has been a big shift and that now much more is being spent around the world on the well being of people than on the military.
Great going, world.:thumbsup:

The world has nothing to do with you bunkie.

Look at our budgets since the 1950's. The % spent on social projects compared to military has gone up by magnitudes. 2/3rds of the budget is spent on non-discretionary projects. 65% of the fed budget is social spending on some form. Military spending represents about 1/6th of the budget. Huge difference. They want these aircraft to free up money for other projects.

I guess reality has nothing to do with you. When the rest of the world severly curtails defense spending you are still measuring it by the standards of the Cold War.

Perhaps you fail to realize as a % of our GDP we are down, way down in military spending. Even in a time of war. This isnt a hard concept for most.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: techs

I guess reality has nothing to do with you. When the rest of the world severly curtails defense spending you are still measuring it by the standards of the Cold War.

Link please. It seems that India, Russia, China, and others are expanding their militaries and capabilities. Many NATO countries are also increasing their expenditures.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: techs

I guess reality has nothing to do with you. When the rest of the world severly curtails defense spending you are still measuring it by the standards of the Cold War.

Link please. It seems that India, Russia, China, and others are expanding their militaries and capabilities. Many NATO countries are also increasing their expenditures.

The current (2005) United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next fourteen biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. The United States and its close allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth (of which, in turn, the US is responsible for the majority). Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States' federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. government's money that is not used for pre-existing obligations.

As percentage of its GDP, the United states spends 4.06% on military.

Text

keep in mind that China under-reports big time, but the essence of what techs is saying is basically true.

From the same link that 4.06% is down big time from a height during Vietnam of 9.xx%. But Iraq/Afghanistan and lots of other things aren't included in these totals since they are funded by supplementals.

The real number is much higher and has been rising.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: techs

I guess reality has nothing to do with you. When the rest of the world severly curtails defense spending you are still measuring it by the standards of the Cold War.

Link please. It seems that India, Russia, China, and others are expanding their militaries and capabilities. Many NATO countries are also increasing their expenditures.

Non-US aggregate real expenditure on military worldwide in 2007 remained at approximately the 1998 level, about half a trillion dollars. US spending increased from about $280 billion to about $625 billion.

From World Wide Military Expenditures at Global Security.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Perhaps you fail to realize as a % of our GDP we are down, way down in military spending. Even in a time of war. This isnt a hard concept for most.

Prior to WWII spending for national defense was 1.7% of GDP. Then, of course, you have :

1) The Korean War
2) 'Duck & Cover'
3) The Vietnam War
4) The Reagan Buildup
5) The Gulf War

And, of course, by 'duck & cover' I mean the costs associated with our nuclear arsenal. This would not include 'other' Cold War expenses, NATO, bases in South Korea, Japan and Europe, etc.

And btw, your premise of defense spending as a percent of GDP is specious at best.

PS - The national defense budget does not include the costs associated with The Illegal Bush Occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan and 'Homeland Security' . . .

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So how long have the Chinook helicopters been in service?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-47_Chinook">Forever.
Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble used them to commute in Bedrock way back when</a>

Maiden flight in 1961, and since inception during the Vietnam War it has been in constant production by Boeing VTOL in Pennsylvania since then,
and with upgrades is still being delivered to customers all around the world.

But don't think that the ones that were made in the 60's are the original airframes, cyclic vibration from helicopters
it the single biggest airframe fatigue producing effect in any flight vehicle.
With all those things swirling around in the ceiling, they litterally shake themselves to an early grave.
Constant retrofits and upgrades, major airframe overhalls and other preventive maintainence operations
are needed to keep them to a point where they can be considered to be a 'cluster of loose nuts and bolts flying in close formation'

Even at that they are always dropping out of the sky.

Army's Mixmaster

Marine 'Sea Knight' - a variant of the S'Hook

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: techs

I guess reality has nothing to do with you. When the rest of the world severly curtails defense spending you are still measuring it by the standards of the Cold War.

Link please. It seems that India, Russia, China, and others are expanding their militaries and capabilities. Many NATO countries are also increasing their expenditures.

Non-US aggregate real expenditure on military worldwide in 2007 remained at approximately the 1998 level, about half a trillion dollars. US spending increased from about $280 billion to about $625 billion.

From World Wide Military Expenditures at Global Security.

Yes, indeedy, GenX is a full time believer in "truthiness". No matter how many times he gets /pwned he keeps posting what he thinks is true.
heyheybooboo gets major pwnage on this one!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87
Perhaps you fail to realize as a % of our GDP we are down, way down in military spending. Even in a time of war. This isnt a hard concept for most.

Prior to WWII spending for national defense was 1.7% of GDP. Then, of course, you have :

1) The Korean War
2) 'Duck & Cover'
3) The Vietnam War
4) The Reagan Buildup
5) The Gulf War

And, of course, by 'duck & cover' I mean the costs associated with our nuclear arsenal. This would not include 'other' Cold War expenses, NATO, bases in South Korea, Japan and Europe, etc.

And btw, your premise of defense spending as a percent of GDP is specious at best.

PS - The national defense budget does not include the costs associated with The Illegal Bush Occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan and 'Homeland Security' . . .

Prior to WWII? Thanks for the history lesson. Did you know in the mid 1920's the federal govt consumed 2.1% of our gdp compared to ~20% it does now?

Anyways in the modern era our military spending once ate a lot more of our gdp and federal budget. This is the point I am trying to get across. The premise of gdp to military spending is fine. This is a standard mesaurement and easiest to deal with across mutiple decades. As the size of our economy grows, so do govt programs. The military is subject to this.