GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Wear and tear adds up on military aircraft

• 66599
  

  In the year 2009 let us hope the next administration and all of our leaders start listening to the USAF and has the morale courage, integrity and wisdom not to place the fighter pilots of this great nation in harms way. We the people of America must not allow vital and superior air dominance defense assets, specifically the F-22, to be discontinued and the assembly line shut down prematurely. The airplane is most capable and is a national asset. If we make the wrong choice, suppliers will disappear and the up money invested thus far will not serve the intended purpose to build enough to meet service needs and national defense expectations. Lets us finish what was started. Take politics out of it and look at the plain facts. The F-15s are aging - some are unsafe. The current plan to stop production of the F-22 is a mistake. The more capable F-22 must be built in adequate numbers to replace the F-15, stealth or no stealth, and regardless of any spin on numbers and capability.

  B. Hendrix Posted January 15, 2009 3:54 PM
• 47203
  

  Sydney, I don't expect every single detail to be checked, but according to this article the F15 repairs took 225 man-hours per aircraft. It also says that installing the repair part cost $250,000. By my math, that is around $1100 per hour to repair, just in labor cost. I know we pay mechanics around $25 per hour if they are experienced. Can you tell us where these repairs were done? I know alot of mechanics that would take that pay raise.

  Maybe the source of the data would quit deceiving John Q. Public if reporters would carry a calculator and ask harder questions. With those labor costs it is no wonder we cannot afford new aircraft.

  Don't even get me started on the Air Force wanting to spend $400 million in advertising to make America feel better about the Air Force! I would feel better if they managed funds a little better than they do.

  Gov-Exec reader Posted March 25, 2008 5:02 PM
• 47074
  

  Our militray needs the best and the numbers required to do the job. To think that al-quida is our only potential enemy is wrong headed. The only way to keep this country safe is for us to fund the military, remember the constitution says "provide" for the national defense that means money and its the only place in the constitution that requires $$$$

  dan ketter Posted March 24, 2008 10:39 AM
• 47069
  

  With DOD's budget slice being less than 5% of the total, it appears that the problem is less "supersizing procurement" than it is the mentality of funding and fielding the outer limits of R&D research with a 1960's mentality of who our enemies are. Do we really need a super-duper hard to find fighter when the Al-Qaida can't hit the old ones? If the military is needed to fight a larger country are 21 B-2's going to be enough, or would we be better off with 100 or 200 of something less stealthy?

  Warplanes wear out when they are used for war. Duh. The old adage about "Ships are safe when in the harbour, but that's not ships are for" still applies. Planes are going to get used, and fleet cost vs. life expectancy fo the plane is going to have to be raised to a higher level importance.

  Barry L. Posted March 24, 2008 9:41 AM
• 47052
  

  Maybe the problem is that the DOD keeps trying to supersize a procurement when something smaller and less expensive will do. It seems to be standard practice in the military for agencies to grab as big a chunk of the pie as they can. Even if it means flat out lying about a weapons system they want.

  The Congress and especially the tax payers are justified for being apprehensive of the these procurements. If the services want new weapons systems, they need to PROVE that they can be trusted. They could start by cleaning out the massive amounts of waste and mismanagement in their agencies. We need less flag waiving and more effort.

  Robert M. Posted March 24, 2008 7:36 AM