This article contains several errors

Mr. Wright needs to get his facts straight.

"The bulldog of American air defenses is the F-15 attack fighter. It is the main plane at all of our ‘alert’ sites in the U.S."

The F-15 was on alert at some but not all of our air defense alert sites before it was grounded following the discovery of a severe structural problem in early production F-15 air superiority fighters. Different alert sites were equipped with F-16s, F-22s, and CF-18s as well as F-15s. The attack version of the F-15 is the F-15E and the E-version, a two-seater, is not currently grounded and is not an air superiority fighter designed for air defense. Our air defense aircraft also include tankers (KC-135) and radar platforms (E-3A AWACS.)

"Since November, all the F-15’s world-wide have been grounded ‘indefinitely’ due to severe structural problems caused by the stressors of this machines capabilities and several of them simply disintegrating in mid flight."

One F-15, not several, experienced a structural failure in flight. Ground-based inspections have revealed incipient structural problems on a number of other F-15s. See url:

http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123077340

"The problem being that almost all the F-16’s are based and being used in Iraq"

No F-16s are based in Iraq. The F-16 inventory is 1,280. A number of them are deployed to Iraq, perhaps 5 percent of the total force structure. The author's statement is almost as absurd as saying the Miami Dolphins are based in London (Dolphins did play the NY Giants in London) and won almost all of their games this year (currently the Dolphins are 1-14.) See url:

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103

"While the F-16’s that most of the Air National Guard units use are excellent fighter aircraft, their range is about 1/3 of the F-15’s. This means they can intercept threats to the U.S. at about 350 miles (175 miles round trip) whereas the F-15’s were able to run about 1100 miles round trip to meet threats further out and more time for assessment and response."

The combat radius of the ground alert aircraft type is less important than the threat detection capability of the overall air defense system comprised of sensors, communications, air platforms, and air defense weapons. The ability of ground based radars to detect high altitude objects is limited to a range of no more than 300 miles for large, non-stealthy objects. This is based on the curvature of the earth and the properties of radar signals. Therefore, the range difference between an F-15 and F-16 is largely irrelevant for air defense ground alert missions due to the limits of ground-based radars. Also, the ratio of the combat radius of the F-15 to the F-16 is roughly 1,222 miles to 500 miles (2.44 to 1) rather than the 1,100 to 175 (6.29 to 1) the author implied.  The F-15 has better airborne radar than the F-16 but this advantage is also irrelevant unless ground based long-range air surveillance radars or airborne E-3A AWACS radars detect the possible threat so the ground alert aircraft can be ordered to launch.

I respectfully suggest the author perform more in-depth research and stick to the facts before he posts his next article.

by Form (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 12:10:50 PM
 

Critique

Thank you for your critique. I should have said most, rather than ‘all’ of our alert sites. Actually, it was obvious as the areas around Washington DC, the lower east coast and the Gulf coast were not mentioned as being covered by the ANG or the AR.

Also it is correct to say that the F-15E is not affected by the grounding. However, the 2 seater E type is configured more as an assault aircraft in that it is rigged for using bomb ordinance. It is still an awesome aircraft but less of an air superiority intercepter than the other models.

That said, we still have differences.

“One F-15, not several, experienced a structural failure in flight.” In addition to the one in Missouri (10/07), there was one off the Oregon coast (6/07), one in Nevada (3/2005), a crash specifically due to structural failure in 2002 in the ocean out of Elgin AFB in Florida (10/02) and the recent Missouri National Guard F15 becoming unstable during a practice dogfight and crashing in Indiana (11/07), one in Okinawa (1/2006) just in a quick google search. A Popular Mechanics special report lists 4 in 2007 alone but does not give specifics. There are others around the planet as it is an ‘exported’ fighter. Some of the crashes were specifically caused by structural problems, some by longeron failure (related to structural issues) and at least one due to a jammed cable.

F-16’s have been situated at Balud Airbase in Northern Iraq, If you check the battle flags and patches of F-16 squadrons you’ll find a significant amount of awards for Iraq services. 28+ wings of the ANG and 4 wings of the Air Force Reserve primarily use F-16’s. The F16 comprises more than half of the U.S.A.F. Fighter fleet.

So, if they aren’t here to provide protection to the U.S.A., and they are not much used in Iraq, and the ones in the ANG and AFR have to provide for U.S. security, where are they?

You seem to have some problems with math, comparing full ranges for one plane with round trip ranges for another. The military sites that I find say 1150 for the F-15, I rounded it off to 1100. My pilot friends noted that the ‘real’ range is farther, as is the potential speed depending on conditions, elevation, use of afterburners etc. but that we rarely give out the limitations of our weaponry. Actually, the F16A had a range of 339 miles, according to the manufacturer. Changes in subsequent configurations have raised the range and, of course, using external fuel tanks can change it further at a cost of weaponry and speed. None the less, an emergency response lowers its range which is already considerably lower than what it is replacing.

The 300 mile radar limit you spend so much time on is true for ground based radars, which is exactly why we have an “,air defense system comprised of sensors, communications, air platforms” and AWAC’s as you mention, plus the early warning systems of allies. Consequently, in tandem, as is the protocol, the range of aircraft interceptors is very much an issue, especially in terms of response and options.

The core problem remains. Why are the Air National Guard and Air Reserve providing homeland air defense rather than the premier pilots and aircraft of the U.S. Air Force? Now I’ll add that since we knew of structural problems with the F-15 since 2002, why have we waited so long to bring about a fix. Mainly, I see the ongoing problem of working our military resources, soldiers and equipment, consistently to the breaking point and diminishing our capabilities of adequate defense and/or use for domestic needs?

I do appreciate having my feet put to the fire but you’ll usually find that I don’t write about things that I don’t have significant back-up for.

by Christopher Wright (17 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments) on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 6:04:06 PM
 

Biggest Air Defense Problem is Sensors, not Aircraft

Mr. Wright-

Thank you for your thoughtful and polite reply to my critique. I wish to take this opportunity to respond to your reply. I agree we continue to have differences.

“One F-15, not several, experienced a structural failure in flight.” In addition to the one in Missouri (10/07), there was one off the Oregon coast (6/07), one in Nevada (3/2005), a crash specifically due to structural failure in 2002 in the ocean out of Elgin AFB in Florida (10/02) and the recent Missouri National Guard F15 becoming unstable during a practice dogfight and crashing in Indiana (11/07), one in Okinawa (1/2006) just in a quick google search. A Popular Mechanics special report lists 4 in 2007 alone but does not give specifics. There are others around the planet as it is an ‘exported’ fighter. Some of the crashes were specifically caused by structural problems, some by longeron failure (related to structural issues) and at least one due to a jammed cable."

I responded to your assertion which began with "Since November." The other F-15 mishaps (or crashes, if you prefer) you cite in your reply occurred before November 2007. My research shows only the 2002 mishap on a test flight at greater than Mach 2.0 was related to structural failure. The other accidents you cite were related to other causes. I have been unable to locate other definitive accounts of F-15 crashes in recent years due to structural failure. Please see url:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/airforce_f15grounding_071104/

Please document your claim of other structural failure crashes of F-15s.

"F-16’s have been situated at Balud Airbase in Northern Iraq,"

When I served in OIF the spelling was "Balad." Aircraft are deployed from their home base downrange to locations in other parts of the world. We have F-16s home based in the United States, Europe, and Korea. None are home based at Balad. Some are deployed to Balad but their tail markings show their home base.

"So, if they aren’t here to provide protection to the U.S.A., and they are not much used in Iraq, and the ones in the ANG and AFR have to provide for U.S. security, where are they?"

I respectfully disagree with your premises and the rhetorical result. The F-16 total force is comprised of active component and reserve component (USAF Reserve and Air National Guard.) F-16s from all three segments of the Total Force can, and do, fly Homeland air defense or if no bogies are detected they sit ground alert called air sovereignty alert. A small faction of the F-16 force is deployed to (not based in) Iraq. Other units are training to prepare to go to Iraq, some have just returned from OIF deployments. Other F-16s are used to train newly minted F-16 pilots, not only for the United States but also our allies with F-16s. Others are based in Europe and Korea. I also call your attention to the Department of Defense Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support located at url:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2005/d20050630homeland.pdf.

In this document, on pages 1 and 2, the following passage may prove informative:

Protecting the United States in the ten‐year
timeframe covered by this Strategy requires
an active, layered defense. This active,
layered defense is global, seamlessly
integrating US capabilities in the forward
regions of the world, the global commons of
space and cyberspace, in the geographic

approaches to US territory, and within the
United States. It is a defense in depth. To be
effective, it requires superior intelligence
collection, fusion, and analysis, calculated
deterrence of enemies, a layered system of
mutually supporting defensive measures that
are neither passive nor ad hoc, and the
capability to mass and focus sufficient
warfighting assets to defeat any attack.
This active, layered defense employs tactical
defenses in a strategic offense. It maximizes
threat awareness and seizes the initiative
from those who would harm us. In so doing,
it intends to defeat potential challengers
before they threaten the United States at
home. (emphasis added.)

"You seem to have some problems with math, comparing full ranges for one plane with round trip ranges for another."

I do have problems with your recitation of the ranges of the F-15 and F-16. You wrote: "This means they can intercept threats to the U.S. at about 350 miles (175 miles round trip) whereas the F-15’s were able to run about 1100 miles round trip to meet threats further out and more time for assessment and response." I did additional research and located the following information on the F-15 and F-16:

F-15 Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle

F-16 Combat radius: 340 mi (295 NM, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon

These citations give a combat radius ratio of 3.58 to 1, which agrees with your overall comparison of an F-16 having 1/3 the range of the F-15. However, you cite 175 miles as the "round trip" capability for the F-16 when the correct distance is nearly double that value at 340 miles.

I restate my contention that the sensors for our Homeland air defense system only cover out to about 300 miles from the ground radar. You can't launch on F-15 at an unseen target over 1,000 miles away because the air defense system doesn't know it is there. If you suppose that a F-15 is launched from an interior base, such as Lambert IAP in St. Louis, based upon a radar track from a coastal ground-based radar in Florida, the F-15 would have the legs to get there while a similarly based F-16 would not. However, to defend the perimeter of our country we base the ground alert aircraft near the periphery. Our ground-based alert sites for Homeland air defense are not in the upper midwest. I will agree that an F-15 on combat air patrol can remain on station longer than an F-16 without air refueling support. To sum up, we have enough planes, pilots, missiles, and tankers to defend our air space. We don't have the long-range persistent sensors to detect air threats at distances beyond 300 miles from shore. Therefore, I claim your concern ("The core problem remains. Why are the Air National Guard and Air Reserve providing homeland air defense rather than the premier pilots and aircraft of the U.S. Air Force?)  regarding the use of Air National Guard F-16s in lieu of F-15s really doesn't get at our most significant air defense difficulty--the lack of long-range persistent sensors.

Best wishes, 

by Form (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 8:35:27 PM
 

So why no mention of Naval Aviation?

I realize this might come as a horrible shock to some, but there are Naval and Marine Corps Air Stations on either coast, and the Gulf of Mexico with alert capabilities.  A few short years after going head to head with Emperor Hirohito's finest, Dad got to see Korea, shortly after General Curtis LeMay decided the Army Air Force would be a separate entity and whenever the Army called, they would be there for them.  Unfortunately LeMay was a diehard strategist, so many Air Force fighter bombers were pressed into strategic service, leaving the Army with marginal tactical air cover.  When an Army unit called for the promised air cover, they were often greeted with a response something like, "I'm sorry Sergeant, but all of our tactical aircraft are on strategic missions.  They'll have to be turned around (prepared for the next flight), refueled and rearmed."  This was most unsatisfactory with North Korean and Chinese Armies over the next hill.  Fortunately for the Army, Naval and Marine Corps aircraft were in the area looking for targets of opportunity when Army units asked if they could provide some air support for them.  They were happy to oblige and after a while Army units called the carrier directly.  After that "police action" was over, someone collected the after action reports and noted that over half of the tactical air support received by the Army in Korea came from the decks of aircraft carriers.  Having served as an Aviation Electrician USN / USNR in Carrier Airwing Light Attack, I know what they can do.  You may not understand them, but they are there and they are in the air and can do anything those Air Force / Air National Guard throttle jockeys can do.

by Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 158 comments) on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 7:32:35 PM
 

Navy/USMC Aircraft not used for Homeland Air Defense

Mr. Kisor-

Thank you for your comment and for your service in the the Navy.  There is no question USN and USMC F-18s have the inherent capabilites to detect and engage targets for the Homeland Air Defense mission.  However, the USN & USMC aircraft have not been assigned the mission.  I respectfully disagree with your claim of the existence of "air stations on either coast and the Gulf of Mexico with alert capabilities."  I made an inquiry into this exact point and discussed it with two F-18 pilots, one a Rear Admiral (USN, ret) and one  a Captain (USN, ret.)  They both stated that none of the naval air stations had a fighter ground alert mission, designated alert fighter parking ramp (and personnel berthing) near the active runway, suitable munitions support, communications, or Command and control procedures for Homeland Air Defense.  This conversation took place in 2005 and remains accurate to my knowledge.  I believe the Naval aviation capabilites could be allocated for ground alert and combt air patrol for Homeland Defense missions but the Air Force has the mission (and all of the above cited facilities and procedures the Navy does not) for now. 

Best wishes,   

by Form (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 8:56:26 PM