Slashdot Mirror


Mechanic's Mistake Trashes $244 Million Aircraft

Hugh Pickens writes "An accident report is finally out for the Air Force E-8C Joint Surveillance Targeting and Attack Radar System that had started refueling with a KC-135 on on March 13, 2009 when the crew heard a 'loud bang throughout the midsection of the aircraft.' Vapor and fuel started pouring out of the JSTARS from 'at least two holes in the left wing just inboard of the number two engine.' The pilot immediately brought the jet back to its base in Qatar where mechanics found the number two main fuel tank had been ruptured, 'causing extensive damage to the wing of the aircraft.' How extensive? 25 million dollars worth of extensive. What caused this potentially fatal and incredibly expensive accident to one of the United States' biggest spy planes? According to the USAF accident report, a contractor accidentally left a plug in one of the fuel tank's relief vents (PDF) during routine maintenance. 'The PDM subcontractor employed ineffective tool control measures,' reads the report. Tool control measures? 'You know, the absolutely basic practice of accounting for the exact location of every tool that is used to work on an airplane once that work is finished.' Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz just told Congress, 'there is a JSTARS platform that was damaged beyond economical repair that we will not repair.' So, if this is the one Schwartz is talking about, then one mechanic's mistake has damaged a $244 million aircraft beyond repair."

47 of 428 comments (clear)

  1. Shit Happens by rotorbudd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been an A&P for over 35 years and I've seen worse.
    (by pilots and mechanics)

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    1. Re:Shit Happens by WillRobinson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The electronics package is 200 mill put it in another plane. So saying its a total loss is bs. The plane is basicly a kc-135 they have plenty of spares including whole wings.

    2. Re:Shit Happens by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite as simple as that. You've got to rip the gear out of the dead plane as salvage and then install it in a new one. Part of the $200 mil is not the gear itself but it's installation, calibration, etc.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    3. Re:Shit Happens by Suki+I · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've been an A&P for over 35 years and I've seen worse.
      (by pilots and mechanics)

      In Chuck Yeager's biography he talked about an assembly mechanic who was installing a bolt the wrong way, even though his instructions said the right way to do it. Resulted in numerous fighter plane crashes and almost killed Yeager when he was test flying one of the planes to see what was causing the crashes.

    4. Re:Shit Happens by Garybaldy · · Score: 5, Informative

      I remember reading that as i have repeated the story many times. The women on the assembly line could not grasp why you would stick a bolt in upside down. Always being taught to put it in facing down. So if the nut ever came loose the bolt would not come out. Even though as you said the instructions said to put it in upside down.

      The reason being the head of the bolt was shorter and would not interfere with a control cable.

    5. Re:Shit Happens by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      She knows clearance issues are why you install a shorter bolt Again, engineering design failed, miserably, so a way to blame the peon.

      If you insist on putting the brake pedal on the right foot and accelerator on the left, it doesn't matter how loudly you blame the driver, its still a design failure.

      This specific incident was hashed out in one of those freshman "intro to engineering ethics" classes I had to take a long time ago. Still remember it. It was a huge design failure, although you could claim it was also a huge management and PR success to put all the blame on some poor chick. Was used as an object lesson for how management picks the winner and loser, sometimes engineering gets it, sometimes operations/factory floor gets it, and part of being an engineer is "toughening up" that you're going to be involved in corporate BS like that, so get used to thinking about it.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:Shit Happens by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or if you're going to intentionally violate international standards of assembly, management needs to hire a QA/QC guy who's sole job is to make sure things are put together the wrong way. Unless of course he failed in this case, but he was someone important's son, so he can't be blamed...

      There's always a way to design something the "right" way. If clearances are that tight, g-loading of the frame would have screwed it up eventually, or a tiny piece of shrapnel could take down a plane... A "combat" style repair during an emergency on a distant island could cause the loss of a plane, this isn't just a manufacturing problem.

      This incident was an hour long seminar in class and at the end of class, there's no way around it, it was an engineering failure but some lowly peon took the hit, with a sub-text esoteric or whatever meaning that even when engineering "wins" in a corporate BS scenario, everyone else really "loses".

      We came up with all manner of solutions like "shorter bolts everywhere not just one shorter bolt", "rivets not bolts", "reroute the cable". One unpopular one was "well, in wartime, you're gonna take losses, just deal with it".

      The funniest, yet best human factors solution, which won the award for the best solution, was to work with human nature, not against it, and make the build fixture upside down. So the plant workers install the bolts right side up, from their perspective. Don't even tell the bolt installer plant workers that they're working upside down. I wish I could say that was my bright idea, but mine was a crappy solution involving spray painting bolt heads and spray painting the holes on the bolt side using a fixture, which got shot down, something about F-ing up corrosion control chromate primer or whatever.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Shit Happens by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you insist on putting the brake pedal on the right foot and accelerator on the left, it doesn't matter how loudly you blame the driver, its still a design failure.

      They should take the Apple route and put both functions in one pedal. Simply Genius! (tm)

    8. Re:Shit Happens by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just for a rule of thumb guideline - in the Navy, we never threw anything away without the Captain's permission. Something broke, the responsible parties looked at it, calculated what it would cost to repair, then reported to the Old Man. If the repair cost was greater than 60% of a new replacement, then it was deep-sixed. Otherwise, we repaired.

      And, labor didn't factor into the calculations. With 350 men aboard who weren't going anywhere without the Captain's permission, the cost of labor didn't merit any consideration.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:Shit Happens by squidflakes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aircraft aren't cars. The moment you start treating them the same is the moment you sign your own death warrant.

      Reading carefully in the article, the Air Force states that it is beyond economical repair, which usually means that the hours on the airframe are probably beyond some limit for stress or flight hours and to make such a huge repairs near the spar, which is the huge chunk of metal that keeps the wings on, would most likely require a huge program of testing, inspection, and re-certification.

      Since the Air Force has dozens of spares of this particular airframe, it is more economical to pull a newer one out of storage and move all the stuff that makes a JSTAR a JSTAR to a new plane.

    10. Re:Shit Happens by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was not designed that way,
      It was designed to bleed off excess pressure. The plane tried to do just that. Only some fuckwad left it plugged.
      Let me come over to your house and install nails in your fuse fuse box and then tell you how badly designed your electrical system was that a simple short in an electronic device burned down your house.
      It seems to me that since you put no thought into this that "blaming the bigger guy" is your thing.
      Good luck with that.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    11. Re:Shit Happens by squidflakes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The wing walker is a ground crew member for an aircraft that monitors the position of the aircraft's wings as you are towing it in or out of a hangar or around other aircraft. Their job is to walk just beside where the end of the wing would be and alert the tow tractor driver if the plane is about to hit something. Of course, the wings aren't the only part of the plane that can hit stuff, so wing walkers are supposed to keep an eye on the whole thing.

      A C-5-A is almost 250 feet long with a wing span around 220 feet. That's a lot of aircraft to watch.

    12. Re:Shit Happens by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The airframe is a 40 year old ex-airline 707 with about ten zillion hours on it. A better analogy would be that it's like a $900 car with an $20k Oracle server in the trunk, and frame damage that would cost $2k to fix.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    13. Re:Shit Happens by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No the professor was right.
      There is a benefit to putting in the bolts the way the worker was taught to do it. It is also the standard way.
      And the class came up with a number of solutions that would have been better than the upside down bolt.

      You should always make assembly errors as unlikely as possible. Having a design that will fail if a single bolt is installed in that standard way vs a special procedure is just asking for trouble. Doing when other solutions are available is a fail.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Shit Happens by sqldr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Aircraft aren't cars. The moment you start treating them the same is the moment you sign your own death warrant.

      Tell me about it. Sling-shot launching that Reliant Robin off an aircraft carrier damn nearly killed me!

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    15. Re:Shit Happens by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Except if it's an Oracle server, I'd dump it in the drainage ditch on the side of the road in an instant.

      "No, sir, I don't know how it got into the ditch. Must have jumped."

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re:Shit Happens by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is true *but*:
      There is a hard rule in aircraft assembly that the bolt be placed head up nut down. This is to protect the plane if/when a nut falls off, gravity will still hold the bolt in place, hopefully long enough to land, or at least to eject.
      This is not an optional rule, and assembly workers have it drilled into them at their new hire instruction, and every annual refresher, and whenever someone sees a mistake in QA, and just because someone thought now would be a good time to bring it up again.
      It is "how it's done". <- full stop
      Now, in this particular case, a dumbass engineer decided to have the bolt installed in contravention of this hard rule. He chose this because in the other orientation there was an issue with control cables, and for whatever reason the following options were not viable: move the bolt hole, use a shorter bolt, re-route the control cable.
      The worker put the bolt in the way that she is "supposed to always" install bolts. Naturally this was not the right way for this bolt, and she is not blameless, but she is also not to be blamed for the entirety of the issue. She should have called her supervisor over and complained that the design conflicts with her training. Then put the bolt in upside down when her supervisor tells her to "just do it, will ya".
      I still refuse to hold her as the sole cause of the issue. I've had people where I work refuse to do something against the "always do it this way" kind of rules and a design calls out something against that. 9/10 times we kick back the design as invalid. 1/10 we end up doing it, but only after everyone on the team has been trained that this one widget goes in wrong, and why. It prevents the "I know better" issues with people.

      To sum up: Just because you don't pay them to think does not mean they will not think. Better to explain to them why things are done wrong in a particular case, then they will understand that it is not a stupid mistake that needs correcting, but rather a design tradeoff that had to be made.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    17. Re:Shit Happens by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Its based on the 707 dude, those are as common as dirt. hell I bet for 50 million you can get fricking Boeing to yank the wing off a retired 707 and perfectly fit it to that one. No friend it sounds to me like they want an excuse to write this off so they can get a "free" new one. After all its YOUR money not theirs they are blowing. My grandfather was USAF and when it came time to "blow the bases budget" as he put it he'd come home with piles of new gear, new tools, new radios, you name it. Where did it all come from? Simple they were throwing it all away so they could blow the budget and anything cool that he liked grandfather got to help himself to. I've still got an excellent all band military radio I need to find some tubes for.

      So what is the replacement for this model? i bet its nicer right? They are probably thanking that dumbass for letting them get a new plane. Just more waste from your military, nothing to see, move along.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Government Contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Government contractors. Saving you money like they have never saved it before.

    1. Re:Government Contractors by Geraden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the real world, faced with $244,000,000 in lawsuits, the contractor folds up and declares bankruptcy.

      Then everyone will have a laugh and the taxpayers will pick up the tab.

    2. Re:Government Contractors by s-whs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the real world, a contractor damages $244,000,000.00 of someone's shit, the contractor is paying $244,000,000.00 plus loss of use costs until replacement. In the government run world, everyone will have a laugh and the taxpayers will pick up the tab.

      In the real world, faced with $244,000,000 in lawsuits, the contractor folds up and declares bankruptcy. Then everyone will have a laugh and the taxpayers will pick up the tab.

      In the real world, whatever happens, everyone will pay for this. What do you think happens if that firm is properly insured? The insurance company pays and will increase rates for everyone, not just that firm that made the mistake (you can't do stats on a single mistake anyway, and the insurance firm needs to get that money from somewhere if they are to remain as profitable).

      So everyone pays more insurance, this means the companies who pay more insurance have more costs and increase their rates etc. This is not something insulated. Ditto for bankruptcies, not everyone pays as much everyone pays for it in the end.

  3. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Funny

    you forgot "And suggest private industry could do better"

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  4. I feel better now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The most I ever cost my employer for a screw up is about $1.1 million.

  5. RFID by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like a great case for RFID inventory control ; tag every tool, log them out of the toolbox with a loop mounted on the side, log them back in again when you return them.

    The article linked mentions this on the second page ; I don't see why you should be limited to the 3M solution though (except maybe they'll bribe someone to make it a regulatory necessity). You can get nearly 2,000 tags for about $100, so it's not like it would be expensive.

    1. Re:RFID by phonewebcam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You can get nearly 2,000 tags for about $100"
      You or I could, but the essential middlemen selling the same stuff to the government would add at least three zeros to the end of that figure

    2. Re:RFID by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are a lot of misconceptions about how contractors work, because typically, their profit margins are no higher than in other lines of business.

      The government is big on COTS hardware/software, and only turn to contractors for specialized circumstances. Those extra zeros come from the unusual design requirements and low volume orders.

      Take the x thousand dollar hammer example. On the surface, that seems absurd, since one can buy a hammer for less than 10$. But when the hammer is going into space and is made of a difficult to machine titanium alloy (tool steel shatters at cold temperatures), is egonomic even through spacesuit gloves, is lightened without reducing mechanical efficiency (makes sense at an estimated 1000$/pound/launch), and only 10 are made (despite flat machining costs), that X or XX thousand dollar price tag seems very affordable.

      The same thing happens in other areas. I work on submarines and some components use joysticks. Sure, commercial joysticks can be obtained for under 100$, but a waterproofed, pov only motion, high durability (sailors treat equipment like crap, and failure is not an option) piece of clockwork machinery that maybe 50 will be made, you are looking at just shy of XX thousand per.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    3. Re:RFID by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the 70s, our tool kit was a canvas bag. We had to check it before we went to the flight line and both of us signed off that it was complete. Then before we LEFT the flight line, we counted again and signed off that it was complete. If the bird was scheduled to fly before we could get back to the tool crib, the crew chief also counted and signed off. Then we returned to the shop, checked the bag in and it was counted again before we could sign off on the work.

      If the tool crib did not get all the tools back, the bird would held until we found the tool or the bird was inspected inside and out. For 2 years I was there, we never lost a tool, and I never heard of anyone losing a tool from any other shop. In fact, my usual task was to lock a fixture, and I had the speed wrench on a wrist leash. Fortunately I never worked on a bird with engines running, which was a whole different protocol.

      It is not that hard to count. From the description of this process, I'm disappointed that the shop didn't have a tool board that would show an empty spot, nor any process to question a missing tool. In our shop back then, a missing tool for ANY reason would have been grounds for a complete inspection, evaluation, and questioning. I wasn't allowed to carry tools into the shop, even that teeny screwdriver we used for rotary switches. Absolute control within the shop system.

      Leaving something on equipment was just inexcusable. Shocking really.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  6. I'm not really understanding... by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A few points occur to me:

    1_ ...how $25 million in repairs is "beyond economical repair" on a $240 million plane? If I have a $20,000 car that's in an accident, it's not uncommon to have $2000 in repairs...that's hardly "totalled".

    2. Now, looking at the pictures, that's pretty serious...but then it's more than $25 million in damage.

    3. the E8 is a converted 707...didn't they stop building those in the 1970s? If this is a 30 year old airframe (at best) then either that damage is $25 million or the plane is worth less than $240 million today.

    4. Finally, as I understand it this damage was done by a subcontractor. When I use subcontractors, they have liability insurance to cover the systems they're working on, plus potential liabilities. Doesn't the US government require AT LEAST such protections when farming out work to contractors?

    By the way, I'd like to further remind the Air Force that this is a COMBAT aircraft. Granted, it's not supposed to be in dogfights or shot at, but this is a piece of military equipment, maintained in difficult conditions/circumstances by relatively inexperienced crew (for example an aircraft carrier's crew largely is swapped out about every 18-36 months). That seems incompatible with its evident fragility.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:I'm not really understanding... by confused+one · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've hit the nail on the head with #1 - #3. They totalled a 707 airframe, which is not a $244 million dollar plane. Most of that $244 million cost is what makes a 707 a JSTARS -- the payload. And the payload will probably be salvaged and re-used either to build another JSTARS or as spares to support the existing JSTARS platforms. This is being way over-hyped. Big oops for the contractor -- I wouldn't renew the contract; but, I'm not government.

    2. Re:I'm not really understanding... by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I tend to agree with you -- they'll likely use the parts for spares. The 707 is an old airframe. The US AirForce has hundreds of them -- they apparently bought a couple hundred used commercial 707s just for the spare parts. But, unless they need another JSTARS, they won't convert another one.

  7. I don't get it. by crimguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    $25 million? It's not as if they had to repair the toilets or anything . . .

  8. typically misleading by confused+one · · Score: 4, Informative

    You lost an airframe. A significant fraction of that $244 million is payload and equipment that will be recovered and used as "spare parts" to maintain other JSTARS aircraft. The airframe is all that was lost. The airframe is a commercial 707 derivative. It's not an $244 million aircraft, it's a tricked out $5 million dollar aircraft. The issue, now, is replacing the system -- which means assembling another JSTARS. Given typical government contracting practices that will cost another $325 million (inflation adjusted from initial cost of $244 million in 1998).

  9. Oh well by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If he were a banker he'd get a bonus ?

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  10. Re:if in doubt.. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Informative

    blame "a contractor".

    Especially when the contractor WAS negligent.

  11. Re:Warplane can't handle a hole? by cptdondo · · Score: 4, Informative

    None of the AWACS/JSTARS/etc planes are "made to be shot at". They're civilian airframes stuffed to the gills with super-secret electronics. They rely on fighters and ECM to stay up; they don't do any fighting themselves. Heck, they're unarmed.

  12. Re:Even cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Simply weight the toolbox on the way out and again on the way back in.

    Wouldn't work. Consumables. Safety wire, cotter pins, packing material. Even small, any of those is enough to cause a major problem. And far too small to be noticed when weighing a 75lb toolbox.
    The way it is normally done is by foam cutout for each tool. A quick look can tell you if something is not in place. Of course, you have to have the brainpower to actually look when you are leaving the area.

    (anon to not screw up previous mods)

  13. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course they do. My problem is all the suggestions that Private industry does significantly better, ESPECIALLY when funded by the government. I think that's when we see the worst of the waste, private industry on the government's payroll.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  14. Re:Utter nonsense by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is ass-covering of the lowest order to blame a lowly mechanic for what is obviously a design flaw. A simple sensor to monitor the presence of a plug

    Terrible design mistake because now someone needs to maintain, replace, test, and probably F-up that sensor. Also its heavy. The better design involves multiple permanently installed frangible disks on extra vent piping.

    See how hard design is? Finding incompetence is always easier than designing around it. First guess is usually wrong. That's probably what happened to the A+P mechanic, too.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  15. Re:Affirmative Action by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any alternative is better than Affirmative Action. Giving someone a job because they belong to a minority is equivalent to not giving someone a job because they aren't in the minority, which is racist/sexist.

  16. Forgotten Lesson of WWII by tekrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    World War II, if you watch enough of the History Channel, boiled down to quantity winning over quality. Our Sherman Tanks, for example, were utter crap compared to the Panzer and Tiger tanks. But, the USA was able to build a lot of them and they were simple and cheap. The Panzer and Tiger, however, were built in small numbers because they were complex machines.

    Germany was 10 years ahead of the USA technologically. But, Germany wasn't able to build to the quantity needed to fight an industrial giant like the USA, especially while we were bombing their industrial capacity to zero (and losing 60% of our aircraft to do it).

    It is sad that USA is now following Germany's example. We are building overly complex, hugely expensive equipment that cannot be easily field serviced, and building them in limited numbers because we cannot afford them in great quantity.

    Eventually, even though we are 10 years ahead of every opponent technologically, someone will be able to over-run us in a drawn out war simply by having great numbers of simpler, cheaper equipment, and a lot of it.

    And I think we all know who's the industrial giant now, that can produce great quantities of material quickly and cheaply.....

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A often over looked factor is attrition in WWII. Made up numbers:

      Lets say the US had zero elite level tankers but millions of noobs and we didn't start the land war until, well, frankly pretty much d-day 1944. Solution, make millions of noob-tanks. We didn't have any elite combat veteran tankers anyway to make use of elite level tanks.

      Lets say the Germans had a hundred thousand elite combat vet tankers, but a quarter of them die in combat every year starting in 1939, so by 1945 you've got 12 year olds with hunting rifles "defending" Berlin at the last stand. Solution, make tens of thousands of elite-tanks and hope each elite-tank blows up more than 10 noob-tanks. Eventually you end up with dudes from the assembly line trying to be tankers, that didn't work out so well.

      They darn near won, despite the attrition, so I wouldn't harsh their strategy too much.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  17. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by griffinme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ben Rich (head of Lockhead in the 90's) said in his book that one time he was at the GE engine plant. One of the guys was pointed at two jet engines. He said they were the exact same engine. The only difference was one was for the Air Force and had 200 extra inspectors look at it and cost twice as much for that reason. Next time you want to blame the contractors for how much things cost take into consideration all the extra regs and paperwork they are required to do. Another fav of his is how they go crazy labeling things secret or top secret. That doubles the paperwork and makes all their work that much more difficult.

    He compared the overall cost of a new plane for the air force to the overall cost of the new model for the Mustang. The amounts were fairly close. Ford gets to spread the cost over thousands of cars. The manufacturer of a planes gets to spread the cost over a few hundred planes.

    --
    Is he strong? Listen bud, He's got radioactive blood.
  18. Re:Look on the bright side by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, Atul Gawande has a whole book about how such simple things checklists vastly could help improve medical outcomes.
    And he reports the surgeons are mostly resistant to the idea.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  19. If you read the actual congressional testimony... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you read the actual congressional testimony, you would have seen that Schwartz didn't say that it wasn't repairable for ~$25M, which is 10% of the cost of the whole system, he bemoaned his budget constraints, and said they wouldn't repair it as an example answer to the question "Is there any sacrifice you're seeing in ISR...?". Also note that they're only not repairing *the platform*.

    The title of the press release from the Public Affairs office more or less says it all: "Air Force Strategic Choices and Budget Priorities Brief at the Pentagon".

    -- Terry

  20. Re:I'm surprised no-one else has pointed this out. by asylumx · · Score: 4, Informative

    The accident occurred March 13th 2009, but the news is the Air Force accident investigative board’s report on the incident, including photographs, which is only recently available.

  21. Re:Even cheaper by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would have prevented this disaster...

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  22. Re:Sh*t Happens by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since the Air Force has dozens of spares of this particular airframe, it is more economical to pull a newer one out of storage and move all the stuff that makes a JSTAR a JSTAR to a new plane.

    JSTARS is not built on the C-135 airframe, exactly, but they share a common ancestor. JSTARS aircraft were built on a number of different commercially available used Boeing 707 variants. Essentially, each one was a custom installation. Air Mobility Command could not spare any viable KC-135 airframes for JSTARS, as they needed every refueler they could manage to maintain the fleet to meet unified command requirements. The other special purpose EC/RC/OC-135s were not available either, as their missions took precedence over the JSTARS effort.

    The JSTARS program likely will not receive adequate funds to purchase another airframe and integrate the equipment. It's more likely that the JSTARS equipment and viable airframe parts form this aircraft will be salvaged for spares to extend the lives of the remaining JSTARS aircraft. Other platforms are more likely to be funded to absorb portions of the JSTARS capability. This decision will be driven by high and growing supportability costs for JSTARS.

    --
    Invenio via vel creo