America’s aging aviation force: Father, son flew same fighter jet 30 years apart
posted at 10:40 am on May 18, 2012 by Rob Bluey
Dave Deptula, a retired three-star general, knows the risks associated with flying older aircraft. While serving as the joint task force commander in 1998 and 1999 for Operation Northern Watch, Deptula flew 82 combat missions over Iraq. On one mission, as he was headed to a tanker to refuel, the master caution light came on, revealing a problem with the plane. His fuel gauge went to zero. Meanwhile, he was 500 miles away from his base. Fortunately, he was able to land safely.
“The insulation was so old it simply had deteriorated to the extent where it came off and all of the wiring shorted out,” Deptula recalled. “Those are the kinds of things that happen when airplanes get to certain ages.”
Deptula’s aircraft was grounded for repairs, requiring another set of planes to travel from Kadena Air Force Base in Japan, on other side of the world. It’s not an isolated incident. In the years that followed, the Air Force was forced to ground its entire F-15 fleet in 2007 after one fighter disintegrated during a training mission in Missouri.
These frightening experiences demonstrate the consequences of an aging aviation force. Deptula worries that fiscal constraints imposed on the military — including more than $492 billion of mandatory defense cuts on the horizon — will result in future challenges.
“I hear people talk about, well you know, the U.S. military spends more money than the next 17 nations combined,” Deptula said. “Well, the next 17 nations combined are not committed to maintaining peace and stability around the world. We are.”
The Heritage Foundation featured Deptula’s story as a part of a three-part series highlighting the risks of budget cuts to the nation’s military. The first part told the story of Col. Kerry Kachejian, an Army Reserve engineer, who relied on sport-utility vehicles during his service in Iraq.
Deptula uses the term “geriatric aviation force” to describe the current state of affairs. He has firsthand experience. He earned his wings and flew an F-15 for the first time in 1977. Thirty years later, another Deptula boarded the aircraft. His son, Lt. David A. Deptula II, flew the same F-15 at Kadena Air Force Base in Japan.
The Wall Street Journal documented the amazing father-son story last fall to illustrate the challenges facing the aging force. The elder Deptula recounted how the fighter was originally designed for a 4,000-hour service life. That was later extended to 8,000 hours.
“We have really flown these aircraft well beyond what originally would be believed as their replacement lifetime,” Deptula said of the F-15s. “And now, because of some of the fiscal constraints that are being imposed on the Department of Defense, there is consideration being given to extending the lifetime even further.”
Before retiring from the Air Force in 2010 as a lieutenant general, Deptula traveled to Kadena for a high-aspect mission with his son. He flew the F-15 and saw some of its deficiencies compared to newer aircraft like the F-22 and F-35.
Heritage’s James Jay Carafano, an expert on defense and national security issues, worries that under the Obama administration, the military will continue to suffer from ill-advised budgeting.
“Today’s air forces are the oldest in the history of U.S. air forces,” Carafano explained. “Replacing old airframes and ensuring the U.S. maintains its superiority over potential adversaries is a national security priority. Yet Obama has done little to show he takes the challenge of modernizing the air fleets seriously.”
The result is troubling: The U.S. military is jeopardy of sacrificing dominance in the air environment that came with advancements in the 1960s and 1970s. Simply modernizing and updating aircraft won’t provide the same edge against adversaries.
With more budget cuts looming, however, will Congress do anything to reverse course?
Rob Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy, an investigative journalism operation at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter: @RobertBluey
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Their is no other god……except the government.
–Progressives.
PappyD61 on May 9, 2013 at 8:48 AM
So where does Maj. Nidal Hassan fit into this?
gryphon202 on May 9, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Sky pilots beware…times have changed.
It is no longer “Onward Christian Soldiers…” It is become “Nahnu Jund Allāh Jund Al-watan.“
coldwarrior on May 9, 2013 at 8:53 AM
Ed, anybody who has served in the military could have told you this without the need of a follow-up.
The real issue here is who gets to define “forcibly.” Clearly something like mandatory Bible study would be considered forced proselytizing but what about mentioning Christ during the prayer at a retirement ceremony? There is a real danger here that is covered up by going to the extremes. The left hates faith and is looking to slowly eradicating it from the military and nobody is going to convince me otherwise. Just wait until the first chaplains are kicked out of the service because they refuse to preside over sodomite fuax-marriage rites in a military chapel.
Happy Nomad on May 9, 2013 at 8:57 AM
They are backing off the trial balloon they floated due to massive push back. But the seed has been planted.
tommyboy on May 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Why bring up a military officer who merely went postal on a crowd of soldiers? That was an instance of workplace violence. The 13 killed and 30 wounded are not even eligible for the Purple Heart because, you know, that would mean they were attacked by a Muslim…. in Texas.
Happy Nomad on May 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Don’t buy it or they wouldn’t have Mikey Weinstein “consulting” them..
melle1228 on May 9, 2013 at 9:04 AM
27 comments or bust!
Bishop on May 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM
The heat got too hot for them, so they backed their plans down…for now.
kingsjester on May 9, 2013 at 9:14 AM
A poster here summed it up last week … (paraphrased) …
Gay — out and proud
Christianity — don’t ask, don’t tell
Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2013 at 9:19 AM
The watch for violations of the right of religious expression needs to continue.
22044 on May 9, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Coke and Christianity are OK..of course…Don’t ban anything.
We can just do a “big gulp” type regulation, yea, that’s the ticket! Legislate civility or a reasonable limit.
This preaching limit is redolent of second amendment limits.
Does every tradition or sacred object have a bull’s eye painted on it lately — or is it me?
I would be a lot more comfortable if it were not for the smell of Christian and traditional faith bashing I keep getting a whiff of in so many places. I keep feeling that it starts with the media and top officials and they just don’t want to come out and say what is really on their minds.
WAS THIS REALLY A PROBLEM?
I doubt it.
IlikedAUH2O on May 9, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Mormon missionaries at my door don’t bother me half as much as gays in bars.
Darn! Now I just lost my pass for cool left coast parties….hope the attentive ones are busy with the early showers in rehab.
IlikedAUH2O on May 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM
Remain vigilant especially when you have like likes of Mikey Weinstein whose sole area of expertise is denigrating Christianity.
AH_C on May 9, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Hhhmmm… “forcibly” can have different contexts. I too had a negative initial reaction to the DOJ policy. In discussing this with some friends, I remembered a personal incident that moved this into a much grayer area for me.
Twenty some years ago I was a young college student on ROTC scholarship. Being a “military brat” it seemed like a good path. Unfortunately, the command structure in that unit was (I didn’t know until much later) far different, bordering on abusive, than the typical ROTC command eventually leading to disciplinary action for the active duty personnel running it. So, I am not writing this claiming it to be typical, but merely as a way in which “forcibly” can have a different meaning in a military structure.
During an intensive 2 week pre-semester “boot camp” at a local military base, we were there for 2 Sundays. We did the basic boot camp stuff, PT, marching, tear gas chamber, obstacle course, cleaning baracks, polishing shoes and brass, etc. On Sunday mornings we were offered an option – attend Sunday ecumenical services or clean the barrack’s bathroom. Needless to say, all of us 18-19 year olds atttended church services.
We certainly weren’t forced in the conventional sense, however, we were certainly coerced. Who wouldn’t want to put on kahkis and sit in church rather than don dungarees and scrub the head? I’m not suggesting that this particular type of coersion is happening regularly or even today, but I have heard friends tell of not dissimilar events in the regular military in the 80s.
I have no idea if it was events such as that leading to the DOJ pronouncement, something vastly different or just the general anti-Christianity of so many in this administration. However, I do think that there may be another side to this story that has not been articulated or complaints about some specific events or command that led to it. At this point, I’m going to keep a more open mind about it until/unless there is some evidence, at least anecdotal, that this is in some way restricting service members normal practice of their faith.
deepdiver on May 9, 2013 at 9:29 AM
You may be hanging out in the wrong bars.
tommyboy on May 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM
To a certain degree and in particular to this conversation I would agree.
However, the problem lies in trying to reconcile religious freedom with the social changes that force leaders are so fond of. This is especially pertinent to homosexuality.
For example, if one believes according to their religion that homosexuality is wrong (please take notice I mean morally wrong, not a hateful response or discriminatory) how does their “freedom” to believe that comport with the “freedom” of one to be homosexual? How does that affect unit cohesion and dilute the overall mission? Will my religious views affect an ability to be promoted? Will I be socially castigated by the CoC for not being a “team player” by adhering to matters of faith?
While I love my brother in a biblical sense, I may disagree with him on such matters. That disagreement manifest itself in not wanting to room with him or being exposed to his lifestyle. So is my “religious freedom” which is under-girded by moral tenets still protected and respected?
This is just one of the complexities and issues which are tangential. It also aptly displays why a military force is no place for social experimentation.
Marcus Traianus on May 9, 2013 at 9:36 AM
What is the social experiment? People keep using that phrase, but I don’t think it applies here.
segasagez on May 9, 2013 at 9:49 AM
That word was only in there for PR. To a leftist, “forcibly” means all sorts of weird things that a normal person would never connect with the actual word.
The Pentagon is a stinkhole full of idiots like ol’ General Casey, whose reaction to the Ft Hood terrorist attack was to say,
“As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”
These are the sorts of morons who are going to be interpreting what “forcibly” means – and you will be amazed at what they come up with. Just remember, Ft Hood wasn’t a terrorist attack, even though the self-proclaimed jihadi was screaming “Allahu ackbar” while he gunned down Americans and had indicated his displeasure with all things non-muzzie for YEARS before. Ft Hood was “workplace violence” … and you’re going to trust this same crew to reasonably interpret what “forcibly” means? LOL.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 9, 2013 at 9:51 AM
The social experiment is that instead of creating unit cohesion and a team; the military is not segmented into special interest groups which defeats the whole purpose of unit cohesion.
Don’t think there isn’t special interest groups see racial and gender quotas in the military.. See the constant powerpoint presentations and EO classes.
melle1228 on May 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Not really, Ed. The question that is unanswered is: why this sudden and urgent crackdown now?
When this administration declares there’s a new crisis that needs fixing right now, I think we’ve all learned enough not to let what they do slide, much less lend them any support. Never let a crisis go to waste, y’know. Or just manufacture a crisis when it serves an end.
whatcat on May 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Eventually those progressives are gonna run into a bit of a problem with their muslim allies in regard to that concept.
hawkeye54 on May 9, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Even worse, these assclowns who disgrace the uniform they wear are taking their orders from Mikey Weinstein, a particularly nasty and virulent anti-Christian hatemonger. He terms a Christian discussing faith as “being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators”.
whatcat on May 9, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Don’t worry. When they’re in the foxholes, they will convert.
Hucklebuck on May 9, 2013 at 11:56 AM
What is “undue pressure?”
That simple question makes a huge difference. We’ve already seen a PR person for the Air Force define “making someone uncomfortable” as the standard for proselytization.
Yes, there’s a balance that needs to be kept. Saying something about your belief in God or the need to believe in God may well make someone “uncomfortable,” but that is not sufficient reason to label it proselytization or call it “over the line.”
Behind the story, there is a power struggle going on. Weinstein and others like him want to redefine what started as a simple standard to prevent coercion by superiors into a strict “zero tolerance” type standard to prevent even a chaplain from encouraging someone to become a Christian.
What’s hard to read here is whether the Air Force is simply trying to clarify the rules without actually changing them, or whether they’re trying to change the rules by interpretation while pretending nothing has changed.
But it’s clear enough that some, at least, are trying to turn “proselytization” into a dirty word implying coercion where it has not typically had that meaning.
In Christian doctrine, it’s simply known as the Great Commission. And you can’t tell a chaplain to take the position that conversion to Christianity is off-limits without trampling religious freedom.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM
I believe the term “social experiment” refers to the fact that no one knows how unit cohesion will be affected and other consequences of the decision to change the policy on open homosexuality in the military, but they’re doing it anyway.
A fairly straightforward point, but it runs afoul of the push to mainstream homosexuality at all costs, regardless of consequences known or unknown.
In this case, the consequence is the natural conflict between homosexuality and religious freedom. Note that the question is not whether homosexuality is permitted, but whether Christians who believe it is sinful will be permitted to continue to believe that.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM
I’d like it if NO Christians were in the military. None. Nada.
Let every other religion/NON-religion (ie -atheist) go sign up and protect the country……..
and die for it.
Why should Christians always be the ones at the front of the lines and then have to be mocked, given few or little support at home when they do make it home?
LET others do it, get stigmatized, and leave the Christians alone. They’ll eventually need to do a draft because those “other” religions or “non-religions” won’t fill all the slots. Watch the uproar then.
athenadelphi on May 9, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Obama Administration Allowed Radical Cleric to Curse US Navy SEAL Heroes at Their Funeral Services (Video & Transcript)
Pole-Cat on May 9, 2013 at 4:39 PM
They didn’t “float” anything. This was a fabricated story from the get-go. It was just the FRC trying to portray Christians as victims.
Mark Jaquith on May 9, 2013 at 5:07 PM