Current state of USAF

[Vivendi]

(h)ttp://www.spacewar.com/reports/Thompson_Files_Aging_USAF_fleet_999.html

As U.S. Air Force planners struggle to balance their final budget request for this disappointing decade, it is becoming increasingly apparent that many of the service's planes will require the aerospace equivalent of geriatric care for the foreseeable future.
Despite all its talk about revitalizing America's military, the Bush administration has failed to arrest the decline of U.S. air power, passing on to its successors a decrepit fleet that is grounded or flight-restricted much of the time.

Keeping this fleet airworthy requires continuous, massive infusions of money and manpower. The service expects to spend a billion dollars per week in fiscal 2010 on fuel, spare parts, repairs and technical support -- and that doesn't even include the paychecks for military personnel performing such functions.

Much of this cost is the inevitable consequence of operating a diverse fleet of 6,000 high-tech planes around the world on a daily basis, including those committed to ongoing military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there is little doubt the budgetary burden of sustainment would be more bearable if the Clinton and Bush administrations had done a better job of replacing aging aircraft. Instead, the U.S. Air Force will enter the second decade of the new millennium with 500 Eisenhower-era Boeing KC-135 tankers averaging 50 years of age, 300 Lockheed Martin C-130 transports exceeding 40 years of age, and Vietnam-vintage Boeing McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle fighters that are literally falling out of the sky.

According to one estimate, a third of the entire fleet is either unavailable or operating on restricted basis on any given day due to maintenance problems such as metal fatigue, corrosion and missing parts. Such problems multiply with age as the stresses of operational use accumulate and suppliers cease making parts for planes that have gone out of production.

As the cost of maintenance mounts, it begins to drain money from modernization accounts that might have been used to buy new planes, accelerating the decline of the fleet. In addition, when a large portion of the fleet is too old to operate efficiently, planners tend to rely heavily on newer planes to accomplish missions, which makes them age faster. For example, the C-17 transport and KC-10 tanker are both being overworked in Iraq.

The U.S. Air Force has tried hard to improve its logistics practices, but it is impeded in achieving the best results by members of the U.S. Congress intent on protecting local jobs.

Legislators often block the retirement of worn-out planes and interfere with the allocation of maintenance workloads, for example by insisting that a set percentage of heavy repair work be performed by federal workers at government sites. It isn't hard to see why the legislators are so intent on protecting the jobs of government maintainers: U.S. Air Force logistics sites are typically the biggest industrial employers in their states.

While the U.S. Air Force can't escape the need to keep Congress happy, it can be more flexible in the way it goes about allocating work for the support of its aging fleet. For instance, it has begun to get away from the practice of automatically assigning discretionary work to the companies that originally manufactured aircraft, and it should continue seeking the best value in future awards such as the pending competition to provide support for KC-10 tankers.

One of the reasons why USAF is facing a lot of problems is of course the the two wars it's currently fighting.

After reading this I think I better understand Mr. Gates' desire to halt production of F-22 and rather concentrate on more urgent matters...



V.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I think there are already a number of threads on this forum about the USAF.

But anyway if the USAF only gets 183 F-22s well rest assured the new F-35 can still replace all those aging F-15s and F-16s. Our current fleet of fighters maybe aging but their still the best in the world and just because one F-15 broke apart does not mean the entire fleet will brake apart. The F-15 will remain in service until 2025 when finally replaced by the F-22 and F-35. The USAF has more than enough fighters and bombers with the B-1B, B-2 and B-52 plus with 100 new bombers by 2018. The USAF also has plenty of helicopters and transports but I agree they need to build more MQ-9 UCAVs and hury the hell up with the new tankers though.

 

[Sea Toby]

You are so worried about the size of the USAF and counting aircraft, you have failed to understand that there is a huge budget mess approaching the USA. Something will have to give to pay for the huge number of baby boomers which will soon retire, robbing more funds to pay for their social security and medicare expenses. At the same time the price of oil will skyrocket. The small town I live in didn't budget for doubled gasoline prices this year, and have had to increase taxes to supply the police dept. and fire dept. the rest of this year's fuel. They have already spent their gasoline funds this year, with more than half the year to go.

 

[Totoro]

Baby boomers retiring was easy to predict. Prices of oil going up was also predictable, albeit not this quickly. It required careful multiyear planning, but that didn't happen. Instead of redestributing the budget slowly, over a span of a decade or two, there will have to be huge cuts to be made in just a matter or years. Instead of embarking on superexpensive programs, us army services could've planned for smaller budget and could have chosen far less costlier programs to replace their "old generation" weaponry. Manpower could've been reduced slowly, at their natural retirement rate, without recruiting as many new people.

Sadly, there are some fundamental truths that prevented that, as the above mentioned ideas can't really be pulled off with the current political system which forces/lets politicians to think only in short term, untill their next re-election.

 

[Feanor]

Don't forget the US is sinking into a debt hole that's getting larger by the day. Anyways back to the USAF, F-15 Eagle you're making some over optimistic predictions here. While the USAF will remain number one for decades to come, don't forget that with only 183 Raptors, the US is seriously limited in it's ability to respond rapidly to threats. The B-52 is a good airplane, but way past it's era. It's completely un-reliable against a modern opponent, and is by no means something to be proud of. Not in 2008. There are no new bombers to be purchased before 2018. That's garbage. As far as I know the new bomber is going to be a contest with the decision on which it will be to come in 2018. It will be some years afterwards that serial production will begin. As for the numbers of bombers iirc (these are from memory) ~150 B-52, ~66 B-1B, and 20 B-1.

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

Can someone tell me how much kind of airplanes with A designation are in USAF?
I know only A 10
Hope this is not off topic

 

[kato]

A-designated aircraft? Including USN and USMC, the A-10, EA-6 (A-6 frame), AV-8B and F/A-18. Technically, on a stricter definition, only A-10 and AV-8B.
USAF, A-10 only.

 

[Feanor]

A-2 Fokker, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-8 Curtiss attack planes, A-12 Shrike, A-17 Northrop, A-18 Shrike, A-19 Vultee, A-20 Havoc (later known as B-20), A-22 Maryland, A-23 Baltimore, A-24 Banshee (later known as F-24), A-25 shrike, A-26 Invader (later B-26), A-27 North American, A-28 and A-29 Hudson, A-30 Baltimore, A-31 Vengeance, A-32 Brewster, A-33, A-34, A-1 Skyraider, A-2 Savage, A-3 Skywarrior, A-4 Skyhawk, A-5 Vigilante, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, A-10 Thunderbolt II, A-37 Tweet.

Whew. Historically that is. Many of the designations, for example the A-2 through 8 Curtiss planes refer to modifications of the same aircraft.

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

Thank you.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Don't forget the US is sinking into a debt hole that's getting larger by the day. Anyways back to the USAF, F-15 Eagle you're making some over optimistic predictions here. While the USAF will remain number one for decades to come, don't forget that with only 183 Raptors, the US is seriously limited in it's ability to respond rapidly to threats. The B-52 is a good airplane, but way past it's era. It's completely un-reliable against a modern opponent, and is by no means something to be proud of. Not in 2008. There are no new bombers to be purchased before 2018. That's garbage. As far as I know the new bomber is going to be a contest with the decision on which it will be to come in 2018. It will be some years afterwards that serial production will begin. As for the numbers of bombers iirc (these are from memory) ~150 B-52, ~66 B-1B, and 20 B-1.

You forget that the U.S. is working on the F-35. Since the F-22 production has been cut that means the F-35 has to be built no exceptions. But anyway if 183 F-22s is not enough than perhaps 2500 F-35s and 460+ Super Hornets will be more than enough to respond to any threat. As for the B-52 it has EW systems that can make the enemy missiles lose track of the B-52. But remeber the U.S. does not send any bombers in until the fighters have taken out all enemy fighters and SAM systems.

I think people are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is....

 

[Feanor]

When the F-35 hits serial production, after all the delays and cost overruns, then we'll see how many are built. Until then it's just speculation. The B-52 is outdated in a modern environment. I'm sure it carries EW equipment on board, but it's not enough to deal with late 4th gen. or early 5th. gen aircraft. I think even mid 4th gen. would have little difficulties dispatching it. (think MiG-31 ) Yes the USAF first performs EW and SEAD, and only then lets the B-52's do their job. But that's the whole point. It's a limiting factor on the platforms ability to perform their job. There are many other problems to consider, including the upkeep costs of the legacy fighters, which will be an issue for quite some time, and the decreasing carrier air wings which isn't a problem yet, but if current trends continue will become a problem 1-2 carrier generation from now.

 

[rev1861]

You forget that the U.S. is working on the F-35. Since the F-22 production has been cut that means the F-35 has to be built no exceptions. But anyway if 183 F-22s is not enough than perhaps 2500 F-35s and 460+ Super Hornets will be more than enough to respond to any threat. As for the B-52 it has EW systems that can make the enemy missiles lose track of the B-52. But remeber the U.S. does not send any bombers in until the fighters have taken out all enemy fighters and SAM systems.

I think people are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is....

I am with F-15 on this. THE USAF will always remain number because of the great Americans that make up its personnel.

 

[guppy]

...As for the B-52 it has EW systems that can make the enemy missiles lose track of the B-52. But remeber the U.S. does not send any bombers in until the fighters have taken out all enemy fighters and SAM systems.

EW cannot protect the B-52 against AAA.

You forget that the B-2 is a bomber too and it was specifically designed for denied access applications ie it will probably be in the most heavily defended and hardest to hit areas.

Don't forget the B-1B too, which is a very capable bomber in its own right, which was also designed to go in before the SAM systems are all down. Just can't defend itself very well against air threats.

cheers

guppy

 

[kato]

EW cannot protect the B-52 against AAA.

AAA? Exactly which currently in operation AAA can hit targets at the heights the B52 operates at?
(and to answer that myself: KS-12, KS-19, KS-30 - if operated with radar; all late 40s/early 50s developments)

 

[guppy]

AAA? Exactly which currently in operation AAA can hit targets at the heights the B52 operates at?
(and to answer that myself: KS-12, KS-19, KS-30 - if operated with radar; all late 40s/early 50s developments)

Yes, but tactically, you may not be able to put the buff up there all the time, can you? Anyway, it was just a dig at someone.

cheers

guppy

 

[f-22fan12]

You forget that the U.S. is working on the F-35. Since the F-22 production has been cut that means the F-35 has to be built no exceptions. But anyway if 183 F-22s is not enough than perhaps 2500 F-35s and 460+ Super Hornets will be more than enough to respond to any threat. As for the B-52 it has EW systems that can make the enemy missiles lose track of the B-52. But remeber the U.S. does not send any bombers in until the fighters have taken out all enemy fighters and SAM systems.

I think people are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is....

I also think you are right on this one. The U.S. leadership would never allow the U.S. Military to get as weak as some here are suggesting. I was also reading alot about the F-22 and F-35 on a certain website but do forum rules allow me to give the names of websites I get info from? Anyway, two very very long articles explained in detail the differences between the F-22 and F-35. The F-22 being designed mainly to penetrate integrated defence networks and the F-35 being designed to penetrate smaller area air defence systems.


By the way, what is up with the quotes below somepeople's posts.
Thanks

 

[F-15 Eagle]

EW cannot protect the B-52 against AAA.

You forget that the B-2 is a bomber too and it was specifically designed for denied access applications ie it will probably be in the most heavily defended and hardest to hit areas.

Don't forget the B-1B too, which is a very capable bomber in its own right, which was also designed to go in before the SAM systems are all down. Just can't defend itself very well against air threats.

cheers

guppy

As Kato said, the B-52 flies at high altitudes so the AAA can't reach it. The B-52 EW can help protect from SAMs but the SAMs would or should have been long destroyed by the fighters before they send in the bombers. You are right the B-2 is so stealthy the SAMs wont pick up on it....hopefully and the B-1B flies low and very fast at 900mph at only 100ft above the ground and the SAMs can't pick up on it. The B-52 has nether so it relies on EW for protection.

 

[Feanor]

AAA? Exactly which currently in operation AAA can hit targets at the heights the B52 operates at?
(and to answer that myself: KS-12, KS-19, KS-30 - if operated with radar; all late 40s/early 50s developments)

I think he meant GBAD in general. Now you're all absolutely correct if, this is an important if, the USAF is just pounding the sh*t out of another 3rd world country. In that case you could have weather balloons with bombs and still do the job, because the enemy AF is dead, and their IADS has been dissected and destroyed down to the tactical level. The problem arises in cumulative loss of capability, and in particular rapid response capability against a prepared opponent.

 

[Salty Dog]

As Kato said, the B-52 flies at high altitudes so the AAA can't reach it. The B-52 EW can help protect from SAMs but the SAMs would or should have been long destroyed by the fighters before they send in the bombers. You are right the B-2 is so stealthy the SAMs wont pick up on it....hopefully and the B-1B flies low and very fast at 900mph at only 100ft above the ground and the SAMs can't pick up on it. The B-52 has nether so it relies on EW for protection.

AFAIK the B-52 has been flying low-altitude missions since the 1960's, especially during the Cold War era for penetration of then Soviet air defenses.

 

[kato]

> 1960's

Which is when large-caliber ADA went out of use in favour of SAMs such as SA-2...