Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Sigh. I sure hope F-35 development continues at a steady rate and that we can get it in production in significant numbers soon. Didn't we just retire about 100+ F-15s and F-16s last year? We are losing a very significant amount of combat power and it isn't being replaced. That is very troubling to me. I really, really think Obama and Gates pulled the plug on the F-22 too soon. Without them, we are going to be facing a severe shortage in airframes, as it is going to take a while before the F-35 enters full scale production.

BTW, here are the units being effected:

F-15C/D
Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.: 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron loses two Eagles.

Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska: 19th Fighter Squadron loses 24 jets.

Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii: 199th Fighter Squadron loses 15 aircraft.

Langley Air Force Base, Va.: 71st Fighter Squadron loses 18 airplanes.

RAF Lakenheath, England: 48th Fighter Wing loses six Eagles.

Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.: 325th Fighter Wing loses 48 fighters.

F-16
Fort Wayne International Airport, Ind.: 163rd Fighter Squadron loses 18 fighters.

Hill Air Force Base, Utah: 34th Fighter Squadron loses 24 Falcons.

Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.: 188th Fighter Squadron loses 18 jets.

Luke Air Force Base, Ariz.: 56th Fighter Wing loses 28 fighters.

Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany: 52nd Fighter Wing loses 18 Falcons.

A-10
Barksdale Air Force Base, La.: 47th Fighter Squadron loses three fighters.

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.: 354th Fighter Squadron loses three Thunderbolts and 358th Fighter Squadron loses three aircraft.

Moody Air Force Base, Ga.: 74th Fighter Squadron loses three aircraft and 75th Fighter Squadron loses three Warthogs.

Fort Wayne International Airport, Ind.: 163rd Fighter Squadron gains 18 A-10s.

Osan Air Base, South Korea: 25th Fighter Squadron loses three Thunderbolts.

Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo.: 303rd Fighter Squadron loses three jets.

It basically sounds as if some wings will lose 1/3 or in some cases (as with ANG wings that only operate a single squadron) all of their aircraft! The personnel may end up being retrained for other airframes or siphoned off for other tasks. That leaves some doubt as to whether we'll ever see these squadrons reequipped with the F-35 in the future.

We've really dilly-dallied around too much in terms of procurement. From the 1990s until present, we've largely put off doing what is necessary. Now everything is wearing out at once and the Air Force is having to retire large portions of the aging fleet in an attempt to free up enough money to buy a few new ones. What is our government thinking?

F-16.net Sponsor

Ouch.

I think most of that was planned though. I think. I hope....

These are the jets being retired in the plan that was released last year, which is probably what Fox is thinking of with the 100+ jets.

The decision certainly is enough that it should raise some eyebrows. First, it makes little sense to retire so many aircraft when there is no replacement that will be available for them before 3-5 years at best. If they were simply retiring them to make room for new aircraft, would they not wait until those new aircraft start to become available?

What I think this means, and certainly I'm reading between the lines to reach this conclusion, but think it a sensible explanation......is that these airframes are simply worn out to the point they aren't worth their upkeep in maintenance. And that indicates we've done an extremely poor job fielding adequate numbers of replacement aircraft over the previous two decades. With the conclusion of the Cold War, the F-22 was allowed to linger for years in development....far longer than it should have. And we simply didn't put enough funding into the area of military investment. As a result, we are now seeing all sorts of things starting to wear out and reach the end of their service lives. Tankers, fighters, helicopters, submarines, etc. "Putting off until tomorrow what we should have done today", so to speak, has left us in a position where we simply can't replace the aging stuff at the rate it is wearing out. Our government has badly mismanaged procurement efforts. Then again, seeing as how we have a $13 trillion deficit, I suppose we shouldn't be overly surprised. I really feel for our airman considering the situation they are facing. I really hope the F-35 program comes along nicely and in time to address these needs before they reach an even more critical level.

Another concern is what happens to the Air Guard and reserves, who we depend on to shoulder a more heavy share of both wartime and peacetime mission burdens than ever before. Traditionally, these units have been given aircraft from active duty units that are getting new birds. But many of these active duty aircraft are nearing the end of the service lives. That means what the Air Guard is currently flying is even older. So they, far more so than the active duty units, will suffer from the coming fighter gap over the next decade. It will be several years before the first wing of F-35s become combat ready. And it would literally be years before the Air Guard could hope to be equipped with new build F-35s. You know the active duty units will get priority here. So what will happen to the Air Guard units in the interim? Obviously, the current F-15 and F-16 fighters active duty units are flying are little fresher than those the Air Guard has.

Looking at the situation, I suddenly find myself laughing less at the proposition I heard recently suggesting the Air Guard should take a close look at the F-18 Super Hornet as the interim solution. Obviously, a solution of some type is needed, if they hope to remain operable units beyond 2020.

Put it this way. Right NOW, no one's gonna go WWIII on us. So it makes sense to save the money or spend the money where we really need it (towards recapitalization aka pushing the F-35 through ASAP). If we were facing a comparable enemy, I'd say we'd be making a mistake. AS LONG as this doesn't go on for more than a few years, it's ok (and arguably given the current situation, it's inevitable).

I am afraid that it will go on longer than a few years. That is the whole problem. And it will have the biggest impact on our Air Guard units. They are already using airframes that are in some cases 30 years old. They simply can't wait 10 more years before they start receiving new aircraft. The problem is, the active duty F-15 and F-16 units have aircraft that are getting along in age too. So they aren't far ahead of what the Air Guard already possesses. So unlike in the past, once the active duty units begin to transition over to the F-35, they aren't going to be able to provide the Air Guard with F-15s and F-16s that have much in the way of service life left. That is especially true of the F-15, which is already being limited to Mach 1.5 top speed and also being limited to the amount of Gs that can be pulled in training. We have simply waited too long to start the process of replacement. And canceling the Raptor certainly didn't help matters any, and we would still be behind if we kept it in production. This is a problem that developed from two decades of neglect. And sadly, it is a problem that will likely take almost as long to address.

Quote:

Top Air Force General says President Obama’s plan to end production of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet puts U.S. military strategy at “high risk.”

Gen. John D.W. Corley, the four-star chief of Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va., wrote a letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss , R-Ga., about the impact of Obama and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ’ decision to limit the number of F-22s in the U.S. inventory to 187.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003146274

What's higher than High Risk?

Mike

I just hope they don't destroy the tooling and lay everyone off. As expensive as a restart would be, it's better to have that possibility that to say "We don't have anything, we might as well start a new design. A restart might cost in the single billions. A new design will cost over $30 billion.

While this decision may seem to place the USAF in a position with a lesser number of available and deployable aircraft, that doesn't neceassarily spell doom for the USA in the short period that this will be the case, as was mentioned earlier. From what I've seen/read it would seem that several guard units will recieve F-35s straight from the production line, won't they? Although this would be some years into the production run, wouldn't it seem like the guard would actuallty be netting aircraft with more service potential than the hand-me-down F-15s and F-16s they have gotten used to?

Om a separate note, in the oh-so-unlikely situation in which a "WWIII" like situation would pop up in the meanwhile, I think people are forgetting that the USAF is not the only American armed force capable of projecting airpower. All bias aside, there is very little that an F-16 or F-15C can do that cannot be "adequately" covered by a USN or USMC F/A-18A+/C or Super Hornet in the short term. Could not the Navy/ Marine Corp deploy sufficient amounts of aircraft to cover any "shortfall" in USAF squadron strength while F-35s ramp up? Not to metion, it is unlikely that in a situation like the one mentioned above that the USA would be fighting alone, seeing as a World War tends to require a good number of participants.

The Marines/Navy are in a bit of a better shape than the USAF to be sure, but still... I just hope this transition doesn't take us more than 5-10 years to complete.

At least the Navy has the Congressional authorization to pursue another multi-year procurement plan for Super Hornets. The Air Force is still taking delivery of F-22s, and if I am not mistaken, is recieving new AESA radars for the B-2, F-15E, and some of the F-15Cs. To me, it seems like although some older aircraft may be facing retirement, the upgrading of some, and the coming procurement of the F-35 will more than prevent the massive weakness that people seem to invariably discuss when the whole "F-22 cancellation & F-35 delays" conversation comes up.

A seaparate thing, and a question I have long been contemplating, stems from the seemingly commonplace belief that we (not only referring to this forum, but to non-decision makers in general) know better than the decision makers what to do. I quite frankly refuse to believe that any General, Admiral, Senator, Congressman, or President would knowingly and willingly allow the US military, or that of any of the other potantial users, to purchase an unsatisfactory aircraft, or to retire aircraft if that would place the nation in udue peril. If one looks at recent military projects, there have been cancellations due to projected aircraft not meeting the specified requirements or becoming financially untenable (Lockheed's P-7, Sikorsky's Comanche, Mcdonnel Douglas' A-12), so the Government has proved itself capable of terminating programs that do not have potential. The fact that the F-35 is progressing, and that certain legacy platforms are being retired to finance it, should be seen by the people of potantial customer nations as a sign of confidence in the design by the US military, and they wouldn't back a loser, they have no track record of doing that.

What is going to happen to the pilots and other aircrews out there? Less aircraft, less flight time, more hours on the remaining airframes. Are they going to have them fly UAVs or are they cutting back on their numbers as well?

This just isnt looking too good... Shrug

Quote:

A seaparate thing, and a question I have long been contemplating, stems from the seemingly commonplace belief that we (not only referring to this forum, but to non-decision makers in general) know better than the decision makers what to do. I quite frankly refuse to believe that any General, Admiral, Senator, Congressman, or President would knowingly and willingly allow the US military, or that of any of the other potantial users, to purchase an unsatisfactory aircraft, or to retire aircraft if that would place the nation in udue peril. If one looks at recent military projects, there have been cancellations due to projected aircraft not meeting the specified requirements or becoming financially untenable (Lockheed's P-7, Sikorsky's Comanche, Mcdonnel Douglas' A-12), so the Government has proved itself capable of terminating programs that do not have potential. The fact that the F-35 is progressing, and that certain legacy platforms are being retired to finance it, should be seen by the people of potantial customer nations as a sign of confidence in the design by the US military, and they wouldn't back a loser, they have no track record of doing that.

That's a good way of putting it. I have trust and confidence in our military leaders. They're doing the best they can with what they got. But what they got was given to them by the politicians; people I have very little respect for these days. Aside from that, these aircraft that are being withdrawn from service are only going to AMARG. It's not like they're going to be tossed into a giant jet grinder. If WWIII happens, then those jets can be made available for us to use.

www.filefront.com/user/SpazSinbad · Elite 1K Joined: May 05, 2009 - 10:31 PM Posts: 1020

The CAVALRY is coming (new aircraft to replace F-22)

USAF reveals 30-year investment plan By Craig Caffrey 15 February 2010

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/j ... _1_n.shtml

"The US Air Force expects to begin funding initial development of a replacement for the F-22 by FY20 (IHSJane's/Patrick Allen)

The US Air Force (USAF) has revealed a raft of fighter, strike, transport, special mission and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) development programmes in a 30-year plan released in February.

The proposals were included within the US Department of Defense's (DoD's) Aircraft Investment Plan covering the period between FY11-FY40 that it submitted for the first time in February as part of the FY11 budget request.

Under the plan, USAF expects to allocate funding to initiate the development of replacements for both the Lockheed Martin F-22 multirole fighter and C-5 Galaxy strategic transport aircraft by Fiscal Year (FY) 2020.

According to the document, a "successor aircraft [for the F-22] would be needed by about 2025", with accompanying charts suggesting that funding will be allocated within the USAF budget for the programme, nominally identified as 'F-X' in the document, by FY20. By FY40 the DoD expects the recapitalisation of the fifth generation to be underway.

A process to determine exactly what capabilities will be required from the future fighter fleet has already begun with the plan stating that "it is anticipated that a family of systems - mixes of manned and unmanned aircraft, with varying stealth characteristics and advanced stand-off weapons - will shape the future fighter/attack inventory".

In the meantime the air force expects to spend USD1.9 billion over the next 10 years upgrading the F-22 in order to ensure the type remains the "premier air-to-air fighter aircraft", while procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is expected to reach its peak production rate for the air force of 80 aircraft per year in FY16. By that time the US Navy (USN) and US Marine Corps (USMC) would be funding an additional 45 aircraft a year."

I guess I don't understand this complete dedication to stealth aircraft at the expense of keeping the majority of the fleet operational. Why the USAF didn't start buying F-16Es (block 60) a few years ago is beyond me.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

USAF to send 250 F-15/F-16/A-10s to the boneyard