Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

DefenseTech wrote:

B-52's U-2's and F-117's Axed for More Raptors

Air Force chiefs want their new stealth fighters, bad -- so bad, they're willing to scrap some of their best-performing planes early, in order to free up cash for their controversial, next-generation jet.

Inside Defense reports that "nearly half the B-52 bomber force and the full U-2 spy plane and F-117 stealth fighter fleets" will be retired ahead of schedule, under a Pentagon budget plan endorsed by the Air Force. It's part of "a bid to save $16.4 billion and boost spending" for the F-22 Raptor program.

About a year ago, a similar Pentagon "Program Budget Decision," or PBD, cut $10 billion out of the F-22's budget. Originally designed to duel with Soviet fighters, the Raptor seemed to be a plane without a mission; the Air Force touted the F-22 as everything from a cargo lifter to an IED-stopper. A fleet of 277 Raptors was downsized to 179 -- despite a massive PR campaign from the Air Force.

This PDB, Inside Defense notes, "would allow the Air Force to inject an additional $1 billion into its prized F-22A program," and add a grand total of four planes to the Raptor roster.

Cuts to the long-range B-52 bomber fleet would reduce the inventory from 94 aircraft to 56... The Air Force is banking on $4.6 billion in savings with this early retirement: $680 million in the procurement accounts and $3.9 billion in personnel reductions associated with a smaller B-52 fleet...

The Pentagon also plans to terminate the B-52 Stand-off Jammer System, an electronic attack capability, saving $1.1 billion across the five-year spending plan, according to the PBD.

Convincing Congress to go along won't be easy, however.

Similar attempts in recent years -- including moves to stand down B-1B bombers, KC-135E aerial refueling aircraft, and the F-117 -- have met stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. But this time around, the Pentagon appears to be taking a new approach in proposing to retire three programs at once.

“Now they’re going for the whole enchilada,” Christopher Bolkcom, an aviation expert at the Congressional Research Service, said. “You can see that they seem to be launching a frontal assault.”

Source: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002072.html

F-16.net Sponsor

Once again, getting rid of the stainless steel toys for the gold plated ones.

But this one makes a bit more sense.
I can see retiring the U-2; with satellite imagery technology getting really good we don't need a high altitude spy plane anymore.
Halving the BUFF fleet also makes sense. That was a platform built off of the idea that we would need 20 bombs to destroy the target, not one. With things like JDAM (the Antichrist Wink

) we just don't need the BUFF in that many situations.

Where I can see them running into problems is cutting the F-117 to get F-22s. Especially since they decided to get the A designation from the F-22. If they cut the stinkbug, I think it would be in the better interest of the DoD to put that money into the F-35, considering that the F-35 is what will replace the F-117, not the F-22. But I am sure the DoD guys are thinking that the F-22 is a sure thing, and they want more. While the F-35 isn't 100% guaranteed, and they might not get it.
Two Cents

"...I can see retiring the U-2; with satellite imagery technology getting really good we don't need a high altitude spy plane anymore. ..."

Hummm...Im not sure I would count on satellites to do all my spying. Their orbit is fairly predictable and so
will the time of an overpass over a given area. Aircraft like the U-2 can deliver photos and other intel
at any time, including those times when the spy sats happen to be on the other side of the Earth.
So should we get rid of the Dragon Lady? The answer could be "yes" if our fleet of spook UAVs have
the capabilities that match those of U2's (range and stealth in particular).

Last edited by elp on Jan 10, 2006 - 10:30 PM; edited 1 time in total

U-2 will be a pretty hard one to kill off right away. If you talk to any U2 people they will tell you they were used A LOT in sustained ops. Mostly tactical recon sensor stuff important to ground decision makers ( very short sensor-to-decision_maker_-to-shooter decision time frames in the best tradition of new Net Centric Warfare ( NCW ) ). Global Hawk isn't fully up and running to the ability to replace U2. And including in '03 when they were ( suprise suprise suprise ) suprised how much they had to retask the Global Hawk moving it all around the battlefield as needed ( not just a set-it-and-forget-it original flight plan. So I would say, until they get that sorted out. We will be in for a world of hurt if we have another war and find ourselves short if C2ISR platforms that can perform like the U2. And of course U2 isn't the only answer, it is one team player. Global Hawk probably can do most of it's jobs....but that is still yet to be seen and we are so damn short of funds for all the important war winning projects blah blah blah. So that will be a wait and see theory of cutting U2 now and nothing more. It sounds like a plan from someone who hasn't seen all of the useful work done by U2 in OIF and some other places.

F117. Great jet. Its only advantage over F-22 is 2000lb class weapons. And I can do all those ( and any "special" weapons from the creative department ) with a B-2. So if all of the F117s were put to bed after a couple of wings of F-22s are up and running, I wouldn't care.

B-52- If they are looking to save money.... again, look at the B-1 to cut. WE CAN NOT MAKE B-1s fly to the year 2030 unless you want to piss away tons of cash. I can deploy a package of B-52s to a lot of places with less logistical $$$ footprint than a B-1. Most hyper killer enemy threats that would kill off a B-52..... would also kill off a B-1. I do like B-1s for fast CAS response out of the JSTARS stack to help out a GFAC in need. However we could be just as killer-powerful with a lot less B-1s. USAF is getting a GD deal on the B-52. Don't change the numbers on it and let it ride. There are only more long range weps coming down the pike that will fly off the B-52 nice. ( Remember that hyper-speed test shape that flew off of '008 ( NASA B-52 ) a few years back?...... Now imagine that as a high speed quick response PGM to take out a high priority target..... from halfway accross a combat theater. Laughing

Thats what I think. ( Damn... the new CINC hasn't called me yet. Gen Jumper always asked me for my opinion on big ticket decisions. Salute

)

eseatgeek wrote:

"...I can see retiring the U-2; with satellite imagery technology getting really good we don't need a high altitude spy plane anymore. ..."

Hummm...Im not sure I would count on satellites to do all my spying. Their orbit is fairly predictable and so
will the time of an overpass over a given area. Aircraft like the U-2 can deliver photos and other intel
at any time, including those times when the spy sats happen to be on the other side of the Earth.
So should we get rid of the Dragon Lady? The answer could be "yes" if our fleet of spook UAVs have
the capabilities that match those of U2's (range and stealth in particular).

Yeah, I meant to explore UAVs in my earlier post, just neglected to do so. You bring up a good point though about satellites, and our UAV capability is still not as good as the U-2, yet.

Satellites are very useful, but still don't fit all of today's needs and still can't do everything that a well equiped air breathing platform can do. You can quickly task/re-task the airbreather for tactical/theather C2ISR work over and over. And we only have so many satellites that can only do so much. This is important as all of the battlefield commanders have an unending lust for more NCW bandwidth to do ever increasing multi-sensor tasks as they grow smarter and provide better input to the NCW C2ISR providers on what they need. I just don't ever see satellites as being able to do all the needed C2ISR work. One of the many reasons being we just don't have the boat load of cash it would take to make and launch all of the satellites even if they could do a large part of the C2ISR work... which... they can't. We are having growing pains with UAVs, but for C2ISR, they are ever increasing high demand by the battlefield commanders of all shapes and sizes.

I didn't comment on the idea of keeping or cancelling the SOJ B-52 as quite frankly, I only have practical ECM knowledge capability up to about the mid '90s. So maybe there are a ton of traditional SOJ/ECM/ESM tasks that can be done by other means, way beyond my limited knowledge, with todays and future tech?

Nearly half of U-2 missions are COMINT missions that require persistence. Satellites don't have persistence and Global Hawk will not have a COMINT payload until 2009.

So... does this mean less manned bombers and more UAVs?
Heard that Global Hawk is experiencing sensor problems at the moment. Ie, too many electronics, not enough cooling. Read that Global hawk costs $60 million a shot but can relay 10 times the data a U2 can?

IMO, If the UF is this desperate for more F22's then they should get them. JL

-I am someone that do not support retiring the U-2 at this time.

-I favor retiring more B-1Bs (but still have enough of an effective force) than B-52s at this time.

-I favor completed retirement of all F-117s when at least two of three of Langley AFB's fighter squadrons (27th & 94th FS) gets all F-22s delivered and Alaska's Elmendorf AFB achieves IOC with one Raptor squadron.

-The savings from the retirement of the F-117s should then be used to purchase more F-22 Raptors (which I favor strongly as they are very worth it).

-The funds saved from some B-1B retirement should help fund upgrades or purchase other needed programs as warranted. This includes help funding/supplementing more F-22s from the F-117 savings if needed.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 25, 2003 - 10:03 PM Posts: 679

The B-1 get's no love! What I want to know is for the Raptor, they're specifying the total amount they intend to buy right? When they began purchasing F-16's, did they know the total amount they planned to buy? I guess not considering sales continued for so long. Sorry, newb question.

The Air force WANTS 380 F-22s right? Cutting the B-52 fleet doesn`t seem such a big deal. No-one needs to carpet bomb cities any more! Keeping hold of a viable B-1 force seems more logical given that they are more modern, much faster, adaptable. Even though the piece MKOPACK posted says that the B-1 may be a casualty as well.

Reaction time seems to be very important now a days. When you want 4 bunker busters dropped on a target, the B-1 can do it in a timely manner.

The world is changing, it is not unexpected, maybe it`s about time that the USAF changed as well?

We haven't been "carpet bombing" any cities lately. More times than not that dumb iron is used against troop concentration where the bomb bay has the dumb iron and up to recently you could only put 12 JDAMS on the wings ( thats 12 2000lb class weps Laughing

) What makes the B-52 important is bang-for-the-buck....easier to deploy.... A wide variety of PGMs.... including cheap ones like JDAM and Paveway. More range than a B-1 per refueling ( B-1 range isn't the greatest ).... and the fact that we have a large ( cheap ) platform that can carry a lot of payload and...... loiter. Payload today = lots of targets can be hit in one mission ( targets per sortie ) as opposed to the old way of "sorties per target" and a bunch of dumb iron just to hit one simple target. Conventionally speaking, Todays B-52 can take out a dozen or more different targets ( even more as the bomb bay gets improved for cheap PGMs..... and/or even more today when it has a mixed payload of cruise/JASSM and JDAM. Compare that to the old way of a cell of 3 aircraft hitting ONE target and heading for home. Plus B-1s are no longer nuke birds ( they can not be by treaty ). B-52s with the advanced stealth cruise missle are. Not really interested in lowering the number of nuke platforms we have at this time. Bad idea. As it is now we can put up a nice number of B-52s on nuke alert if the need was to arise... and still have a good number of conventional birds to do the work. When you add up the number of B-52s that are at the depot for a refirb.... in phase.... used for training.... testing.... and then in a crisis the number ( ? ) put up for nuke alert, With the dumb idea of lowering the number down into 50 some active airframes. That doesn't leave you many birds for the conventional mission.... in two theaters... Sorry. I'll pass on the extremely bad idea of reducing the number of B-52s. We need to start funding R&D for a "B-3" ( what ever that is ) so one is available to field in 15 or 20 years. Not doing this is yet another bad idea. Anyone thinking of reducing the number of B-52s down to 50 some active in this day and age, needs to be arrested as a Chicom spy. Laughing

There is a B-1 here at the museum....... with a fiscal year '86 serial number. Laughing

figure that one out. Laughing

( and there are a few more examples.... when the B-1 was first sent to the bone yard... one went there not because it was excess, but because it was such a maintenance whore. The B-1 is one of the worst examples of quality control production when it first reached the air force. There are a bunch of legacy issues that they are dragging their feet on funding that would give it better mission up times ( a complete overhaul with new avionics and ..... new flight controls....... B-1 had an excellent up time record flying out of Diego for OEF. Knowing the issues of that bird, I wonder how many "can" birds that equals back home? I have been on more than a few deployments with B-52s. Their reliability rate pound for pound is way higher than the B-1 and of course higher than the B-2. I am all for keeping some B-1s for as long as we can fly them. But I don't recommend reducing the numbers of B-52s just to prove some pet theory and make some pencil neck accountant happy. Amazing how we spend all that cash on sending senior leadership to schools x, y, z , "war college" ( thats a joke ) and then put that against some of the extremely dumb planning ideas that come out of these guys. If we are trying to save money, might as well start with the big senior war college stuff, for all the good it is doing us. Or make sure they go out with full pack and a rifle to the field for one week a month on grunt field exercise stuff and maybe learn something they forgot. We send these guys to schools that last months and months and months. And the decisions we get are dumb ideas like this... or the one that really makes me laugh: Hire an outside consultant to tell you how many tactical airframes you need in your planning roadmap. If they can't make that decision, they need to be removed from their job.

Anyway ... now the SOJ mod to the B-52 has become another political football. Read this.

http://www.flightinternational.com/Arti ... +chop.html

swanee wrote:

eseatgeek wrote:

"...I can see retiring the U-2; with satellite imagery technology getting really good we don't need a high altitude spy plane anymore. ..."

Hummm...Im not sure I would count on satellites to do all my spying. Their orbit is fairly predictable and so
will the time of an overpass over a given area. Aircraft like the U-2 can deliver photos and other intel
at any time, including those times when the spy sats happen to be on the other side of the Earth.
So should we get rid of the Dragon Lady? The answer could be "yes" if our fleet of spook UAVs have
the capabilities that match those of U2's (range and stealth in particular).

Yeah, I meant to explore UAVs in my earlier post, just neglected to do so. You bring up a good point though about satellites, and our UAV capability is still not as good as the U-2, yet.

Global Hawk will be a more than suitable substitute for the U-2 (by the time it goes away that is), will cost a whole lot less to operate, and is more flexible. It was pointed out that during the '03 ops it was taken off the flight plan and constantly retasked and that needed to be fixed. Are you kidding me? The ability to retask the GH and move it around was what made it so valuable. The dragonlady is a great bird, but its time to let go.

Most of the F-117 mission can be done by the B-2 and eventually the F-22. Just becasue they dropped the "/A" from the F/A-22 designator doesn't mean they gave up the ability to bomb. F-22A and JDAM will be a unstoppable combination. The one mission that will be missed from the Stinkbug is the LGB capability. So long as there are no clouds, LGBs are still more accurate than GPS bombs, and the B-2 does not have a designator (unless they added that lately). I do not know if the Raptor has that ability, but I don't think the weapons bay in the raptor can carry the BLU-109 penetrator bomb. The B-52 carries a laser now, and could most likley carry the BLU-109, but at the expense of stealth. Reduced budget means tradeoffs.

B-1...pig and should be eliminated. (Been there, done that, burned the T-shirt).

B-52s cost a whole lot to fly...getting rid of half is a smart move. With the ability to carry a boatload of JDAMs, we no longer need as many bombers.

All that said, politics will get in the way. I am so tired of Congress bitching about the way DoD spends its money, and when they propose a good idea to economize, they say no. They argue that we need the capability (as though they know more than the DoD does) but what they really want to do is protect constituents. They'll win. Shame.

So, how many F-22s will USAF in fact have (with cutting the U-2s and B52s and F-117s)?
I agree with the idea of cutting both F-117 (it's no longer needed if we've got F-22A) and B-52 (it can be cut by one half), but in some cases U-2 is really needed. Let they leave at least few U2s in duty.
Greetings

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

B-52's U-2's and F-117's axed for more Raptors