Air Force looking at losing entire fleets

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Due to Sequestration the Air Force is now looking at retiring entire fleets, and their supply chains to save money. But of course, here comes politics.

Both the MC-12 and the A-10 face elimination, and the rest of the fleet faces "recapitalization instead of modernization". Gen. Mike Hostage, head of ACC says that the force is "screwed" around the middle of the next decade with modernization, and the F-35 will be able to perform a number of roles.

The F-15C fleet will probably be facing fairly large cuts, with the F-35 performing their mission with the F-22 once it enters service. He goes on to say that B-1s, and the future Long-Range Strike Bomber can perform the CAS mission with current weapons.


The US Air Force will likely have to cut entire fleets of aircraft to comply with the Congressional sequestration law, says a top service official. In order to retain a force capable of operating across the spectrum of operations, the USAF will have to sacrifice single-mission aircraft in order to preserve multirole machines.

“The only way you really save money is to make entire weapons systems go away,” says Gen Mike Hostage, commander of the USAF’s Air Combat Command. That is “so that the whole logistics train, the whole support infrastructure that goes with it goes away.”

Though eliminating single-mission aircraft is the most efficient way to save money while preserving military capability, the problem is politics, Hostage says.

For example, the L-3 MC-12 Project Liberty aircraft has excellent capability, if funding was not an issue, Hostage says. Other single-mission aircraft that might be sacrificed include the Fairchild Republic A-10.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


They gonna shut down overseas bases (Korea, Japan etc) next?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
maybe undisclosed upgrades are complete



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 


Japan and Korea will remain open, and theoretically see more aircraft with the "Pacific Pivot" that isn't happening.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I find this to be good news. The less war machines the better our world will be.

As if the US needs more air power.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Given the current terror threat to America these cuts could be seen as bad, but the growing DHS and militarization of the police at home picks up where the military makes these cuts. Also, losing a few planes to save money doesn't mean they'll drop any capability. There's always something behind the scenes.
edit on 18-9-2013 by EA006 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I was going to post something about the Navy also getting their wings clipped by our Carrier fleet sitting in port. That would have been an accurate statement very recently too... I don't mean to sidetrack so I'll leave it with this ... There are 7 CV's at Sea right now..including all out of overseas ports. I just got a big chill. That list read the opposite for numbers a few weeks ago with nothing having been posted for plans to change much. Now? crickets chirp where the big flattops were lined up so recently. (CV Locations)

Now this, out of the Air Force, with a serious gloom and doom sound ..while they too have been moving a lot of stuff, off the media radar, for a few weeks now. They seem to be finding money when it's needed for unbudgeted 'contingency' spending.

When the Military isn't making much sense ..or is doing odd things in unpredictable ways? I get nervous. Today seems to see both at once.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by EA006
 


It's the specialized loss of capability that is worrisome. The F-35, B-1 and others can perform the A-10 mission, but poorly. There was a recent A-10 sortie in Afghanistan where two A-10s expended every bomb they had, and 2400 rounds of ammunition while staying overhead for several hours. No other aircraft could even have come close to that. The end result is that three Americans were injured (all suffered when their vehicle went off the road). The F-35 that is supposed to replace the Warthog carries 800 rounds of ammunition, and flies twice as fast.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by EA006
 


It's the specialized loss of capability that is worrisome. The F-35, B-1 and others can perform the A-10 mission, but poorly. There was a recent A-10 sortie in Afghanistan where two A-10s expended every bomb they had, and 2400 rounds of ammunition while staying overhead for several hours. No other aircraft could even have come close to that. The end result is that three Americans were injured (all suffered when their vehicle went off the road). The F-35 that is supposed to replace the Warthog carries 800 rounds of ammunition, and flies twice as fast.


O.o lets keep the a-10s and build a new version of them, then phase out the old a-10s when the new ones are done. o.O no? Make the new ones something like this or this

Same role, heavily armored yet new design. More weapons. more damage.
edit on 18-9-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Doesn't the Navy have more aircraft than the Air Force anyway?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AlliumIslelily
 


Not even remotely close. The Navy has 3700+ aircraft, including ASW, transports, and cargo aircraft. The USAF had over 5500 as of September of 2012.
edit on 9/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephalim
 


They've recently upgraded almost the entire fleet to C models. It included a new wing box, which extended the life cycle, new avionics, the first real IR system (previously they used Maverick seekers for any kind of IR system). It's essentially an entirely new aircraft.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

The sequestration was self imposed. Congress gave themselves a deadline for dealing with the budget, with consequences if it didn't pass. It didn't pass. The bickering is disgusting. Yet, Congressional pay goes on, their votes for raises goes on, their independent health care and pensions go on.....

The Air Force, like most of the Department of Defense, has allowed the defense contractors to steal from the American Taxpayer continually over the years. When a single plane that was originally expected and contracted to cost 60 million dollars ends up costing 150 million dollars.... THAT is stealing. If our contractors are that bad at projecting costs, they should be penalized. Instead, they do this Constantly.

My father worked for the General Accounting Office, as it used to be called, and was a grade 17. I grew up on stories about fraud and waste. And Congress demands certain projects continue even when the Department of Defense says they have enough or even too many of an item but Congress demands they spend money where it isn't needed in order to keep jobs. The contractors have spread out the manufacturing very smartly so that enough of Congress keeps the work going and wasting more money. This is not the President's fault, as many here would love to claim. It is Congress, pure and simple.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jaxnmarko
 


As long as Congress is involved then the budget will never be made right again, and the military will continue to have projects over budget and behind schedule. A prime example is the Cuban TV plane in Florida. It's been on the air about 20 minutes since it started, and their logic is "If it wasn't working they wouldn't jam the signal", to keep it funded.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by EA006
 


It's the specialized loss of capability that is worrisome. The F-35, B-1 and others can perform the A-10 mission, but poorly. There was a recent A-10 sortie in Afghanistan where two A-10s expended every bomb they had, and 2400 rounds of ammunition while staying overhead for several hours. No other aircraft could even have come close to that. The end result is that three Americans were injured (all suffered when their vehicle went off the road). The F-35 that is supposed to replace the Warthog carries 800 rounds of ammunition, and flies twice as fast.


Not to mention those A-10s are tough SOB's.

Surviving hits others would not.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by AlliumIslelily
 


Not even remotely close. The Navy has 3700+ aircraft, including ASW, transports, and cargo aircraft. The USAF had over 5500 as of September of 2012.
edit on 9/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


Oh, shows what I know. Thanks for clearing that up for me. You're like a walking encyclopedia of aviation information.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   
you know most of those jets have mostly been used in some capacity either directly or indirectly used to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent civilians, usually in 2nd and 3rd world nations? So no we don't need them Get rid of all of them if possible! We don't need anymore advanced weaponry that will generally only end up killing or wounding innocent people including many children.


edit on 19-9-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


If only it were that simple. Sadly, your enemy is not going to throw down his weapons and the risk is too great at home without them. That's the whole issue with the discarding of the A-10's and even the F-15's is that the role is stripped out, it's a huge disadvantage for the United States and puts more pilots and soldiers on the ground at risk.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Shugo
 


Seriously? "our enemies" ? Who the Klingons? The Canadians ? Godzilla ? If we need an air force, then it should be designed to protect the U.S. So, how many Taliban fighter aircraft do we engage over A-stan every day? What the heck are we doing in A-stan in the first place (like that is the ALL TIME no brainer question if there ever was one!) Why can't we just use drones instead ? What country in the known Universe has the capability right now to engage the U.S. in air combat over our own territory? also, I have one last word that makes the idea of using aircraft as weapons - SPACE BASED LASER, coming to a maniacal despot near you !



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   

CarbonBase
Seriously? "our enemies" ? Who the Klingons? The Canadians ? Godzilla ?


There is such a thing as foreign affairs where issues need to be addressed overseas. Don't point the finger and say the United States is the only one that does it, because that is a flat out lie. Russia and Britain are also two offenders of that same issue. Not to mention a retaliatory strike when attacks are made on United States grounds or against citizens. That can also be used to aid in allied forces that the United States has promised to support. Again, don't act like the United States is the only one. That isn't the topic here though.


If we need an air force, then it should be designed to protect the U.S.


Someone is obviously confused at the role of the F-15 in the United States Air Force:

www.boeing.com...

The F-15 and F-22 both of which are currently in use as interceptor aircraft for the mainland. The performance of the F-22 in this role however is lacking behind the F-15's.


So, how many Taliban fighter aircraft do we engage over A-stan every day? What the heck are we doing in A-stan in the first place (like that is the ALL TIME no brainer question if there ever was one!)


This question has no place in this thread and is irrelevant to the topic.


Why can't we just use drones instead ?


We do use drones on a consistent basis, but drones on their own are not at the capacity yet to completely take over and assume all roles necessary for actual combat and certainly not for defense purposes.


What country in the known Universe has the capability right now to engage the U.S. in air combat over our own territory?


Right now, I would venture to gather that Russia is a prime candidate for that, while their effectiveness might be in question. You really need to do some more research on what is going on in the aviation world before you make a bold statement like that. The Sukhoi PAK-FA in particular is of interest and an issue for the United States at this time with the only fighter on par to intercept the aircraft being the F-22.


also, I have one last word that makes the idea of using aircraft as weapons - SPACE BASED LASER, coming to a maniacal despot near you !


And once again that would cost even more money. While the United States has used high energy laser systems in the past, it's not particularly practical for engaging high speed aircraft that can change motion and altitude quickly. For someone who was posting a "love and peace" paragraph above, I'm rather irked to see you post this comment.


The fact remains the same, the sacrifice of certain aircraft for certain roles is a big issue for security both at home and overseas. Whether that security threat is immediately valid might be in question, the fact that the programs are being cut and replaced for aircraft not entirely suitable for the role is worrisome. Especially when you have other countries rolling out new defense and offensive aircraft like right now in several key and nuclear capable nations.
edit on 19.9.2013 by Shugo because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join