The Budget Games have begun, buckle up, it's gonna be a bumpy ride

The FY21 budget request has dropped, and it's..... interesting.

The Navy

The Navy has announced they want to end Super Hornet procurement earlier than planned, and put the money into NGAD, possibly to accelerate the program.

news.usni.org...

They also announced they want 355 ships in the fleet by 2030, and immediately cut their ship building budget by 20%.

www.defensenews.com...

The Air Force

Then we come to the real fun. I fully agree with parts of the Air Force plan, but other parts are insane. I recognize that they need to save money, and the money they save will go into other necessary money. It's some of the ways they're planning to save that have me shaking my head.

Retirements-

249 F-15C/D
F-16 Block 25
RQ/EQ-4 Block 20/30
17 B-1B
16 KC-10
13 KC-135
U-2S (Conflicting information on this, as they also announced 2025)
44 A-10
24 C-130H (19 Js being added)
The money from the Global Hawk will go to supporting the Block 40, as well as buying more E-11A airframes to take over the BACN mission from the EQ-4.

Retiring the tankers is, IMO, stupid. They're adding 15 KC-46s to keep 479 tankers in inventory, but originally they weren't going to retire them until the Pegasus is combat ready. Now they're just counting them in inventory towards their total tails.

www.defensenews.com...

What decide the Navy this time to cut the Super Hornet to accelerate the NGAD ? Is there a new tech working better than expect to jump it ? And the same for USAF ? 1 billion for Ngad its a lot of money , and this time they slash a lot of old airplane.

Big loss on the F15,s but how many will be stripped out to resupply the F15x?
Same with the B1b,s..Spares to keep the remaining birds flying?
Seems like they are knocking the problem children on the head.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

The Navy has announced they want to end Super Hornet procurement earlier than planned, and put the money into NGAD, possibly to accelerate the program.


They also announced they want 355 ships in the fleet by 2030, and immediately cut their ship building budget by 20%.


The Air Force

Retirements-

249 F-15C/D
F-16 Block 25
RQ/EQ-4 Block 20/30
17 B-1B
16 KC-10
13 KC-135
U-2S (Conflicting information on this, as they also announced 2025)
44 A-10
24 C-130H (19 Js being added)
/

Slashing the SH buy is smart -- if they manage the next program right. The decision to go full Rhino was a dumb one and has neutered the fleet air arm and the carriers. To quote defense industry mogul Tony Stark, "Never go full Rhino". Or something like that. Doubling down makes no sense.

They'll count on Congress to bail them out with shipbuilding. Similar to the way the Air Force plays games with the A-10.

Dumping the Eagles and early Vipers is fine. Wish the F-15X was on that list, too...
Retiring the early Global Hawks is also smart. Same with the U-2, though it may never actually die.
They should be keeping the Bones until Raiders replace the B-2 one for one ad then the Bone fleet.
They need every tanker they can scrape up. Dumb. (Unless the plan is to sell/lease them to private service -- I haven't followed that)
A-10's should go (and we should get out of where we need them most)
Replacing Herks with J's is fine, in theory, but I'm leary of our intra-theater lift capability right now. They should keep the H's and reblade them. Almost the same capability of the J's, and they're already here. Flipside, it's easy to sell or give away a used H to friends in need, and that costs $0.

a reply to: Blackfinger

The Eagles were planned to fly until 2040. But to do that they need longeron and wing replacements, in addition to electronics upgrades. They'd be looking at $12B in costs over that 20 year period. That's a big chunk of change that can go to other programs.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The B-1s are looking at serious Depot time for corrosion and crack repair due to their heavy use. Losing the worst of them isn't a bad idea. Other than that, I fully agree with you.

a reply to: darksidius

The realization that having a fleet made up entirely of one airframe isn't the best idea.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The FY21 budget request has dropped, and it's..... interesting.

The Navy

The Navy has announced they want to end Super Hornet procurement earlier than planned, and put the money into NGAD, possibly to accelerate the program.

Yes and rather than simply admit that the LCS is an unmitigated disaster they want to retire the first 4 and keep building them. We should GIVE GIVE I tell you them to Taiwan.

Sure lets stop building an existing airframe while we embark on a 30+ procurement of a 6th gen

Oh and let leave our yards in crappy shape too

The Air Force

Then we come to the real fun. I fully agree with parts of the Air Force plan, but other parts are insane. I recognize that they need to save money, and the money they save will go into other necessary money. It's some of the ways they're planning to save that have me shaking my head.

Hmmmmm. My take.....

I get that the C/D are old but, you still need planes for continental defense and the like. Unless they are gonna open up the F-35 or F-15EX production to replace the 16's are not going to get it done like the Eagle

The F-16. Wow shows you what I know, I had no idea we had Block25 still in inventory

RQ/EQ-4 People don't seem to like these air frames. The fact that the USAF is willing to walk away from them tells me that they are not that useful, OR they already have something better. Im not buying all that Block 40 love and perhaps the BACN did not work as well as they expected

Tankers: NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE not until they solve the problems on the Pegasus

U-2S Keep the Dragon lady

A-10. They have had a hardon about killing the A-10 despite have NOTHING to replace it with and phuleeeze its not going to be an F-35. If the USAF is bored with the CAS Mission, then give it back to the Army and tear up the Key West Agreement '

C-130H: Yes yes 1000 times yes before we have any more break up in the air
The money from the Global Hawk will go to supporting the Block 40, as well as buying more E-11A airframes to take over the BACN mission from the EQ-4.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: darksidius

The realization that having a fleet made up entirely of one airframe isn't the best idea.

True but the USN has routinely S%$t the bed on procurement. Maybe if they clipped the USMC's budget which is made up of 100 million+ Choppers, on top of a STOVL stealth aircraft AND a pretty pricey Osprey.

The way they operate the NGAD will arrive around 2050 if we are lucky

a reply to: FredT

Getting rid of the A-10s will leave something like 239 aircraft as well as saving money from replacing their wings.

The C/Ds are looking at new wings starting in the next 5-6 years. That's not going to be an inexpensive program. Moving the Es over, and adding EXs to the Homeland mission is a decent solution, if not perfect.

a reply to: FredT

RQ/EQ-4 People don't seem to like these air frames. The fact that the USAF is willing to walk away from them tells me that they are not that useful, OR they already have something better. Im not buying all that Block 40 love and perhaps the BACN did not work as well as they expected

The older models would require money to update. Between the block 40's and the infamous "other platforms", that mission is covered. Same story with the U-2's.

you still need planes for continental defense 

You could hang Sidewinders under an otherwise off the shelf Gulfstream for that. And it'd save bundles. But it's probably going to be F-16's ($) with a handful of F-35's in Alaska and Washington eventually.

True but the USN has routinely S%$t the bed on procurement. 

This is going to be true regardless. Honestly, the introduction of the F-35 to the fleet is going to make the F-18 of (even more) limited utility. Carrier air isn't needed in a low-intensity conflict, and the SHornet air wing means the carrier battle group is near useless as an offensive force against a near-peer. They have to hope the Lightning will plug the gap until their next project arrives.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT

Getting rid of the A-10s will leave something like 239 aircraft as well as saving money from replacing their wings.

You save oodles by eliminating the entire train of logistics and training for the A-10's. Same holds true for the Eagles, which is why even the mudhens should be under consideration. The X should be a nonstarter. A handful of barebones F-16's new build or refurb'ed make more sense than the X.

The B-1s are looking at serious Depot time for corrosion and crack repair due to their heavy use. Losing the worst of them isn't a bad idea.

You could completely zero them out and reengine for the cost of a year's worth of B-2 maintenance on a handful of airframes. That's where the cuts should come from unless we are facing off against China or Russia in the next six years.

No way you can use a gulfstream, for continental defense, for that you need a fast inerceptor to identify the radar ping, and for that a F-15 EX with this high speed and high altitude is a good solution, the new F-15 will be a beast of performance with a moderate cost. I read somewhere that the F-15 Platform could have the capacity to go mach 3 and will be usefull for hypersonic weapon. I have the feeling that the B-21 could do the F-15 Strike Eagle mission, may be an interdiction plane too.

a reply to: darksidius

The Cold War called. It wants ist force structure back.
Seriously, defend against whom? Nobody is threatening the US mainland requiring hundreds of dedicated interceptor aircraft.

a reply to: mightmight
Nobody know what the futur could be, and the better you are the less risk you have. With prolifate of new weapon like Hypersonic, cruise missile , UCAV, don't be so sure . You don't know who will be at the head of China or Russia in 10/15 years, USAF and Navy aviation need to be the stronger on earth, I m confident with the USA ahead not with the rest of the world.

originally posted by: darksidius
Nobody know what the futur could be, and the better you are the less risk you have. With prolifate of new weapon like Hypersonic, cruise missile , UCAV, don't be so sure .

You're certainly correct, a lot could happen. But it's a question of resource distribution. The US simply cannot (as in, is not willing to) afford a defense budget to cover everything conceivable under the sun. Covering every contingency is impossible.
We may or may not like this, but it's the reality in which we live. And thus it's of vital importance to focus on the capabilities that are actually relevant based on the threats the US actually faces.
Maybe Russia or China will build up a relevant conventional long-range strike capability to threaten the US mainland in the future. I personally doubt it, but in the meantime, the US needs to focus on its actually capability shortfalls. And they are plenty.

You don't know who will be at the head of China or Russia in 10/15 years, USAF and Navy aviation need to be the stronger on earth, I m confident with the USA ahead not with the rest of the world.

Yes, and the good start would be not to waste money on fourth-gen fighter jets to defend the homeland against nonexistent threats. If the US wants to get serious about confronting China, they need to divorce themself from the fighter jet in general and focus on fewer longer-ranged platforms.

a reply to: mightmight
You are right, I think the futur B-21 will be the good answer for the long distance theater, and I think it will be more than a Bomber , whith the last pictures of it it could have the role of a stealth F-111, it is possible it will have some sort of A-A capability.

a reply to: darksidius

, the new F-15 will be a beast of performance with a moderate cost

The "moderate cost" is higher than that of the much maligned F-35's. Plus all the associated costs of a completely separate logistics train and training costs for a boutique run of a handful of aircraft.

Everyone loves the Eagle, but it doesn't make sense to buy more-expensive, less-survivable fighter aircraft. More F-35's makes far more sense. Barebones (cheap) new F-16's even would make more sense if we simply want a bomb-truck or air defense interceptors.

Much rather have more F-35's at less cost. The F-15 buy is corporate welfare to keep Boeing in the fighter game as the line is shriveling up.

It is possible it have something to see with the futur of a NGAD competition, keeping Boeing in the game make sense. May be Boeing will be the big winner for futur fighter programs, Navy stop buying SH after 2021, and I feel Boeing will have a card to play with the NAVY NGAD.

DMS-M has been scaled back to a cockpit display upgrade.

www.defensenews.com...