Air Force looking at losing entire fleets

reply to post by Shugo


Thanks for making me smarter! I guess the 20 years I spent in the military watching our military out military every military that ever was must have been some kind of mental aberration! Yeah, I know about airplanes, luv them, they're cool. I am quite aware of what happens to other Air Forces when they come in contact with our very own USAF (of which my daughter is a proud member). I get all the "oh, the military is being run down because we fighting all over the world garbage!

Here's the truth. We need to stop fighting other peoples battles for them. We need to tell the rest of NATO to pack sand. We need to build a military that protects the US, not someone else. And above all, we DON 't need planes like the F-35 or F-22 since they are a GIANT waste of money, when there's NO ONE to fight with anyway. IF you think space based lasers are so expensive, what do you think they US is doing with the X37B and the lasers they have already deployed on orbit, or weren't you paying attention to that? Cheers! A dedicated NAVY vet

reply to post by CarbonBase


Not one line in that post was on topic. Thank you.
I do enjoy when people randomly feel the need to include "I've been in this" in order to give their posts weight.

I'm sorry, but nothing you've said or presented invalidates what I've presented. The link in the OP which is a link to an official source is outlining the termination of A-10 Thunderbolts and the F-15 Eagle in a big way. This is serious. You're loosing ground coverage for troops overseas and you're loosing a primary interceptor. That's not a small deal, that is huge.

If the issue is money, I'd agree with you on the F-35 being a total waste, but I'm not that quick to pull the trigger on the F-22. Technology has come a long way, but you still have to remember that there is lag. The problem is - while all of the other countries are beefing up, the U.S. is dropping back. None of the "we need to stop fighting other wars" is valid in this argument, that has little to do with the situation. The argument works in a theory where you specify who Leader A and Leader B is, it doesn't work in the real world.

Again, please...the topic here is planes cycling out of service with no suitable replacements - it has nothing to do with "we could just stop fighting."

Zaphod58
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...

The army won't let the a10 disappear. It is the best armor killer ever made. Unless there is proven platform that is better and so far there isn't. Very special aircraft.

Yea we will see allot of things done stupidly. The politicians can't do it any other way.

They are idiots and we should get rid of all of them lol.

That Bot

reply to post by Shugo

Here is the point - Building highly sophisticated weapons systems that have no purpose is why the military is always getting into trouble with the civilians and the government about how much money the blow on useless programs. The sequester can't hurt the air force since the air force has NO COMPETITION in the first place.
Losing the entire inventory of one type of platform is O.B.E.! It's pointless to build things you are NEVER GOING to use ! it's why the "sequester" means nothing to US defense. In the end, we don't NEED the F-22 if we have the F-35 right? We don't need "interceptors" because there isn't anything to intercept. We don't need the A-10 because we're getting our ass kicked out of A-stan next year. We could use more C-5 Class airlifters and more C-17's, but since we aren't going to, and haven't fought an actual war since what, oh yeah right, World War II, what's the point? There isn't ANY PLACE ON EARTH right now where there is a combat mission for the US military and that's a fact. Using the military as a political campaigning tool doesn't count.

CarbonBase

... and haven't fought an actual war since what, oh yeah right, World War II, what's the point? There isn't ANY PLACE ON EARTH right now where there is a combat mission for the US military and that's a fact. Using the military as a political campaigning tool doesn't count.

hmmm ... Korea springs to mind (not that I am in disagreement with the overall context of your argument). The deterrent aspects of a 'shock and awe' system of platforms cannot be disregarded. If memory serves, the F-22 goes for about $420M per copy. Call two of those a billion dollars, recognize that their effective deployment requires six primaries plus a flight of support aircraft, and you have to consider what the ROI's value is to the USA.

Is the main focus of TPTB on Iran ... or are they really thinking China? Are we going through Syria or North Korea?

To the point of the topic: Knowing the terrain in North Korea, our own tanks would be nowhere near as cost effective as a flight of A-10s w/Apaches for cleanup. Back those platforms up with F-22s and F-35s (w/support) and China's gonna think twice before they butt-in, unless they think we're going to plow through the largest standing army on Earth and come for them without missing a beat.

Not saying the USA could even hope to pull something like that off with the required advantage of an element of surprise. Just saying. Fact: Using the military as back-up to peaceful diplomacy ALWAYS counts.

reply to post by CarbonBase


Yes. And I'm sure whenever there is a war a military will magically appear from scratch.

Also the wars you are counting on the ones that you feel are just, not uhm... wars. Also why do you think the USAF needs more airlift capabity? You're contradicting yourself.

reply to post by Snarl


Right, that's program cost per aircraft which is really high because the number of aircraft was cut dramatically. The later F-22's were more like 150 million, unit cost, which is around twice as expensive as a 4th generation arcraft.

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.

Actually, that last question is possibly the most relevant to this entire topic.

If a nation is not intent on maintaining and expanding an EMPIRE, globe trotting weapons, missions and bases are largely unnecessary. Globe trotting weapons, missions and facilities used for the war-on-terror are far beyond unnecessary -- they are an outright fraud.

With few exceptions, this entire thread appears to be a cheer-leading squad for DoD. DoD has little to do with really protecting us and, in fact, DoD is just as likely to attack us as any foreign victims. Those involved in false-flags as standard-operating-procedure have zero integrity or loyalty to home and hearth.

We need a 90% reduction in all things military. Permanently.

reply to post by juspassinthru


And after we cut our military to a force that wouldn't even slow down a dog attack the world will suddenly become safe, right? Because the US is responsible for every problem in the world.

reply to post by Zaphod58


A bit off topic, or maybe it isn't.

But didn't the POTUS say once that there should be a domestic force that is equal in strength to the US military? This could be just one way of achieving that.

The Hawg has been on the chopping block plenty of times and survived. I think it will survive this time as well. The Army and Marines LOVE that bird.

It appears the ongoing efforts to disarm all America continue apiece(Have you cleaned your rifle today?) they are so touchy feely and weapons are so loud. The airforce has been trying to dump the CAS role for a while now ,and again smarter heads will force them to keep it.

cavtrooper7
The airforce has been trying to dump the CAS role for a while now ,and again smarter heads will force them to keep it.

The US Army used to have CAS aircraft, however back in the sixties (if I remember correctly) a memorandum of agreement or some such document between the USAF and the Army changed all that. That agreement took all armed fixed wing CAS aircraft out of the Army's hands. I myself would like to see that agreement nullified.

But it's a funding thing and the USAF would not want to give that away now would they? Of course, the way things are going, they just may have to.

TDawgRex

cavtrooper7
The airforce has been trying to dump the CAS role for a while now ,and again smarter heads will force them to keep it.

The US Army used to have CAS aircraft, however back in the sixties (if I remember correctly) a memorandum of agreement or some such document between the USAF and the Army changed all that. That agreement took all armed fixed wing CAS aircraft out of the Army's hands. I myself would like to see that agreement nullified.

But it's a funding thing and the USAF would not want to give that away now would they? Of course, the way things are going, they just may have to.

I totally agree with you, as ex infantry i can say that every commander wishes he had his own fleet of hawgs. So often the airforce has different commitments. The army needs and should have it's own aircraft back. So should the Marines. For them it is a little different, there are naval air wings.

I laugh at these people saying we only need lift aircraft, it's all fine until the # hits the fan and then their crying where is the military. The only reason we have not been attacked here by some of the whacko countries is our strong military. Without it you would see a red dawn situation.

No we need a strong military.

The Bot

Zaphod58
And after we cut our military to a force that wouldn't even slow down a dog attack the world will suddenly become safe, right? Because the US is responsible for every problem in the world.

Estimates vary, but some accounts have it that US military spending is equal to the expenditures of the next largest 11 countries combined. This is without even taking into account the massive money generated thru illegal black ops. Cutting our budget by 90 percent would be enough to protect our shores while ensuring that the cretins at the DoD would not have the resources to overthrow governments, murder and torture foreign nationals, steal foreign resources and traffic in contraband..

The US has a long and documented history with causing real problems around the world. It does not matter if we are addressing the overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, the terrorism caused by walking-up sleeper cells of the stay-behind groups of operation Gladio or the theft of foreign resources thru the IMF and World Bank. Or a thousand other operations.

There is *no* excuse for perpetual war. None. Nada. Zip.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Great Zap you made me cry. This has been a productive day until I read your thread. What upsets me is that I have read over the years the RIDICULOUS things that Gov allows to happen with our Money, our hard earned money, and then the things that most of us hold dear, that are the spine of our American way of life such as our Air Force Fleets about to be decommissioned due to lack of funding, just sickens me.

I am so sorry to hear about this , it just sucks the good energy right out of me. Is it possible we just may be getting that first step in truth and full disclosure ? You know I am a proponent of disclosure first and foremost of what we really have that until now has been topsecret. Or are we going to surrender everything to an unknown and insecure future? If they decommission these fleets, do they dismantle them as well so that in the event of something huge, our retired Pilots cant jump in to save the day?

reply to post by dlbott


What makes me laugh is that they say they can use the B-1 for CAS. Which with JDAM they can, but two things here...

1. Using a heavy bomber for close air support is like burning your house down to kill a cockroach. It would not only cost more, it ties up aircraft that could be doing other missions.

2. The B-1 fleet was recommended for cutting due to the maintenance and cost issues related to them.

reply to post by juspassinthru


Ah right, the old let the world overtake us and leave our allies on their own argument. If you're going to do that just hey rid of them altogether beside they'll be useless.

reply to post by antar


The older ones will be destroyed and stripped for parts. There is, to an extent, parts commonality throughout the fleets. Parts that can be used for other aircraft will be. Younger aircraft will be stripped of engines and "perishable" components and placed into storage at AMARG.

I dont think that the F-22 was an waist of money.
It is years ahead of its competitors (although a well piloted Eurofighter Typhoon can spoil the day of a Raptor jockey). In the medium term, when PAK-FA and others (Chengdu J-20) become operational, the decision to go on with the F-22 will prove itself as the right one. And by then it will become evident that it is necessary to reopen the Raptor production line.

I dont think that the F-35 is a capable replacement to the F-15C. Unless it is used in conjunction with the F-22, say a Raptor acting as a mini-AWACS for a fleet of 4-6 F-35.
The F-35 was designed as "bomb truck" it does not have the agility or the thrust-to-weight ratio to become a good air-air fighter. Also lacks in the combat persistence arena unless they sacrifice stealth (the prime reason to go with that aircraft production).

How does it hold the F-35 against a F-16 (given equal pilot quality) on a dogfighting?

reply to post by meaningless333


That's a good question. If you listen to Lockmart the -35 will dominate any fourth gen out there. If you listen to its detractors an unmodified Su-27 will dominate the -35 without breaking a sweat. The reality is probably somewhere in between. In some scenarios, and when used right it will have the advantage and in others it will be at a disadvantage.

I think the A-10s could be easily replaced by a few AC130s if need be. I loved both aircraft for support but the fire power the AC130 put down was a sight to behold at night and it sure made our enemy's cease aggression when they were around.