Combat Air Forces Restructuring

[Cliff]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123150197

Bottom line the AF is giving up 250 fighters, and instead of getting more F-22s is getting a grab bag of other capes:

Additional B-52 Sqdn
More MC-12W Liberty Bells
More UAVs
Munitions

It will be interesting to see if Congress intervenes - testimony on the Hill yesterday seems to point to "no":

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22784.html

The real key to watch will be the Guard - -250 jets means the Guard units will have no jets for a while unless F-35s go to the Guard 1st. Doesn't seem like that will be popular with Congress.

We are assuming a large risk in the Air Superiority arena - let's hope we can deter anyone from challenging us there.

-Cliff

[Entropy]

Cliff,

The Air Force is already looking at SLEPing some F-15's and F-16's to fill the gap until the F-35 arrives - a move that I think makes the most sense at this point.

[J Wolfsberger]

The Air Force is already looking at SLEPing some F-15's and F-16's to fill the gap until the F-35 arrives - a move that I think makes the most sense at this point.

I agree it makes the most sense. But those frames have a lot of hours on them. I have to wonder if they can be cost effectively slepped.

[Entropy]

I agree it makes the most sense. But those frames have a lot of hours on them. I have to wonder if they can be cost effectively slepped.

Some tests are being done now to find out.

[Van]

Entropy, that begs a seperate question; Given the F-22's capabilities, do we need as many squadrons? Or should squadrons be organized around fewer airframes to provide a comparable number of deployable units?

The Air Force has been pushing the F-22 as the be all, end all of combat aviation. You couldn't here an Air Force presentation without a reference to the F-22, and you couldn't see a video or graphic for the Air Force without an F-22 in for many years. It's been one of the most consistent, unified, and aggressive media campaigns any U.S. service has conducted

This tends to raise questions for a curmdgeon like me. Is the F-22 everything it was billed as? If so, the Air Force needs to accept this in good graces, even if it means squadron commands being eliminated. If the F-22 isn't everything it was billed as, they are just a little late saying so, and some very senior people have some 'splainin' to do. The phrase "The very survival of this unit!" in a political context usually implies that survival of the unit is valued over a rational consideration of whether or not the unit should be continued, and that individual players are more concerned with their power and position than the good of the larger organization.

[Entropy]

Van,

We are talking about how to bridge a temporary gap in the number of available airframes, nothing more. If you think we don't need so many aircraft/squadrons, then that is a different argument to make. The number of flying squadrons is already being, and has already been, reduced, as has the number of F-22's.

That cut in F-22's is going to be "made-up-for" with F-35's - IOW, the we are going to buy more of those instead of F-22's. The fighter requirements did not change, only the platform to meet those requirements. The problem is that the F-35 isn't in production yet, while the F-22 is about to go out of production and that is really what's creating the gap - Aircraft (f-22's) that were going to be built from 2010-2014 are being replaced with F-35's that won't be built until after 2014 (my dates are estimates, I don't have the precise figures), hence creating a gap as older aircraft are retired.

Think of it this way: The Army is going to replace it's main battle tank. Because of whatever reason, many old tanks will reach the end of their service lives before a replacement becomes available. This obviously leads to a temporary shortage of tanks for armor units. So, what do you do? Do you refurbish some of the old tanks to keep them running for longer until production of the new tank catches up? Do you just live with fewer tanks for a few years? Or what? You probably wouldn't consolidate the tanks into fewer units, disestablish those units without tanks, and then reestablish them when production of the new tank catches up.

[Cliff]

Van,

We are talking about how to bridge a temporary gap in the number of available airframes, nothing more. If you think we don't need so many aircraft/squadrons, then that is a different argument to make. The number of flying squadrons is already being, and has already been, reduced, as has the number of F-22's.

That cut in F-22's is going to be "made-up-for" with F-35's - IOW, the we are going to buy more of those instead of F-22's. The fighter requirements did not change, only the platform to meet those requirements. The problem is that the F-35 isn't in production yet, while the F-22 is about to go out of production and that is really what's creating the gap - Aircraft (f-22's) that were going to be built from 2010-2014 are being replaced with F-35's that won't be built until after 2014 (my dates are estimates, I don't have the precise figures), hence creating a gap as older aircraft are retired.

Think of it this way: The Army is going to replace it's main battle tank. Because of whatever reason, many old tanks will reach the end of their service lives before a replacement becomes available. This obviously leads to a temporary shortage of tanks for armor units. So, what do you do? Do you refurbish some of the old tanks to keep them running for longer until production of the new tank catches up? Do you just live with fewer tanks for a few years? Or what? You probably wouldn't consolidate the tanks into fewer units, disestablish those units without tanks, and then reestablish them when production of the new tank catches up.

Entropy-

The tank comparison is valid... except...

you have to consider the numbers/math...

An F-35 has 4 A-A missiles. An F-22 carries 8...

8 missiles x 187 F-22s (realize 187 will not be available ever...) = 1496 AMRAAMs.

Threat AF = 1500+ fighters...

So take the Pk of the missiles x number of aircraft x number of missiles, compare to the number of threat A/C... not a favorable ratio.

Tough math there... Gen Schwartz admitted in his testimony today that 243 F-22s is the military requirement, and 187 is the affordable requirement. Again, let's hope we don't get challenged...

187 F-22s is not an overmatch by any means.

V/R,

Cliff

[Van]

But Cliff, if the 187 F-22s the Air Force is getting are as capable as the Air Force insists they are, we'll maintain an overmatch for any 2 and most combinations of 3 or more opponents for decades. With the F-35s coming on line in the near future, the progress on the UCAV, and the continual upgrades to existing systems, doesn't seem a little wasteful to fight for more?

Now if the Air Force over-sold the F-22s capabilities, this is an integrity issue...

The great irony of this article is that the additional B-52 squadron could be interpreted as the Air Force getting serious about CAS (over 30 tons of PGM per aircraft is change I can believe in).

[Entropy]

Van, it's not a question of capabilities - it's a question of having enough planes to fill squadrons.