Airforce may be be going out of business

[selil]

Interesting article from Government Executive (LINK)

The Air Force pleads for modernization funds.

In an arresting turn of phrase this fall, Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne suggested that absent more investment, the service might be "going out of business." He noted that on average, aircraft in his fleet are 24 years old. Air Force planes flying in support of coalition ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are fast wearing out, and "at some time in the future, they will simply rust out, age out, fall out of the sky," he told a gathering at a Washington think tank on Sept. 19.

Wynne raised the specter that the days of U.S. air dominance might be coming to an end. In a conflict with Iran, he said, front-line fighters would not be allowed to operate freely for fear of losing them to the Russian-built air defenses Tehran now is deploying.

During an Oct. 30 conversation with Government Executive Editor Timothy B. Clark, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley reinforced the theme. He said air dominance could be preserved only through the new technologies now rolling off Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. assembly lines in the form of the F-22 and F-35 advanced fighter jets. The Air Force is in a bitter fight to gain the funding needed to assemble a fleet large enough to meet the strategic demands of its Air Combat Command.

This fall has seen a rare public display of dissatisfaction with the White House on the part of military leaders, as both Wynne and Moseley have been saying the Air Force is $100 billion short of the money it needs to recapitalize its fleet over the next five years. Echoing other service chiefs, Moseley said on Oct. 30 that the nation should seriously consider devoting more of its gross domestic product to its defense program.

But the extra $20 billion a year the Air Force seeks will not come easily from a Democratic Congress whose defense specialists aren't satisfied that the Air Force has articulated a convincing long-term view of its role in the strategic challenges the country faces.

Moseley and Wynne are disappointed that their plan to help fund their service's recapitalization by eliminating 40,000 uniformed billets has not materially helped the cause. Money freed up by cutting 30,000 positions so far has been eaten up by operating costs in the ongoing wars. Wynne has said the service remains "desperate to figure out how to save money."

More at the link

[SteveMetz]

I'm having a bit of trouble following the core logic here. If I understand, the problem is that it is difficult for manned aircraft to operate where there are elaborate air defense systems. So the solution is that we need to spend more on really, really, really expensive manned aircraft, including ones which are, in the case given, designed to shoot down forty year old Iranian aircraft.

[carl]

The primary problem is the aircraft are old, very old. Old airplanes are difficult to maintain, hard to update and the operators always live in fear that a major problem, due to problems inherent with aging aircraft, will ground an entire fleet tomorrow. Or if the airplane isn't grounded you ask the crews to roll the dice every time they take off.

Regardless of whose fault it is, the Air Force is faced with having to replace most of its fighters, transports and tankers within a relatively short period of time. They need to be replaced, but whether the will be or not... The things are just flat wearing out. This will cost a LOT of money, and there isn't any easy way around it, not if we want to continue to enjoy the benefits a strong Air Force has given us over the past 65 years.

The secondary problem is it is hard for old manned airplanes to operate against good air defense systems without suffering prohibitive losses. The new ones are quite remarkable in their capabilities and can go where F-15E's fear to tread. Another benefit is a potential opponent is more likely to be "psyched out" by the prospect of having to face F-22's than F-16's.

40 year old Iranian fighters are no problem for 40 year old American fighter designs. They probably wouldn't even take off. But those pesky modern missiles are a different story. The Air Force has to plan to defeat other than the Iranian Air Force too.

People, including me, view the Air Force with great suspicion, a suspicion that the Air Force has done a lot to bring upon it self. But this is a big, real problem that isn't going away and can't be worked around. The only real, and painful, solution is to throw money at it.

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by carl

The primary problem is the aircraft are old, very old. Old airplanes are difficult to maintain, hard to update and the operators always live in fear that a major problem, due to problems inherent with aging aircraft, will ground an entire fleet tomorrow. Or if the airplane isn't grounded you ask the crews to roll the dice every time they take off.

Regardless of whose fault it is, the Air Force is faced with having to replace most of its fighters, transports and tankers within a relatively short period of time. They need to be replaced, but whether the will be or not... The things are just flat wearing out. This will cost a LOT of money, and there isn't any easy way around it, not if we want to continue to enjoy the benefits a strong Air Force has given us over the past 65 years.

The secondary problem is it is hard for old manned airplanes to operate against good air defense systems without suffering prohibitive losses. The new ones are quite remarkable in their capabilities and can go where F-15E's fear to tread. Another benefit is a potential opponent is more likely to be "psyched out" by the prospect of having to face F-22's than F-16's.

40 year old Iranian fighters are no problem for 40 year old American fighter designs. They probably wouldn't even take off. But those pesky modern missiles are a different story. The Air Force has to plan to defeat other than the Iranian Air Force too.

People, including me, view the Air Force with great suspicion, a suspicion that the Air Force has done a lot to bring upon it self. But this is a big, real problem that isn't going away and can't be worked around. The only real, and painful, solution is to throw money at it.

What I'm getting at is that if the strategic and operational objective is a strike capability and manned aircraft have problems with AD systems, perhaps the answer is something other than buying another bunch of hugely expensive manned fighter aircraft. Phrased differently, do we need another generation of manned air superiority fighters for strategic reasons or because that's what we've always had and change is hard (particularly for a service largely led by people who flew manned fighters)? I'm certainly open to the argument that we need a new generation of manned fighters but would like to see the strategic rationale.

[carl]

I am not sure we need a "new" generation of manned fighters either. But we do need the present generation, F-22's, to replace the old which is wearing out. That is the material side. The other side is most of our plans and thinking are based on manned machines and until we have time to really think through an alternative and develop the tools to implement it we have to go with what we have.

There has been considerable discussion about replacing manned airplanes with missiles and drones and ultimately that will probably happen. But I don't think that day is upon us and I don't think emulating the British and their actions in the 50's is a good idea.

One example of good use of manned fighters is psychologically dominate an opponent. The sight of contrails above you that you can't do a damn thing about must be a daunting one. We don't have any drones available now that could do that.

Stealth in the F-22 is a lot more than a nice to have feature. I've been told that modern short range missiles are so deadly that if both sides were equipped with something like Python 5s nobody will come out of a visual fight. The F-22 probably won't be seen so hopefully it won't be hit. At least for the next few (20) years, we need this thing.

Can we agree that the tankers and transports have to be replaced quick?

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by carl

One example of good use of manned fighters is psychologically dominate an opponent. The sight of contrails above you that you can't do a damn thing about must be a daunting one. We don't have any drones available now that could do that.

Why does a manned craft have more psychological impact than an unmanned one? Does the guy on the ground know which is which?

Plus, doesn't the idea of visible contrails run counter to the idea of avoiding air defenses?

Seems to me that there is even greater psychological impact when the guy on the ground doesn't see anything and all the sudden stuff blows up.

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by carl

Stealth in the F-22 is a lot more than a nice to have feature. I've been told that modern short range missiles are so deadly that if both sides were equipped with something like Python 5s nobody will come out of a visual fight. The F-22 probably won't be seen so hopefully it won't be hit. At least for the next few (20) years, we need this thing.

Can we agree that the tankers and transports have to be replaced quick?

Couple of things with the F-22...it's good and stealthy when it flies, but it's also big. If you're in visual range you can see it. And with its notional SEAD mission, I don't know that bigger is better.

One thing that's biting the AF in the butt here is their own procurement procedures and silver bullet mentality, IMO. Stealth is nice, but do you need it for every platform? We saw the same thing back with the XB-70 when the manned bomber was seen as the backbone of the AF. Dumping tons of money into that program left TAC to make do with aircraft that weren't designed for the mission at hand (the F-100 and F-105) and even borrowing a Navy design (the F-4).

Gonna be tough, but I really don't think that giving the AF a blank check is the answer.

[SteveMetz]

I just had another thought--if the Air Force DOES go out of business, I wonder if they'll have a clearance sale? It would be way cool to own a B2. Or the VIP Q from an air base. One of those with mirrors on the ceiling.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

B-2's too big, A-10 for me: Hog wild baby!

Which DVQ has the mirrors? I musta missed that one, although Aviano's are pretty primo.

[Stan]

Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār

B-2's too big, A-10 for me: Hog wild baby!

Which DVQ has the mirrors? I musta missed that one, although Aviano's are pretty primo.

I didn't find any with mirrors, but these would be just find by me

3-1.6.4 Visual Screening Unattractive views or objects identified by the site analysis will be screened with appropriate plant materials to minimize negative visual impacts....

3-1.6.5 Wind Control Wind is either a pleasant or unpleasant climatic factor depending on ambient air temperature, relative humidity, and velocity.

These folks have obviously never visited an Army base

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār

B-2's too big, A-10 for me: Hog wild baby!

Which DVQ has the mirrors? I musta missed that one, although Aviano's are pretty primo.

My boss told me that the squadron room of an A10 unit during Desert Storm had a sign that read, "Unleash the Hogs of War"

Maxwell. I seriously expected there to be bondage equipment in the closet next to the ironing board.

[selil]

Did you ever notice how A10 pilots aren't like other airforce pilots? The airfarce just treats A10 pilots like they should be swept under the rug.

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by selil

Did you ever notice how A10 pilots aren't like other airforce pilots? The airfarce just treats A10 pilots like they should be swept under the rug.

That's what happens when you spend too much time in a titanium bath tub.