Read the forum code of contact
By: 6th August 2013 at 01:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The main problem the AF faces right now is the Democrat party and Reublican party and his lordship Barak I.
By: 6th August 2013 at 02:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The problem started in 1991 when the Cold War finished.
There was a real lack of investment in new aircraft especially support aircraft like tankers or tactical transports (only small number of C-130Js acquired by USAF).
The T-X Talon program has continuously been delayed whilst KC-X procurement also been a long and arduous process just to get to a winner. Then E-10 got cancelled, F-35, C-130J and C-17 all got delayed, F-22 got cut to the bone (and was delayed) and other programs such as U-2 replacement (RQ-4 Global Hawk) have not been successful.
So it's not just the politicians but also the Air Force procurement processes which have proven to be bureaucratic, innefficient, badly managed and occassionally corrupt.
So you have a backlog that in some instances stretches back 20 years.
The Air Force has already lost some capabilities because of all of this - e.g. retirement of EF-111 Raven (Sparkvark) has seen EW role transferred to Navy and USMC.
Meanwhile a lot of assets have been utilised extensively in over a decade of military operations, especially the tankers, transports and electronic aircraft. This obviously uses up airframe life a lot quicker than regular peace time flying.
So come 2020-2030 you'll have a whole heap of assets expiring and needing either extensive upgrades or replacement. And given scale of this (as stated over 2,000 aircraft), there is simply not enough money to do it all. So something will have to give.
By: 6th August 2013 at 03:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The Three priority programs for the USAF, are the LRS-B , F-35, and the Tanker program. Even if push comes to shove, the USAF is not going to cut these out totally...As far as ISR and AEW fleets go, i am sure something would be worked out in the future, the E-10 was way to ambitious as far as the post-cold war environment goes (and post 911 funding for that matter)....Its a good idea to step back and see what type of AEW is required for the 2030 + Time period, not sure the Frame for frame replacement of the E-3 and E-8 is warranted.
By: 6th August 2013 at 03:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The C-130H fleet is viable for a good while yet, while the C-130J and variants are coming online in increasing numbers. I don't think airlift of any sort will be a worry problem for the USAF in the future.
Future means C-130H/J, C-17A, C-5M.....not too bad if you ask me.
By: 6th August 2013 at 03:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Aren't most of the C-130H'S 1980s/early 1990s vintage? That makes them on average about 30 years old in 2020.
And the AMP upgrade was cut last year too with only a 5 aircraft modified. USAF intends to keep about 180 C-130Hs and acquire a total of 134 C-130Js.
That means a lot of C-130Hs left in service need an upgrade to stay viable.
Also this contributes to my argument - AMP is cut so effectively C-130H upgrade is delayed. And that means vast majority of upgrades will be delayed in 2020s thus contributing to massive need for recapitalisation in 2020-30 period.
And whilst 134 C-130J's sounds like a lot, remember the USA is a superpower with large numbers of deployments and needs for global responsiveness.
Also a lot of USAF C-130J purchases are specialised birds (MC-130J, HC-130J, AC-130J). Total number of transport C-130Js to be ordered by USAF in 2014-18 period is 29 aircraft out of 79 A/H/M/K/C-130s to be ordered in this period.
By: 6th August 2013 at 05:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I don't see much of a problem.
Repalce C-130 with new C-130.
Replace UH-60 with new UH-60.
Replace F16 with F35
Replace A-10 with UCAV and F35D
Replace F15 with nothing capping F22 after 180 planes has already made the choice here.
Replace Tankers with the new Tanker about to enter service.
Replace AWACs with nothing update planes and keep flying them for another 30 years.
Replace Bombers again with nothing in the next 20 years.
By: 6th August 2013 at 05:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Replace Bombers again with nothing in the next 20 years.
Officially the target date for the LRS_B is 2025. Although i doubt that it is going to be ready by then, but i doubt that its gonna take 20+ years to get it out.
Replace AWACs with nothing update planes and keep flying them for another 30 years.
The AEW fleet is in no shape to fly for that long even with upgrades. I would suggest a 737 based AEW platform, that can be cheaply acquired and costs little to operate. There is already talk about adding a Ground mapping radar on the P-8's
The Dilemma with the AEW Fleet comes from the fact that the USAF is probably on the tipping point of new technologies that can allow the airframes to shrink (More computing, smaller more powerful radars etc), in addition to that there is the survivability issue with traditional AWACS crafts, especially when the opponent will target them using Stealth. Electronic warfare, ISR and AEW role is going to be increasingly tasked to UAV's, be it the ones that are public, or the ones that are in the black! The ISR ability of networked F-22's , F-35's and B-2's (future LRS_B) also would be tactically analyzed before diving into full fledged programs.
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/AirDominance-ISR.pdf
and other programs such as U-2 replacement (RQ-4 Global Hawk) have not been successful.
A U2 mission replacement craft, would likely be developed in the black, given the huge amounts of money available (30 billion per annum based on some estimates). I see the recent decisions by the USAF to distance itself form the Global Hawk platform as one indicator that they probably have something in the works, that is far more capable. Electronic warfare, ISR and Light AEW role can be performed by such a UCAV. The NGJ would essentially be plug and play for the F-35, so if the USAF wants it can actually take up the EW role for its fighters without much integration cost.
How We Know America Has Another Secret Drone
By: 6th August 2013 at 05:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I don't see much of a problem.
And how are you going to fund it all?
That's the problem.
You've got over 2,000 airframes to replace and most of them will be approaching crunch time in 2020-2030 period.
Even assuming $80 million per airframe, that's $160 billion without taking into account R&D costs, service entry costs, etc etc.
There's also T-38 Talon replacement (up to 500 a/c).
By: 6th August 2013 at 06:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-And how are you going to fund it all?That's the problem.
You've got over 2,000 airframes to replace and most of them will be approaching crunch time in 2020-2030 period.
Even assuming $80 million per airframe, that's $160 billion without taking into account R&D costs, service entry costs, etc etc.
There's also T-38 Talon replacement (up to 500 a/c).
That cost is spread over a long period of time. So its impossible to say where money would come from without building a multi decade airforce budget. Mostly you need to look at if there is a potential replacement for current system ether currently available are one being designed.
For most of planes you listed there are replacements available are soon to be available. Worry about items where there are no clear replacements available or even being considered to start design phase on.
Trying to plan out defense budgets 20 years into the future is futile.
By: 6th August 2013 at 06:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-No-one is trying to plan defence budgets into the future. It's a fact that USAF needs to replaces a huge chunk of it's fleet in 2020-2030s - the fighters are the obvious one (F-35). But then there's the trainers, transporters, tankers etc etc.
As for cost spreading out, yes you can do that. But when a big chunk of your airframes expires or becomes insanely expensive to operate or unreliable to operate, then you don't have time.
And that's the problem the US is facing - massed obsolescence/expiration of a big chunk of the fleet in a short period of time.
The first decade of the 2000s were in some ways wasted years for USAF. It's lost them time and created a backlog of things that need replacing/considerable upgrading.
As for replacement aircraft, that is irrelevant if you don't have the money to buy them.
By: 6th August 2013 at 08:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Not every product that needs replacement would be replaced by something that would require development. The F-35, is your fleet replacement fighter...So it comes down to how many you can afford, as its development (and testing) is going to conclude by 2018 or so...That would come down to COST, of the fighter when it enters full rate production, and how much it costs to operate. The Fighter fleet might be scaled down in terms of strength but the F-35 is the ONLY choice for fleet replacement. The KC46, is also your tanker replacement...Buy as many you can after it is developed..The LRS_B is going to be the R&D $ Hog for the forseable future, and that you would have to swallow given that it does open up a lot of doors as far as future capability is concerned. I am not particularly worried about the low number of the F-22 fleet. F22+F-35 combo supplemented by 300+ AESA equiped F-16's and F-15's should be OK for the future. Its the ISR, AEW fleet that i am most worried about. As mentioned, with the cancellation of the E-10, out go all hopes of there being a very expensive, large scale R&D funding available for such a system. Better to go in for the 737 platform with an AESA that leaverages PROVEN and in production technology....Most of the high tech ISR is going to be performed by VLO crafts (In A2AD environs) so i see little need to invest in an extremely capable program for the E3/E-8 replacement when these aircraft would mostly be stationed at stand off ranges.
The USAF, like the USN, US army and the USMC, is going to be a smaller force then it was or is...That is a fact....The main emphasis should be to have the most capability especially in the pacific environment, with the limited force strength.
By: 6th August 2013 at 15:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The fault can no longer be corrected. The utilisation rates are way higher than predicted, the replacement projects are taking longer and are more costly, the only thing on schedule is the refusal to take in new legacy airplanes to keep the fleet from getting too old. Only hard cuts can give the Air Force the budget flexibility need to modernize.
Therefore they need to cut hard.
Typical options
1. Withdraw all A-10 + B-1 + F-15C now
2. by the end of 2014 reduces C-17 units by 40% - use the airframes to balance the flight hours over a bigger fleet
3. cut the C-5
4. buy more F-35 and buy them faster
5. withdraw all legacies Herks asap. Sign a multi year contract for C-130J to replace those as needed
6. accelerate the new jet trainer program. The new jet (F-50 for example) could be the used in an armed version for many AFRes und ANG units for air policing duties and light support.
By: 6th August 2013 at 15:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Not to worry, if nothing is done in Washington, by 2040 there won't be money for anything but paying interest and social security.
There wont be a dime for defence, education, police, or anything else.
Ergo USAF dont need to worry, there won't be an air force.
By: 6th August 2013 at 16:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The fault can no longer be corrected. The utilisation rates are way higher than predicted, the replacement projects are taking longer and are more costly, the only think on schedule is the refusal to take in new legacy airplanes to keep the fleet from getting too old. Only hard cuts can give the Air Force the budget flexibility need to modernize.
Yep. The steadfast refusal of the services, Pentagon, Congress, etc. to face reality and make the necessary budgetary, institutional, and force structure changes are all that stand in the way of the United States' meeting the challenges of the 21st century. "We have met the enemy and they is us."
By: 6th August 2013 at 17:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The fault can no longer be corrected. The utilisation rates are way higher than predicted, the replacement projects are taking longer and are more costly, the only think on schedule is the refusal to take in new legacy airplanes to keep the fleet from getting too old. Only hard cuts can give the Air Force the budget flexibility need to modernize.Therefore they need to cut hard.
Your dead right - but no chance of it happening.
The big mistakes started in the 90s and they have only snowballed since then.
What should have happened:
F-14/15C/15E replacement => Should have been the ATF with proper AG capabilities.
F-16/18 replacement => Something akin to the Gripen with a CTOL carrier variant - a hard focus on overall costs. Its not the "first day" fighter, there is no "first day" fighter, the first day is a cloud of cruise missiles. Quit kidding themselves otherwise. This should have been the JSF.
C-5 replacement => The 747-8F should have been done in conjunction with Boeing.
C-130 => New build C-130Js and C-27s*. Threaten Lockheed with the Embraer KC-390 alternative to get their sh!t in order.
Harrier => Harrier new builds with updated avionics and engines. If the marines want to operate fast jets off LHDs, fine - but they shouldn't expect to f**k over the other services for the privilege.
*Make the Army have control of "last-mile" airlift with the C-27s. Sack any USAF official that protests. If they continue protesting, throw them in jail. Its a complete crime against the infantrymen and the families of deceased infantry that the USAF has been allowed to get away with JCA.
Now? Well. Your stuck with the F-22 and JSF as they are - unsuited to the needs of the forces. The 747-8F probably doesn't have the floor beams for military loads so an efficient C-5 replacement is out. The finances have already been committed to the harrier replacement and that program is way over-budget and continues to bleed cash. The Army don't have the balls to call the USAF out on JCA and congress don't have the brains to spot the disconnect.
By: 6th August 2013 at 19:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Sooner or later, depending of the tricks the government is able to pull, USAF is going to go down the same path as VVS did.
The downsizing is not going to come in the form of a clever PowerPoint roadmap, instead it's going to come from many not so apparent fronts, like the recent furlough of civilian workers.
Nothing that money can't overcome but an issue when money is not there.
By: 6th August 2013 at 20:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-
The AEW fleet is in no shape to fly for that long even with upgrades. I would suggest a 737 based AEW platform, that can be cheaply acquired and costs little to operate.
What about Wedgetail?
By: 6th August 2013 at 20:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The U.S. needs to stop being a superpower. I know this is not a political discussion, but that is the real fix. U.S. forces are outstretched and deployed everywhere all over the globe. It is time to take a look at where the U.S. is deployed and make some decisions. For example, are fighter units still needed in England and Germany, Japan? I understand the threats in those various areas, but it is time for the locals to cover all of their defense. Just my thoughts...
By: 6th August 2013 at 20:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The U.S. needs to stop being a superpower. I know this is not a political discussion, but that is the real fix. U.S. forces are outstretched and deployed everywhere all over the globe. It is time to take a look at where the U.S. is deployed and make some decisions. For example, are fighter units still needed in England and Germany, Japan? I understand the threats in those various areas, but it is time for the locals to cover all of their defense. Just my thoughts...
From a simple business or balancing the books point of view, spending £600Bn a year on defence is not sustainable when the till is empty and tax revenues don't cover what the Government spends.
The only beneficiaries are the defence lobbies who encourage pork-barrel spending to help local congressmen and senators be re-elected. They are the ones who talked about things like the "missile gap" (didn't exist!) or the new scary monster: the rise of China! ; - )
All military expenditure is political and there is a battle for scarce resources.
By: 6th August 2013 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-This kind of lamentation from the US makes me laugh, even if it does fall of the cliff its still probably going to be a most equipped airforce than 80% of the worlds air forces.
Oh and then there is the USN which has a small airpower capability off its own to equal most airforces...
Its like saying your only going to strap on 2 RATOF rocket to your SKODA instead of 3...
Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 6th August 2013 at 01:34
I think the next 20 years are going to be very interesting for the US Air Force and I think by 2030 it will be a much weaker force then it is now.
The imain reason is the number of airframes that will need replacing.
This isn't just tactical fighters (F-15, F-16, A-10), but bombers (B-1), tankers (KC-135 and KC-10), AWACS (E-3), tactical (C-130H), reconaissance (U-2), trainers (T-38) and CSAR/utility helos (HH-60, UH-1). JSTARs aircraft might also need replacing given extensive utilisation.
Thats a lot of aircraft - in fact well over 2,200.
A number of replacement programs have been cancelled (E-10, or delayed numerous times (KC-X) thus leading to current situation.
This causes a number of budget problems for USAF even in good economic times:
1. Older aircraft are more maintenance intensive, thus more costly to operate
2. Delays to replacement programs means older aircraft need to be upgraded to maintain efficiency.
3. Replacements are often costly and seldom replaced 1:1.
4. Older aircraft often have poorer availability.
5. In times of extreme economic scarcity, all problems above are exacerbated and cutbacks/delays incurred. This in turn creates a vicious circle whereby older aircraft are utilised thus increasing maintenance cost and adding to the "shopping list" of new aircraft that are needed.
So this is where the US faces a capability cliff
Given absolute massive amount of investment needed into renewing fleets, 1:1 replacement won't be possible. In fact some replacements won't happen at all and that particular capability will simply be abandoned.