Posted on 03/22/2017 6:44:03 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
This startling news came during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the current state of the U.S. Air Force. Chairman Joe Wilson asked right out of the gate about a previously unknown USAF plan to retire the F-15C/D Eagle fleet and replace them with F-16s.
The subject of the question itself seemed to be big news to the committee with Congresswoman Vikki Hartzler later asking about what upgrades the F-15C/D was going to get so it could meet modern threats. Obviously the answer is not many if the Air Force is going to retire the jets in the relatively near term.
Eventually the floor passed to Representative Martha McSally, an A-10 pilot herself and one of the most outspoken critics of the USAF's failed and misleading plan to retire the A-10. McSally is by far one of the most credible voices when it comes to air combat on The Hill. She was shocked by the news and demanded further information about the plan.
Watch the Chairman's initial question at the 34 minute mark, Harzler's follow up at the 55:20 minute mark, and most importantly, McSally's exchange with the generals at the 1:06:30 mark:
The summary of these exchanges is that the USAF is seriously considering axing the F-15C/D fleet entirely, if it’s not outright planning to do so already. The plan does not include the F-15E Strike Eagle.
This is totally new as the "Golden Eagle" force of roughly 179 F-15C/D, as well as training aircraft, is slated to serve for decades to come and is in the process of receiving a series on extensive upgrades to see that it can do so credibly. Many of the jets have already received multi-million dollar APG-63V3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar sets, vastly increasing their capabilities. Currently, this is the most powerful and capable fighter-borne air-to-air radar in the world.
In the F-15C/D's place, the USAF wants to put upgraded F-16C/Ds sporting their own, smaller AESA radars. The generals at the hearing stated that the plan is a tough choice that would lead to fewer types of aircraft to support overall, thus freeing up funds for other priorities. The service could make the final decision as early as this year for the 2018 fiscal year budget, or more likely it could inserted the plans into the next budget cycle.
When grilled by McSally about where the USAF is exactly in this so far secret decision making process, the panel replied that the matter is still "pre-decisional." It sure sounded otherwise.
This news impacts a whole slew of critical issues and is clearly reminiscent of the A-10 retirement saga of the last half decade. It is true that many of America's F-16s are in need of a major avionics, structural and radar upgrades. The USAF has deferred these to help fund the F-35 program. You can read all about this issue here.
The question of whether or not to upgrade the USAF's F-16s never had anything to do sacrificing the F-15C/D community in the process. The vast majority of the Eagles are tasked with both overseas contingency operations and for protecting America's airspace at five operating locations that ring the US coastline.
In addition, the move would throw out much of the work that already been done or is underway on upgrading the F-15C/Ds, as well as efforts building tactics and unique capabilities that will allow the Eagle to become a force multiplier for F-22s and even F-35s.
There is also the question of the dwindling size of the USAF's tactical fighter fleet, which has dropped down to just 55 squadrons—a shadow of its pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom self. The force is already incredibly strained and the USAF F-15C/D community has been essential in providing a deterrent force along Russia's border with Europe under Operation Atlantic Resolve.
Finally, with only 187 F-22 Raptors ever built, and just roughly 125 combat coded at any given time, the retirement of the F-15C/D will mean America's air superiority-focused fighter force will become more or less a niche capability. Although some have hoped that the F-22 could go back into production, and supposedly the USAF was undergoing a study of the feasibility of doing just that, it is highly doubtful this would actually happen. This is not so much due to the logistical or financial hurdles involved, but because it would threaten the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. In the end, all USAF fighter dollars seem to get pulled into the stealthy fighter’s budgetary black hole.
We'll save the analysis for later, but clearly today's news will send ripples through the USAF, especially among units flying the F-15C/D today. In all, the Oregon Air National Guard stands to lose the most if such a plan were enacted, as they not only have the 142nd Fighter Wing, which flies the F-15C/D out of Portland International Airport, but America's only F-15C/D schoolhouse, situated in Klamath Falls, Oregon. There the 173rd Fighter Wing’s primary mission is to train new Eagle Drivers. The retirement of the F-15C/D would likely see the end of the base's pilot training mission. Kadena Air Base in Japan also has two F-15C/D squadrons, but both would likely be re-equipped with new aircraft in the process.
We'll be back soon with further insight and analysis, as well as reactions from key players in Washington regarding this news.
I saw a program just a few days ago which said the F-15 had the best combat record of any fighter, ever.
Maybe the F-15 longeron issue is rearing its ugly head, again.
Just build 2000 modified F/A-18’s and be done with it. Best fighter aircraft EVER. But not the best aircraft ever, that award goes to the SR-71.
These are the idiotic decisions you can expect until we purge the worthless PC politician/generals that were put into many positions under Obama’s purge of the military.
Only a completely worthless and purely idiotic AF officer would propose such a thing with a micro fleet of F-22s.
Such a decision is not based on need or mission whatsoever. Any officer that would propose or defend such a decision should be summarily asked for their resignation.
F-16 ping.
Best combat record, yes. But the most capable in the world right now is the F-22.
Unfortunately that assembly line was shut down far too early in order to save the F-35 that is a slow-motion train wreck.
Let’s see. An almost 50 year old design with known quality control issues? Sounds like something that a politician would want to bet the country’s future on.
Let me get this straight.
We have five different fighter airframes: f-15, f-16, f-18, f-22, and f-35.
The most advanced and combat capable for air dominance is the f-22, but we stopped making them.
The most expensive is the f-35, which has already had budget overruns greater than the cost of the f-22’s entire program budget.
The other three existing airframes are in various states of repairs and upgrades, but still represent a force capable of fighting and winning in aerial combat against any air force in the world. It may not be a tough fight, but we have top quality pilots who are better trained compared to any other force we would face.
Five airframes. Each one deemed the most essential. The newest two are filling an anticipated gap that may never exist... and with the last decade of developments in electronic warfare, may be rendered obsolete if ever employed. ... and our biggest enemies, the ones we have been fighting for the past decade and a half don’t have an air force, except for some Radio Shack drones? Something is terribly wrong here.
Kadena is on Okinawa not Japan. Giving Okinawa to Japan was one of Reagan’s worst moments.
The F16 is a good airplane. Terrible loss rate though due to one engine design. But it is no F15 and can’t do it’s job.
“Other priorities”? Don’t tell me. More golf courses for Senior and Flag Officers? More payola for Lochmart?
Replacing Eagles with Lawn Darts is a pretty stupid move.
Putting women into Navy combat billets and illegal immigrant amnesty were two more bad Reagan moments. He didn’t have many, but some were beauts. Justice Kennedy could be added to the re-do list.
But the F18 came into service only 2 years after the F15. They are both old aircraft.
As nearly as I can tell (and I’m open to debate)the F22 SHOULD have been the heir apparent but for political reasons got shelved. Also as nearly as I can tell the F35 got the nod for political reasons and is not nearly the aircraft as the F22.
Scrap the F15 and start building F22’s again?
Yep.
IIRC over 100 ATA kills with zero losses.
It’s stupid that they stopped the production of the F-22 at 187 aircraft.
Unfortunately that assembly line was shut down far too early in order to save the F-35 that is a slow-motion train wreck.
According to this 2009 article, Obama and McCain helped canx the F22
I’m sure there is an ideal balance between Technology, capability, cost, total aircraft numbers, per type, in order to cover all contingencies. Technology in my mind can be sacraficed to some degree in order to have numbers and not severely limit capability. What you lose in aircraft capability in order to have a larger force can be made up to some degree with pilot skill. I think total numbers are more important than having an overly capable platform but in limited numbers, and that seems to be what is happening to all aircraft types in general. The force shrinks as capabilities increase. If you run up against a contingency where numbers matter, and you suffer heavy losses, then what?
The f 18 super hornet is a completely different aircraft from the original f 18. It’s bigger, faster, and more maneuverable.
You really got to be kidding. The f18 is not in the same class as an F-16. The F-15 completely out classes it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.