An aging fleet has Air Force worried

The Seattle Times ^ | March 4th, 2007 | Dave Montgomery

[Paul Ross]

WASHINGTON -- At a time the nation is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Air Force is battling another enemy: age.

The average age of military aircraft during the Vietnam War in 1973 was nine years. Today, the average age is 24 years, and venerable planes such as the KC-135 Stratotanker and the B-52H Stratofortress are well into their 40s, nearly twice as old as some of their pilots.

[Red Steel]

Now the Navy is stuck with the "affordable" Super F-18.... planes noticeably way slower, way less range, and correspondingly less loitering capability...

The Navy fighter jocks will just have to be the flying Honchos they claim to be. ;-)

[Constantine XI Palaeologus]

"Could be the national epitaph."

So melodramatic. From what I've read, the F-14 was very maintenance intensive. And while the AIM-120 is no real substitute for the AIM-54, it's got pretty good range, and is far more versatile to boot. The reality is that there isn't much priority for fighters right now. The F-15 is still probably the best there is apart from the F-22 (Su-27 and its derivatives are debatable, but the quality of the pilots is what makes the difference). The F-22 IS too costly, considering what you're getting in today's world. Sure, it's nice to have a few squadrons on hand, but I can't see them fully supplanting the F-15 in the next decade or so. You have to ask "what can the F-22 do that can't be done by what we currently have?" The answer is, against our current slew of enemies, not a whole lot. Oh sure, it probably would decrease the risk to pilots, but a missile from a F-22 will kill a target no more effectively than an F-15E, F-18, or even a F-16. However, if said F-22 were shot down, had a malfunction in flight, etc. it'd cost taxpayers a pretty penny, far more than any of those other fighters. Air-superiority ain't that important at this point.

IMHO, money would be better spent producing more C-130s,C-5s, C-17s (maybe not so much the C-5s, j/k), and A-10s.

I don't like that the Crusader got axed (imagine, an artillery system with that name in the "holy" city of such-and-such. The libs would be apoplectic), but room had to be made in the budget for things that were needed more urgently. This isn't the first time that things like this have happened and it won't be the last.

That said, I thought the B-52s were slated to serve all the way until the 2050s (that's right, 100 years in service). I'm rather confident that our maintenance crews will not allow a plane not suitable for flight to enter a situation it can't handle unless they absolutely have to.

All this said, I'm very much looking forward to the widespread introduction of the F-35. An "economical" all-purpose fighter of the F-16 mold.

[trumandogz]

Bush has only had six while Clinton had eight!

[MrJapan]

B-1Bs that Bush has instead forcibly retired half the fleet

---

Damn... I didn't know that :/

[cva66snipe]

How would President Bush get the money for it? At the time, it was more important to cut taxes and I agree with him on that one.

You cut taxes on other spending not defense. You do not cut taxes while troops are in harms way nor military budgets or programs. Cut other non necessary programs that federal government has no business being in to start with first and even end them if you must. Bush would get the money by going to congress. You know the chairwarmers on our nations capitol who thinks Bill Clinton's active duty manpower numbers were so terrific in 1996 that they have kept them ever since?

We're headed for trouble because the same one who help engineer the so called Hollow Carter Military are in key positions today in the GOP namely Vice POTUS and former Sec of Def Rummy. I'm not defending Carter he could have done something about it also but the military was in miserable shape when he took office. Even Carter good old Dumb Carter by 1980 began realizing we had a major problem. This of course came after a major disaster.

Bush, Cheney, and Rummy, reminded me of the three chimps Hear no evil, See no evil, Speak no evil. Bush is too wrapped up in trying to play Mr Hemispheric and World Trade Lord when he should focus his efforts on more pressing matters like our troops and closing our southern border which is also eating up tax dollars in social spending etc for illegal alliens. That is money our troops need.

Cheney under Poppy Bush cost us a few good programs as well namely the F-14 fighter program and the replacement was not an upgrade performance wise. Instead of maintaining production on what was a best we could design carrier based fighter air frame, and instead putting the money into Avionics upgrades on newer built TOMCAT's, he got mad at the Pentagon and stopped further production then worse than that had tooling for any future F-14's destroyed. That is the Cheney Legacy.

These were Jerry Ford's people and they knew not what they did when Ford was in office. Age did not improve their judgment by any means. They keep making the same mistakes over and over. What Reagan and Cap Weinberger accomplished for our military in the 1980's the Bush Poppy and son and Bill Clinton along with their Sec of Def's and congress of the 1990's and 2000's have wasted not a second in finding ways to keep our military continued on a downturn. Not even an ongoing war has altered their planning or thinking.

If key defense issues are not addressed soon we will be headed into a crisis from which we may not be able to recover. Meaning when all the aging systems start breaking down all at once we will be hard pressed to fund the repairs much less thanks to Cheney and a few others have the means to produce needed equipment in time. Pie in the Sky somewhere off in the future promises do not protect us today. Too many key facilites were put on the closure list. That is the Poppy/Cheney legacy no one wants to talk about. Clinton then finshed off what programs those two didn't mess up.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ASOC]

The 737 first flew in 1967. How many of the older aircraft are out there, still hauling the pax and trash? Or MD80/DC9(thru series 50)
or 747 (first flight, 1970)and still in production
the DC-8 (first flown in 1958)
THe 727 is still in service and if you seing by the Anchorage airport you will see DC3 (C47) and C46 aircraft still in daily use.

Personally, I don't like to fly on jets made before 1968, too noisy

[6ppc]

From the 2018 bomber link:

Why the new urgency? There was a “congruence of a few different elements” that led to the 2018 date, reports Maj. Gen. David M. Edgington, director of global power programs in the Air Force acquisition office. He said that the QDR validated 2018 as the target date partly based on “the intelligence estimates coming on board” concerning likely future threats.

Sounds like China to me.

[Paul Ross]

The reality is that there isn't much priority for fighters right now.

Bogus. China, Iran, and a resurgent neo-communist Russia changes all that.You are living on dated "post-Cold War-Euphoria" false thinking. Your view about the need for fighters is obsolete.

The F-15 is still probably the best there is apart from the F-22 (Su-27 and its derivatives are debatable

Actually, I don't think so. The Su-27 and Mig-29 are indeed extremely capable and real threats to the F-15...even if the F-15s were new. But they no longer are. Nor are they permitted to fly as if they are. You are aware of the flight restrictions aren't you?

... but the quality of the pilots is what makes the difference).

And who says we have a PERMANENT monopoly if we can't even train as the rising powers like China, India, and neo-communist Russia do? Full tilt, pedal to the metal. As we discovered with the war games against both the Su-30 (India) and the Mig-29 (Germany) we have a real, real problem.

The F-22 IS too costly

False. Did you know that producing new updated F-15s would be nearly as expensive?

Keep in mind also that the F-22's costs are horribly exaggerated by the continuing "cost meter" being run from the program inception...which was mostly R&D, and then squandry from Clintonian dithering...never deploying any. A delay intentionally instigated when he reordered it redesigned to be an attack plane as well. Recall the same mistake that Hitler made with his first jets. It literally cost Germany the war.

The F-22 is the obvious solution. And its unit-cost on an updated basis is both affordable vital national security terms...and also a real measure of the realrate of societal inflation which has been denied by the past two Administrations. I would contend that the F-22 price is the more accurate barometer.

Something you may wish to revisit are these points made defending against the previous 90's versions of William Proxmire who tried to kill the F-22:

---

New York Times
July 24, 1999

Are We Ready To Lose The Next Air War?

By F. Whitten Peters

With little debate and without a hearing, the full House voted this week to effectively kill the F-22 Raptor aircraft, the linchpin of the Air Force's modernization program. Fortunately, the final word is not in, and the F-22 still has strong support in the Congress and from Defense Secretary William Cohen and President Clinton.

Killing the F-22 is simply not acceptable. It is wrong for national security. It is bad economics. And it would put American service members at unnecessary and unacceptable risk.

Operation Allied Force in the skies over Kosovo illustrated that air superiority is the foundation for victory on land, at sea and in the air. As we rapidly deploy decisive combat forces from the United States to the scene of hostilities, fighter jets will be the first to arrive. They will help us deter an adversary from attacking and, if deterrence fails, to fight on the ground and in the air, and win. The F-22 will guarantee success in these vital missions for decades to come.

Some critics of the F-22 contend that our country's relatively easy victories over the past 10 years prove that we don't need a new fighter. They insist that our air power is already far superior to that of any potential enemy.

Today, though, at least six other aircraft -- the Russian Mig 29, SU-27 and SU-35, the French Mirage 2000 and Rafael and the European Consortium's Eurofighter -- threaten to surpass the aging F-15, our current top-of-the-line air-to-air fighter.

These aircraft are marketed aggressively around the world to our allies and potential adversaries. Without the F-22, the United States runs the risk of allowing our air superiority to atrophy to the point that an adversary could inflict great harm on our previously superior Air Force.

Already, many nations like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are constructing sophisticated air defenses built around surface-to-air missile systems, like the Russian SA-10, SA-12 and SA-20. All these missile systems are available on the market today. Our current aircraft, like the F-15 and F-16, lack the F-22's stealth and supercruise abilities and will be unable to evade or destroy these air defenses without risking heavy losses.

Other weapons that might be used against these air defenses are also extremely expensive. The Air Force's conventional air-launched cruise missile and the Navy's Tomahawk cruise missile cost $1.4 million each. Even with these weapons, we would still need an upgraded F-15, which could cost some $40 billion -- essentially the same as the cost of completing the F-22 program, but the F-15 would have only one-third of the ability.

Using a combination of cruise missiles and upgraded F-15's does not, therefore, reflect the best stewardship of taxpayer dollars. More importantly, our young men and women would be at greater risk in future wars.

Not only does the F-22 meet the military threats on the horizon, it is also affordable as a part of a well-conceived modernization strategy the Air Force has used over the past three decades. By consistently investing about 10 to 12 percent of our total budget on new aircraft, we have been able to upgrade all our aircraft over a period of years.

In the 1970's, we bought new fighters. In the 1980's, we added new bombers. During the 1990's, we fielded the C-17, our newest transport jet. Now, our attention returns to the fighter force. The Congressional Budget Office has applauded this cyclical strategy; we have maintained the the world's best air force while avoiding overlaps in aircraft purchases.

No question, the F-22 is expensive, but it is worth every penny. Each Raptor will cost on average about $84 million to produce. The $200-million price tag discussed recently is a figure that charges all past F-22 program costs -- including research and development, testing, procurement and military construction -- to the planned buy of 339 aircraft.

This is an unfair comparison because the $23 billion we've already spent on the F-22 would be lost if the program were canceled. The key question is, What will it cost from today forward?

At peak production, the Air Force will spend about 6 percent of our budget on the F-22. This is about the same percentage of our budget that went toward developing and buying the F-15 nearly 30 years ago. This equates to less than 2 percent of America's national security budget. Our cost containment on the F-22 is a success story; it is within Congressionally mandated caps for both development and production.

The threat is real, and the F-22 program is well within our budget. The air superiority provided by the Raptor will insure victory in future battles and preserve the lives of countless Americans soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. The F-22 is an investment America cannot pass up.

F. Whitten Peters is Acting Secretary of the Air Force.

[Charles Martel]

When we had vastly more modern nd capable B-1Bs that Bush has instead forcibly retired half the fleet? The B-1B proved to the most versatile and effective bomber we have in the Iraq war. Yet it is being savaged in the budgets of the administration...while funding is devoted towards keeping the B-52H "maintained" supposedly. We'll see, I guess.

Just recetly I read somethng about an initiative to upgrade the B1-Bs to "supercruise" capability, using the F-22 engine design - or a derivative thereof. Tough to get funding for stuff like that through Congress, though - now more than ever.

There's a wing replacement program under way for the A-10 fleet, too.

[Non-Sequitur]

With little debate and without a hearing, the full House voted this week to effectively kill the F-22 Raptor aircraft, the linchpin of the Air Force's modernization program. Fortunately, the final word is not in, and the F-22 still has strong support in the Congress and from Defense Secretary William Cohen and President Clinton.

1999? That would have been the Republican House which tried to kill it, right?

[Live free or die]

I agree entirely! Besides...there's a big difference in the life-spans of current airframes than the ones in days of yore.

[Tarpon]

What I don't understand is why the military doesn't turn on the Manufacturing of 'good enough' fighters. Like take your pick, F16, F18, F15 instead of astronomically expensive replacements. A few F22 would be nice, but do we really want to put the fleet into F22 and F35 expensive planes?

With the advent of drones, stealth may not be necessary, just send in the drones.

[Paul Ross]

1999? That would have been the Republican House which tried to kill it, right?

I'm afraid so. Certain elements anyways who had an unholy allignment of convenience with the RATs who always believed we never had any threats to worry about... These Republicans were not above playing politics with national security as had the RATs before them.

The article I cite also made too much of "Clinton's support" for the F-22. He merely kept the program funding at the level it was...but not a penny to produce any...to continue to make the argument he was actually pro-defense. Even though he never deployed anything. He also always hoped for a full RAT majority in Congress to then do his dirty work for him...and kill the program.

But the program has produced a real winner despite the "delays" inflicted upon it...

Plane-Makers, Pilots Say F-22 Ready For Combat.

August, 2006

...[Snip]

[John Pike, FAS quoted] Its central mission, he said, would be to take out enemy air forces and demonstrate its "kick-down-the-door capability" on the first day of the conflict.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said potential adversaries are now buying warplanes superior to the U.S.'s F-16s and F-15s.

China is increasingly manufacturing its own version of Russia's Sukoi fighters.

In addition to confronting a threat from the air, F-22s have also been equipped with sophisticated software and sensors and can be used to take out surface-to-air missile sites that have sprung up in hostile countries around the globe.

Tolliver, who commands the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley, said F-22s performed in their first major war games in June, traveling 3,200 miles from Virginia to participate in Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska. Within a week, he said, Raptors scored 144 kills and sustained no losses.

"Every day, this jet just gets better and better," he said. "The more we fly it, the more we learn."

[Paul Ross]

A few F22 would be nice, but do we really want to put the fleet into F22 and F35 expensive planes? With the advent of drones, stealth may not be necessary, just send in the drones.

Let's start with your last point, which is where I think you are really coming from, and misled by, as to your thinking on the first subject.

The X-45 through X-47 UCAVs are in limbo, moribund. They are not all they were cracked up to be, either cost-wise or performance-wise. Hollywood is not reality. And they are subsonic....basically bombers and recon vehicles. No interception air superiority capability.

As for the price of the F-22 it is pretty reasonable if you don't keep inflating the price tag by counting towards its cost the R&D costs from everything since the invention of fire.

[Paul Ross]

A few F22 would be nice, but do we really want to put the fleet into F22 and F35 expensive planes? With the advent of drones, stealth may not be necessary, just send in the drones.

Let's start with your last point, which is where I think you are really coming from, and misled by, as to your thinking on the first subject.

The X-45 through X-47 UCAVs are in limbo, moribund. They are not all they were cracked up to be, either cost-wise or performance-wise. Hollywood is not reality. And they are subsonic....basically bombers and recon vehicles. No interception air superiority capability.

As for the price of the F-22 it is pretty reasonable if you don't keep inflating the price tag by counting towards its cost the R&D costs from everything since the invention of fire.

[colorado tanker]

How would President Bush get the money for it? At the time, it was more important to cut taxes and I agree with him on that one.

He could have vetoed some of those pork barrel bills.

[Tarpon]

What I really meant by drones is cruise missiles and gliding bombs, not those X-45 and X-47 UCAVs, which as you say are really not viable yet. Like JASSM and the new Tomahawks.

But how about my real question, why not just build a lot more of the "good enough" planes instead of spending billions on extremes? Isn't the F-18 line now running, just turn up the wick, as one example.

[buccaneer81]

I don't expect all the F-16s will be replaced in 3 to 4 years.

They'll be in service with various state ANG units for many more years. I remember F-4's flying well into the late '80s in some states.

[buccaneer81]

The 737 first flew in 1967. How many of the older aircraft are out there, still hauling the pax and trash? Or MD80/DC9(thru series 50) or 747 (first flight, 1970)and still in production the DC-8 (first flown in 1958) THe 727 is still in service and if you seing by the Anchorage airport you will see DC3 (C47) and C46 aircraft still in daily use.

And none of them have ever flown supersonic (except for Hoot Gibson's TWA 727 over Michigan in 1979) or pulled more than three G's.