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.
The 15 and 16 are both Mach 2 plus. The F-18 is mach 1.8 on its best day.
The F-22 is the plane that can fill the F-15 role. Period. Unless F-22 production restarts, better keep the F-15 around.
I think the F-15 is at least 600 mph faster than the super hornet.
I have no idea why but the newest fighters seem to be going away from a really fast top speed.
Agreed. I think the modern concept is to count on a lot of electronics so they don’t have to dogfight. The problem of course is that in an airplane we keep for 40 or 50 years that the electronics are certain to be defeated then you’re left with an aircraft that can’t compete in any other way.
And it’s always a bad thing when a fighter pilot doesnt have the speed to choose to leave a fight at will.
Sukhoi, thanks for another interesting posts on military subjects.
One thing not stated in the article, but pretty well known in the aviation community is that the elderly F-15 airframe still contains the best “look down” radar in the world. The upgrades will make it even better. Pods on the F-18 and upgraded F-16’s still will not have the ability to see and engage multiple targets as well as the F-15.
Why is this important? In almost every hypothetical scenario, an aggressive adversary will launch a high number of drones and cruise missiles in the opening round. We need to engage and take out those difficult to counter attackers at long range and early in the fighting. The F-15 is far superior to anything else we (or they) have for that crucial task.
Measured how? I can see the benefits of power in a scramble situation. But how much power is needed in a combat air patrol, where speed can be gained rapidly by descending to a target? I remember a -15 tail walking for a few minutes, once. Very impressive, but practical?
The f35 program is the golden bb the program is designed to suck not just our resources but those of our allies and deliver a hugely overpriced non flying turkey! It is turning our best airforces into second rates. The biggest weakness in the f35 is its lack of range and the only long range fighter that we have left, the f15 they want to trash!
If I was president trump I would fire these idiots and begin building f15se until lockeed martin re-establishes the f22 assembly line. I would emediately cancel the f35 program and use the components in f15, f18 and f22.
The age of the f15 design is not a detriment as the flanker is also a legacy aircraft. The new f15 could benefit with stealth technology, new engines with vector thrust, f35 electronics that will give it an edge against the flanker. The raptors would match up against the new pakfa. Boeing has made f15s for Korea recently so the assembly line is intact.unit price should be low and after re-establishing the f22 assEmily line the unit cost would be comparative to the f35 for twice the plane.
I don’t understand all the dissing of F-16s around here.
It’s one of the most versatile all-around fighters ever.
To me it’s equivalent of forgetting the real workhorse B-1 while fainting at the wheels of the overhyped B-2.
Are you aware that Boeing was going to sell the f16 assembly line to India? That would mean that the entire USaf mission would be dependent on a small single engine legacy fighter outsourced to India?? Some obo era brass need to be fired asap!!
I am not dissing the f16, It is a beautiful fighter designed for Arial combat and affordable too! Equipped with new radar and electronics it can continue in the role of dogfighter. It is a single engine short range aircraft with a limited payload. We need a twin engine long range interceptor with at load of long range missiles or bombs. Only two planes fit that bill the eagle and the raptors. We can start building new Eagles within the year while raptors will take some time,
The F-15 is a twin-engine fighter jet capable of extremely high speeds and altitudes, while the F-16 is a less powerful but more maneuverable single-engine fighter aircraft.
The F-15 is considered one of the most successful and formidable fighter aircraft ever built, with over 100 aerial dogfight victories and zero dogfighting losses. It can operate in all weather conditions, carry a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons, and is armed with an M61 Vulcan Cannon.
The F-16 is a cheaper, lighter, slightly less powerful aircraft, but was designed with an emphasis on ease of maintenance and maneuverability. Originally intended as an air superiority day fighter, it has become a versatile all-weather, multi-role aircraft and has the same M61 Vulcan Cannon as the F-15.
I worked with the F-15a/b’s in Alaska in the eighties and they were really formidable. And the strike eagles arrived in the early 90’s. It will be hard to see them go with all that power and fire power they packed.
red
I think the Indians would complain quite a bit about that, since Lockheed currently owns the F16 and has for 15 or 20 years.
A new level of corporate fraud in the making.
Upgrade the A-10’s. Make more of them. The best tank killers aloft.
Boeing has absolutely nothing to do with the F-16. The F-16 started as a General Dynamics design that was acquired by Lockheed Martin.
The F-15 doesn't fill a niche, it defines and owns the whole air superiority show. It has been the backbone of USAF air superiority and will be for another generation.
The F-22 is better overall but the fleet numbers are so small it would be marginally effective in a major air theater campaign.
Way to call it bean counters (yes that is sarcasm).
It is unfortunate that politics in Congress and in the Pentagon have so corrupted the procurement and development of our defense hardware.
There is a desperate need to write realistic performance requirements and then contract them to disinterested builders, without all of the mutual back scratching going on between all of the political actors.
Years ago Japan offered to buy 100 F-22s at a higher than normal price that would subsidize the price America pays for them. The proposal went no where. Just a chorus of “remember toshiba!!!” from the Reps and I think the Dems are just against anything military no matter what the angle.
Its not just the subsidy, the Japanese order would have kept the production going longer and once production stops you have to pay extra to start it again.
And of course there is this generations old problem where people don’t understand how the R&D costs get divided up. The obvious thing to do is list the R&D costs as a separate item and list the cost of the plane on a per plane basis. I have no idea why our politicians have to be so stupid about this.
Airplane effectiveness is always expressed by historians by their kill to loss ratio. Superior quality birds (and their pilots) always have a superior kills to loss ratio but they do get shot down. When confronted by inferior aircraft in similar numbers the odds are in our favor. However, in a real shooting war with the Chicoms/Ruskies we’ll need all the planes we can muster since their strategy has always been based on superior numbers. And while several of our aircraft appear to be redundant we need the total numbers and should only retire a type after it has been totally replaced by a superior aircraft. R&D for next gen fighters will be drone based so the F-35 should be our last manned fighter. I recently saw a demo of one at Nellis...very impressive...very expensive.
Agree we should keep the F15s over F16.
I’m not so sold the F35 is expensive junk. The Air Force, Navy and Marines all wanted the F35.
For the record, the Pentagon’s military budget “on the record” is 600 Billion.
However, when you factor in black budgets, etc... “off the record stuff” it’s probably over 1 Trillion dollars.
There’s a lot of money that was most likely hidden too. Those $500 hammmers were not just for hammers.
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.