Senators want to block F-22 and F-15E retirements

[basher54321]

June 14, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak
The Senate Armed Services Committee finished its markup of the fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization bill on June 14, with mandates on more than a dozen aircraft or related programs and a keen interest in the future of the Air Force fighter fleet.

Among the moves, lawmakers would support the Air Force’s plan to buy 42 F-35As and allow the Air Force to divest some of the aircraft it wants to retire—56 A-10s, 65 F-15C/Ds, and 11 F-16C/Ds. Air Force officials say they need to retire the aircraft to help fund modernization efforts.

However, the committee wants to deny USAF’s request to retire 26 F-15Es and 32 F-22s. And the bill would direct the Air Force to provide “an annual report on the Air Force tactical fighter force structure” and work with the Navy to develop a plan for air superiority in the 2030s and ‘40s.

The committee issued only a summary of its version of the bill, without the underlying text, and did not offer a rationale, but in budget hearings this spring, members voiced concern about the shrinkage of the Air Force in order to pay for modernization.

--

The defense bill provisions come just a day after Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin raised doubts as to the future of the service’s Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, which is meant to take over the air dominance mission from the F-22. Allvin said June 13 that NGAD is merely one of many “choices” the Air Force faces in confronting oncoming financial challenges such as budget caps, inflation, and a $40-$50 billion overrun on the Sentinel missile program. Previously, leaders has referred to the program as a must-have.

The SASC’s proposed bill would have the Air Force and Navy jointly provide an analysis “of how the air superiority mission will be secured for the Joint force in the 2030s and 2040s,” a mandate potentially driven by the Navy’s indefinite deferral of its future fighter, the F/A-XX, and Allvin’s lukewarm remarks about NGAD.

In addition to the report on the fighter force structure and the air dominance study, Senate lawmakers want the Air Force to provide a plan and cost estimate “for modernizing all 25 fighter aircraft squadrons in the Air National Guard.” They did not specify whether the new aircraft would be F-35s, F-15EXs, Block 70 F-16s, or Collaborative Combat Aircraft, all of which have been discussed in recent hearings as new missions for Guard units that are giving up old fighters.


https://www.airandspaceforces.com/senat ... ity-study/

[madrat]

Both platforms are paid for and each upgrade is relatively cheap.

Lobbyists cannot let this stand. Mø®€ $p3Ñd¡ñg!!

[mixelflick]

Ah, I see the waffling on NGAD (both USAF and USN) has begun. Surprised it's taken this long...

So with the Naval NGAD "suspended indefinitely" (if that's true), there goes any tech sharing and associated cost savings with USAF's NGAD. Apparently, nobody learned the hard lesson we learned with half-a$$ing the F-22. Truly remarkable, given we're smack dab in the consequences of that decision. I read today where the B-52 re-engine/radar upgrades timeline slipped (yet again). F-35 "Block 4" is forever delayed. Oh and rumblings now the B-21 program may be in trouble. Even the "ready now" F-15EX wasn't ready now. It too, years behind schedule.

The military procurement malpractice the Pentagon has established is now nearly 100%. Not a single program is ever on schedule, on or under budget. Nothing happens fast, unless of course, you're getting rid of perfectly good jets.

[jetblast16]

and a $40-$50 billion overrun on the Sentinel missile program. Previously, leaders has referred to the program as a must-have.

Don't worry we can always copy those floppy disks to run the Minuteman missiles

[jetblast16]

At this point since everything is so bloody expensive and takes years to procure, the Air National Guard will eventually be forced to arm radio control planes it buys at Tower Hobbies hahahahahaha...

[mixelflick]

At this point since everything is so bloody expensive and takes years to procure, the Air National Guard will eventually be forced to arm radio control planes it buys at Tower Hobbies hahahahahaha...

In a way, you're on to something..

Drone use has revolutionized warfare in Ukraine. They're effective against men, tanks, APC's, all kinds of artillery, parked aircraft and many, many other targets. They're inexpensive, easily modified and their sheer numbers can overwhelm even the best air defense systems.

The next step is a drone that's lethal to airborne targets.

Drone vs. drone warfare has already occurred. Next up will be drones vs. helicopters/rotary wing assets progressing of course to fixed wing aircraft. The challenge here is that it's a big sky out there, and these targets move around - some at supersonic speed. Yes, SAM's and interceptors are built for this, but they're also very expensive.

An affordable, expendable airborne hunter/killer drone is a scary prospect to aviators. Just imagine a 4 ship of Apache or Hokum's going after a tank column. If that tank column has airborne hunter/killer drones operating in the area - it changes the game.

Anyway, I'm glad we're not retiring F-22's and considering building more F-15Ex's (all while supposedly not under-cutting the F-35 buy). Why? Because we're not there yet with air to air capable drones.

Yet...

[sharon_11]

Ah, I see the waffling on NGAD (both USAF and USN) has begun. Surprised it's taken this long...

So with the Naval NGAD "suspended indefinitely" (if that's true), there goes any tech sharing and associated cost savings with USAF's NGAD. Apparently, nobody learned the hard lesson we learned with half-a$$ing the F-22. Truly remarkable, given we're smack dab in the consequences of that decision. I read today where the B-52 re-engine/radar upgrades timeline slipped (yet again). F-35 "Block 4" is forever delayed. Oh and rumblings now the B-21 program may be in trouble. Even the "ready now" F-15EX wasn't ready now. It too, years behind schedule.

The military procurement malpractice the Pentagon has established is now nearly 100%. Not a single program is ever on schedule, on or under budget. Nothing happens fast, unless of course, you're getting rid of perfectly good jets.

Can you send a link saying the B-21 is in trouble please?

[mor10]

Can you send a link saying the B-21 is in trouble please?

Perhaps this is a clue:

B-21 Raider’s Price Likely To Increase For Additional Aircraft

The advanced bomber is on track to meet the Average Procurement Unit Cost of $550 million, however things could change for future production lots.

The B-21 Raider program might get costlier after the first five LRIP (Low-Rate Initial Production) lots, according to a statement by the manufacturer Northrop Grumman. These five lots, which include a total of 21 aircraft, are being procured at a fixed price as per the contract signed in 2015, with the defense aerospace giant accepting to absorb a $1.56 billion loss.

The company and the U.S. Government have now established, after negotiations, a not-to-exceed pricing for additional 19 aircraft, which appears likely to go up. In fact, the statement mentioned “The average not to exceed value for the subsequent lots is above the average unit price of the five LRIP lots.”

“B-21 remains on track to meet its key performance parameter for an Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) of $550 million in Base Year 2010 dollars,” Northrop’s statement added. When the first B-21 was unveiled to the public in Dec. 2022, the Air Force stated it expected average unit procurement cost of $692 million adjusted to 2022 dollars.

(Much more on the link)

https://theaviationist.com/2024/06/27/b-21-raiders-price-likely-to-increase-for-additional-aircraft/

[sharon_11]

That is inflation. That doesnt come across as trouble. Infact I read that NG eat some inflation costs. Are you reaching a little?

[XanderCrews]

At this point since everything is so bloody expensive and takes years to procure, the Air National Guard will eventually be forced to arm radio control planes it buys at Tower Hobbies hahahahahaha...

In a way, you're on to something..

Drone use has revolutionized warfare in Ukraine. They're effective against men, tanks, APC's, all kinds of artillery, parked aircraft and many, many other targets. They're inexpensive, easily modified and their sheer numbers can overwhelm even the best air defense systems.

The next step is a drone that's lethal to airborne targets.

Drone vs. drone warfare has already occurred. Next up will be drones vs. helicopters/rotary wing assets progressing of course to fixed wing aircraft. The challenge here is that it's a big sky out there, and these targets move around - some at supersonic speed. Yes, SAM's and interceptors are built for this, but they're also very expensive.

An affordable, expendable airborne hunter/killer drone is a scary prospect to aviators. Just imagine a 4 ship of Apache or Hokum's going after a tank column. If that tank column has airborne hunter/killer drones operating in the area - it changes the game.

Anyway, I'm glad we're not retiring F-22's and considering building more F-15Ex's (all while supposedly not under-cutting the F-35 buy). Why? Because we're not there yet with air to air capable drones.

drones are being oversold. they're just one more tool and they're not the wonder weapons we are being sold. if they were both sides wouldn't be firing literally millions of artillery shells and screaming for more.

Yet...

drones are the weapons of the future, and always have been

the British predicted the end of manned fighters in 1960 and they just extended the retirement date of the F-35 to 2088 so I guess the drones will get there someday.

Ah, I see the waffling on NGAD (both USAF and USN) has begun. Surprised it's taken this long...

So with the Naval NGAD "suspended indefinitely" (if that's true), there goes any tech sharing and associated cost savings with USAF's NGAD. Apparently, nobody learned the hard lesson we learned with half-a$$ing the F-22. Truly remarkable, given we're smack dab in the consequences of that decision. I read today where the B-52 re-engine/radar upgrades timeline slipped (yet again). F-35 "Block 4" is forever delayed. Oh and rumblings now the B-21 program may be in trouble. Even the "ready now" F-15EX wasn't ready now. It too, years behind schedule.

The military procurement malpractice the Pentagon has established is now nearly 100%. Not a single program is ever on schedule, on or under budget. Nothing happens fast, unless of course, you're getting rid of perfectly good jets.

It should be noted that this is one reason why the F-35 is important, despite the block 4 delays (which are customer problem. Indeed this falls a lot on the pentagon) but its interesting that every "better, faster, cheaper," aircraft that was supposed to threaten the F-35 has suddenly collapsed into its own problems. Even the F15EX which was supposed to be a easy, "off the shelf" buy.

I'm reminded of the constant pressure the Osprey was under whenever it suffered a bad crash or other incident. There was pressure to abandon it all and just buy Blackhawks. Later this was amended to the S-92 which is a larger kind of "super Black hawk" Eventually the Osprey got its act together and the better, cheaper, safer S-92 suffered a series of high profile transmission problems and some brutal fatal crashes of its own (one failure killed 17). S-92 had its own troubles but without any of the V-22s benefits.

sometimes that "Easy" solution is not what it seems. as a boss once told me "the 'short cut' is the hard way"

a big part of these problems is the debate about the limits of digital engineering. its not the magic wand that people wanted it to be. So all these miracle weapons that were supposed to be flying in 5 years are (surprise!) not that easy and quick as once imagined. Another factor is the test community. Theyre not just going to let you design some aircraft on a computer "flight test" the aircraft digitally and tell the test community they're all obsolete because the computer did it, and it worked out just fine. There is going to be a big ongoing fight and debate about what test and testing is acceptable going into the future. There is also wide debate about just how much money and time savings the models of digital engineering and such actually save. its an unproven concept but many in USAF procurement balked at the price tag. it wasn't saving.

thank god we didn't risk it all on some idiotic "digital century series" like some f**king idiots wanted. we could have like 12 different half finished prototypes rotting in Edwards waiting on spare parts that will never come.

[hornetfinn]

a big part of these problems is the debate about the limits of digital engineering. its not the magic wand that people wanted it to be. So all these miracle weapons that were supposed to be flying in 5 years are (surprise!) not that easy and quick as once imagined. Another factor is the test community. Theyre not just going to let you design some aircraft on a computer "flight test" the aircraft digitally and tell the test community they're all obsolete because the computer did it, and it worked out just fine. There is going to be a big ongoing fight and debate about what test and testing is acceptable going into the future. There is also wide debate about just how much money and time savings the models of digital engineering and such actually save. its an unproven concept but many in USAF procurement balked at the price tag. it wasn't saving.

thank god we didn't risk it all on some idiotic "digital century series" like some f**king idiots wanted. we could have like 12 different half finished prototypes rotting in Edwards waiting on spare parts that will never come.

Digital Engineering is great tool but it's definitely not a magic wand for development of new equipment. Actually the tools are very complex and require a lot of human skills to use effectively. They require extremely high quality and high fidelity data and if that data is not good enough, that can cause a lot of trouble in development and especially during testing when that is found out.

Biggest thing Digital Engineering can give is that it allows designing, manufacturing and maintaining/supporting much more complex systems than would be otherwise be possible. We are still in the early phases of using it and there are definitely some pains related to it. However I'm sure it will be de facto method for development of new stuff but that won't reduce the need for testing as systems get more complex.

[XanderCrews]

Digital Engineering is great tool but it's definitely not a magic wand for development of new equipment. Actually the tools are very complex and require a lot of human skills to use effectively. They require extremely high quality and high fidelity data and if that data is not good enough, that can cause a lot of trouble in development and especially during testing when that is found out.

Biggest thing Digital Engineering can give is that it allows designing, manufacturing and maintaining/supporting much more complex systems than would be otherwise be possible. We are still in the early phases of using it and there are definitely some pains related to it. However I'm sure it will be de facto method for development of new stuff but that won't reduce the need for testing as systems get more complex.

I agree with you, the issue was people as usual overstating the "revolution". just doing to the planning and design is not enough either. Japan was given blueprints for the BF109 engine (along with some actual engines) in World War II but a lack of manufacturing capability meant they struggled to create a decent copy of something they were given outright.

We also contend with the notion that as we create more advanced design capability, we will naturally push that design capability to and above its limits. the goal is to make the next generation super fighter, not remake a 1970s era F-16. So inevitably we will end up with a longer process. the F-35 JSE also shows that the capabilities to realistic test the machines in the simulated battlefield of the future will need to be equally sophisticated. The testing will be more complicated throughout. The F-35 was tested on things that would have never been bothered with in the 1970s. and no one is going to have the F-15EX held to the same standards as the F-35 in terms of combat expectations and subsequent testing

[hornetfinn]

drones are being oversold. they're just one more tool and they're not the wonder weapons we are being sold. if they were both sides wouldn't be firing literally millions of artillery shells and screaming for more.

Totally true. It's funny how tanks, IFVs and whole concept of mechanized warfare is seen as obsolete when Ukrainians themselves are definitely wanting more tanks, IFVs, APCs and self-propelled artillery etc. Drones are a great "new" tool but they are still just one more tool in a toolbox full of other tools. Drones can't do everything or even most things alone. Combine them with mechanized forces and they give great new capabilities to them allowing finding, fixing and destroying targets at extended ranges accurately. Without mechanized forces, drones might be able to destroy a lot of enemy equipment but they would not be able to attack and hold the ground.

On the defense they go great with mines and ATGMs and artillery. Of course there is also place for other weapons but these are the main ones as seen in Ukraine. They don't replace ATGMs but do have some unique qualities that most ATGMs lack and are cheaper. But when it comes to stop full enemy mechanized onslaught, then ATGMs will be seriously needed.

[Corsair1963]

Considering the complexities of modern stealth fighters and bombers. Nobody should be surprised by the delay of the NGAD.

As a matter of fact, I warned a number of members not to expect it before 2040 at the earliest. (and that was being optimistic)

[disconnectedradical]

Block 20 F-22s being retired was always going to be an issue because then you'll need to pull from combat-coded Block 30/35 aircraft to do training which reduces the numbers available for combat even more. Even GAO highlighted this issue where the alleged cost savings from retiring Block 20 F-22s didn't take into account how they'll make up for the training deficit, and current ACC commander Gen. Wilsbach thinks so too.

As for Block 30/35 F-22s, retiring them in 2030 like some here have peddled has always been questionable at best, considering that USAF chiefs like Gen. Brown have repeatedly said that their retirement is event driven by NGAD becoming operational (no, the F-35 is not a substitute or stop gap), and they're getting a litany of upgrades like advanced IRST and EW modernization into the late 2020s and early 2030s according to USAF budget documents.