Retiring Eagles, Vipers and Hogs

[I don't exist]

From Inside Defense:

Air Force Plans Massive, Early F-15, F-16 Retirements to Save $3.4 Billion

Oct. 14, 2008 -- The Air Force is planning dramatic cuts to its fighter force in fiscal year 2010 in an attempt to find $3.4 billion to bolster other combat aircraft, munitions inventories, ISR and manpower efforts, InsideDefense.com has learned.

In all, the service plans to retire 137 F-15s, 177 F-16s and nine A-10s in FY-10, according to internal Pentagon documents detailing the stand-down of Air Force jets in the 2010 program objective memorandum (POM). Pentagon acquisition chief John Young initialed the Aug. 27 document, which covers all of the services’ future program and budget plans, on Oct. 3, indicating he had reviewed it.

In all, more than 300 fighters will head to the boneyard. The number of jets being retired is significant, considering a typical fighter squadron is made up of between 18 and 26 aircraft, depending on the platform. It is unknown how this decision will impact the current size of fighter squadrons or whether those units will be decommissioned.

The document, obtained by InsideDefense.com, was compiled to answer Young’s questions about the services' POMs, which were turned in to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in August.

“There is some near-term (FY-10-14) risk taken by this move,” the document states, summing up the earlier-than-expected retirements of the F-15s, F-16s and A-10s. “However, our analysis shows the FY-10 POM smaller but modernized fighter force, when coupled with a robust bomber fleet, can effectively bridge the gap until the F-35 can be produced in required numbers (ramping to 110) and the F-22 can be modified to a common configuration.

“Without accelerating these retirements, we are left with a larger, less-capable force unable to penetrate anti-access environments,” it adds. “We must take advantage of this window of opportunity now to be better postured in the future.”

Senior Air Force officials have said they plan to increase F-35 Lightning II production over the next five years to address a potential fighter gap.

The retirements represent accelerations of seven years in the case of the F-15, six years for the F-16 and 11 years for the A-10, according to the document. The early retirement of the Eagles is expected to save the air service $2.2 billion, the Vipers $1.1 billion and the Warthogs $.1 billion.

“With these dollars, we funded required legacy modifications, manpower, munitions, and [Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] enablers that allow the smaller force structure to fight an MCO [major combat operation] threat with reasonable risk as we bridge to a 5th-generation enabled force,” the document states.

Specifically, that money will fuel a major push to modernize the Air Force's bombers and remaining fourth-generation fighters. Funding will also go toward increasing manpower to cover a new nuclear-specific B-52 bomber rotational squadron, RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial system expansion, air operation center staffing and air sovereignty alert missions, according to the document.

In addition, the money saved through the retirements will go toward the funding of a number of munitions-related research-and-development efforts, including AIM-120, Small Diameter Bomb Increment II, the maritime version of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, the Massive Ordinance Penetrator and a hard-target and void-sensing fuse, the document states. Also funded are procurement of Joint Direct Attack Munition kits, AIM-9X missiles, AIM-120 missiles and Small Diameter Bombs.

The Air Force also plans to fund intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance “enablers” including terminal attack controller vehicle communications systems, GPS anti-jam systems and a joint electronic warfare database. -- Marcus Weisgerber

Discuss.

Edited to title correctly.

Edited October 15, 2008 by I don't exist

[Guest Dunce]

Well that is depressing to recent UPT grads and the huge BIT.

[Vetter]

Well that is depressing to recent UPT grads and the huge BIT.

That's depressing to a bunch of people...that's a lot of Eagle and Viper dudes going to UAVs. Will they offer them VSP? Not a chance in hell!

[Whitman]

“There is some near-term (FY-10-14) risk taken by this move,” the document states, summing up the earlier-than-expected retirements of the F-15s, F-16s and A-10s."

Exactly. What better time for our serious opposition to attack.

[Guest EverettP]

If 'someone' gets elected it was going to happen anyway... How do you think Clinton got a surplus, cutting social programs? hah!

[VL-16]

*Insert expletive here*

This is going to further hurt the chances of us UPT bubbas receiving a fighter....yaaay.

[Jenkspaz]

Sucks and blows. Hard. Now there's going to be even LESS fighter slots? Just when I thought things were going badly for those of us graduating FY 10. Guess I should start playing more flight simulatr to get my hand-eye-computer screen coordination down.

[MD]

Sucks and blows. Hard. Now there's going to be even LESS fighter slots? Just when I thought things were going badly for those of us graduating FY 10. Guess I should start playing more flight simulatr to get my hand-eye-computer screen coordination down.

Welcome to the new suck......

[163 FS]

I can't see this being a good idea, but I'm not a poltician...

Are the F-15s all C models or are there E models being thrown away as well?

At least only 9 Hogs are going the way of the boneyard.

[pbar]

Well, our ratio of infrastructure (i.e. bases, ramp space, etc.) to forces (people, planes, etc) will be even more out of whack now. What they are gonna fill all that ramp space with? Maybe UAV/RC-12/AT-6Bs? Congress definitely won't let us do another BRAC round.

[Guest EverettP]

So, let me get this straight. This news just came out about these fighter cuts, and somehow you find a way to make that into a democrat political move? I never understood how military people see some big difference in how each party treats them. Look at congressional votes on military pay raises and VA and education benefits and I think you might be surprised. Show me how either party is going to somehow improve our military, quality of life, and defense, and you got my vote. The only one who seemed to have any sense of building a large, quality military was Reagan. No one before (well, back to WWII) or since has done anything significant in my eyes. Stop fooling yourself into thinking one party or the other is somehow going to improve your life or improve the military. It's all about $$$, especially these days... Expect to see a continued crunch no matter who gets elected. Don't take it personally, and don't blame your elected president. These things are driven much harder by your 4-star leaders than you seem to give them credit for.

I think objectively you can say that there has been a big drawdown since the cold war ended. Aside from some ground pounder troop increases due to OIF/OEF, I haven't seen much push to greatly increase troop levels. That has little to do with who held the office and a lot to do with our changing technology and standing in the world. You've had a couple years of a Republican, then 8 years each of a Democrat and Republican after that. How does Clinton or the next President play into early F-15 cuts now?

It looks like these cuts have more to do with Air Force leadership than with any decision made by the president. We've had a lot of changes with the new CSAF, and this probably was his. He was brought on board in part to put more emphasis on the ongoing wars. This decision and UAV manning decisions show that. You can probably also say that these are not necessarily "cuts" as much as a transfer of resources (money and people) from fighter aircraft to other aircraft---that's even stated explicitly in the article.

To answer your question, I'd say Clinton got a surplus by being much more fiscally responsible, but he was dealing with far fewer high-cost global issues. Either way, there was a surplus. You can't constantly accuse a party one minute of wanting to spend, spend, spend, then criticize them the next minute for having a surplus due to budget cuts, without sounding hypocritical.

I didn't say the cuts were a democrat political move, I said to expect it to happen anyway.

[Guest F16crewdwgg]

Hey, there are always B-1's ... They have feelings too.

[LockheedFix]

I never understood how military people see some big difference in how each party treats them.

That's just the way it works. The Democrats get to trick minorities into thinking that they are the party that takes care of them, the Republicans get to trick us. Not a very good trade-off in the vote department if you ask me.

[Jenkspaz]

Well, our ratio of infrastructure (i.e. bases, ramp space, etc.) to forces (people, planes, etc) will be even more out of whack now. What they are gonna fill all that ramp space with? Maybe UAV/RC-12/AT-6Bs? Congress definitely won't let us do another BRAC round.

They can fill it with hate mail and all of my old F-15/16 models and posters from my childhood.

[MT near]

The chance to get a fighter right now is tough. Only 1 per assignment night per base is pretty slim. So 1 dude out of 26-30 is gonna get a chance to go fighters. But look at the back log on RTU dates and such.....crazy

[Guest ski&fly fast]

ha! what a bunch of bullcrap, unless they are going to up their order of 35's, this is more nonsense! Let's think where US military aviation is heading, buy more king airs, strap guns to our trainer aircraft, and fly a slow fragile predator. I am sure these will work very effectively in a war against Russia, N.K, China, exc.

[StoleIt]

I knew opening this thread was a mistake...I enjoyed my false hopes and dreams.

[Guest Boom]

Resign your commission, become a Boom.

/thread

[Guest Blu4]

I am sure these will work very effectively in a war against Russia, N.K, China, exc

Actually, I'm sure that these actions are being taken, as noted above, to help provide better support/funding/focus on the CURRENT conflict. Everything you're mentioning is a potential, future, near-peer adversary. Strategic planning and budgeting for strategic near-peers is hugely taboo currently, and, according to the SecDef, the wrong focus.

Of course, he also stated that, while we must continue to focus our efforts on Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force and the Navy are to provide global strategic deterrence while the US Army and Marine Corps are, in all effect, overtasked.

These actions will certainly hamper _some_ of that strategic deterrence, as well as diminish the availability of assets to support those overtasked ground units.

Also, while I'm quite certain that the current UPT prospects are dim for those seeking fighters, I'm a little disappointed by the volume of replies lamenting the reduced number of fighter slots. The drawdown of these core tactical platforms has pretty far reaching implications, and I think there are probably more relevant tangents this discussion could take than "woe is me, I won't get a fighter now."

You signed on to serve, and you were lucky enough to get selected for UPT. Nowhere was there a guarantee that fighter slots would fall like rain. In other words, you're in about the same boat as before: you're on step XX of 127. Lamenting that you won't get a fighter at the end is counter-productive, because you still need to work your ass off to get through all of the remaining steps.

Are the F-15s all C models or are there E models being thrown away as well?

C-model reductions only. I'm fairly certain this plan will remove the C's from Elmendorf and Langley, not sure where else the reduction will fall. The E's are still highly relevant to the GWOT, and, at least in the eyes of the planners looking to cut operational dollars, can fill the same role as the C-models in a contingency if required. Besides, isn't air superiority why we paid a bazillion dollars for all these shiny new Raptors? At a 4:1 predicted qualitative edge, the F-22s should be able to replace the C-models at 1/4 the beddown ratio. Obviously, this is tongue in cheek, but since that numbers been thrown out a bunch, I'm sure the budgeteers have latched onto it.

The manning issue across the board is going to be interesting. Clearly, there aren't going to be enough cockpits available for the unemployed masses, nor do I think the acquisition wheels can spin up fast enough to convert them all to UAS operators (not to mention that a good quantity with the available options to separate probably won't willingly accept that road). I'm certain that the UAS FTUs can't convert that large of a number that quickly. So what the hell are they going to do with a couple hundred unemployed fighter pilots? I guess all those unfilled rated positions on the staffs will no longer be unoccupied in the next several years...

Bad news on an acquisition, force structure, deterrence, operational, and joint/coalition level in my opinion...

Just plain scary.

[joe1234]

ha! what a bunch of bullcrap, unless they are going to up their order of 35's, this is more nonsense! Let's think where US military aviation is heading, buy more king airs, strap guns to our trainer aircraft, and fly a slow fragile predator. I am sure these will work very effectively in a war against Russia, N.K, China, exc.

Well, we can always just sell our souls to China to finance our government spending, so they won't even need to have a war with us.

But hey, at least taxes are low!

[FourFans]

Slow down a second folks...

Are you all saying that with new equipment like the F-22 we have to get rid of old equipment like the F-15?! I don't care who you are, that's just WEIRD!

Ditching the F-16s I can't really speak to, but it seems like we've got enough that there are STILL squadrons that haven't been to the desert yet. (please correct me if i'm wrong)

Ditching 9 A-10s? Right. Those were probably the ones that couldn't accept the C-model upgrade. We need the A-10 and it's not going anywhere.

The Air Force is trying to save money. We've been doing this for years (around 60ish). They've slated the A-10 to go away, what, 4, 5, 6 times now? The C-130E's were supposed to be all in the boneyard by FY0X...yeah some of those are probably holding right now, at Balad. It seems like all the -135 varients have been in the process of getting "replaced" by the KC-X or some other platform for the past 10-15 years...but -135s are still ALL over the world supporting the fight. Unfortunately, in the AF, change is 10% need, and 90% politics. If this projected plan actually happens as it's written right now, I'd be very surprised.

As for UPT dudes, of the 1% of the population that answers their nations call to serve the greater good, you have been commissioned into the leadership cast that encompasses only 20% of the total force. Of that sliver of the military, only 20% become military pilots.

That's 20% of 20% of 1% of the US population. Like it or not, the 11X AFSC is an elite club. IF you make it.

So stop crying like my newborn, accept the fact that LUCK and TIMING are 75% of your assignment future, and start acting like men that should be leading the world's most powerful military. Please?

FF

[Guest IncompletePete]

So stop crying like my newborn, accept the fact that LUCK and TIMING are 75% of your assignment future, and start acting like men that should be leading the world's most powerful military. Please?

[summe32c]

" clever reply insterted here "

Im going to drink myself to death due to frustration.

out.

-summers

[Jenkspaz]

Also, while I'm quite certain that the current UPT prospects are dim for those seeking fighters, I'm a little disappointed by the volume of replies lamenting the reduced number of fighter slots. The drawdown of these core tactical platforms has pretty far reaching implications, and I think there are probably more relevant tangents this discussion could take than "woe is me, I won't get a fighter now."

You signed on to serve, and you were lucky enough to get selected for UPT. Nowhere was there a guarantee that fighter slots would fall like rain. In other words, you're in about the same boat as before: you're on step XX of 127. Lamenting that you won't get a fighter at the end is counter-productive, because you still need to work your ass off to get through all of the remaining steps.

I'm sick and fvcking tired of this "holier than though" bullsh*t. You don't think I'm stoked that I got a pilot slot in general? Of course I am, and I'd be damn proud to fly almost anything the AF threw at me, and I DO feel honored (and lucky) to even get the opportunity to fly. But I'm not allowed to be a little upset when I hear that my chances of getting a fighter (something that I've wanted since as far back as I can remember) may have been drastically reduced? Get off your soapbox.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Jenkspaz

[busdriver]

I'm sick and fvcking tired of this "holier than though" bullsh*t. ..... Get off your soapbox.

I'm sick and fvcking tired of this "woe is me" bullsh*t.

It goes both ways buddy. We all know you're bummed at the prospect of the dreamed for fighter slipping away, you guys tell us about it over and over and over. Go have a beer instead of moping, you'll feel better.