Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CMC Airboss on January 12, 2006, 01:35:12 PM
-
Pentagon To Retire B-52s, U-2s, And F-117s In Bid To Save $16.4 Billion
Jason Sherman and Daniel G. Dupont
InsideDefense.com
January 9, 2006
The Defense Department plans to accelerate retirement of key Air Force
aircraft, including nearly half the B-52 bomber force and the full U-2
spy plane and F-117 stealth fighter fleets, in a bid to save $16.4
billion and boost spending for the services' prized F-22A fighter
aircraft program.
In a Dec. 20 internal budget document, Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas
approved significant spending changes between fiscal years 2007 and 2011
that were proposed by the Air Force. The moves, which affect the
service's procurement and personnel accounts, are designed to realign
resources to produce a more lethal, agile, and streamlined force, it
states.
The document, Program Budget Decision 720, carries the imprimatur of the
Defense Department leadership and reflects decisions made in the nearly
complete Quadrennial Defense Review, according to these sources.
The decisions, however, will require more than support from Pentagon
officials; the Air Force will have to convince Congress, which has
rejected recent Air Force proposals to retire major aircraft types
early, according to defense analysts.
"The Air Force is looking to get rid of what they call 'tired iron',"
said Christopher Bolkcom, an aviation expert at the Congressional
Research Service. "Congress in the past has not allowed them to retire
airplanes."
Similar attempts in recent years -- including moves to stand down B-1B
bombers, KC-135E aerial refueling aircraft, and the F-117 -- have met
stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. But this time around, the Pentagon
appears to be taking a new approach in proposing to retire three
programs at once.
"Now they're going for the whole enchilada," Bolkcom said. "You can see
that they seem to be launching a frontal assault."
Underscoring the difficulty that the Air Force may face in selling this
plan to Congress, the fiscal year 2006 defense appropriations bill,
signed Dec. 30 by President Bush, includes $9..4 billion to maintain the
fleet of 52 F-117s.
"The conferees believe it is premature to retire any F-117 aircraft at
this time," lawmakers wrote in the conference report accompanying the
final spending bill. "The F-117 provides a unique capability to the
combatant commanders and remains the only tactical stealth aircraft
capable of delivering certain types of precision munitions."
The fiscal maneuvers detailed in the 14-page PBD would allow the Air
Force to inject an additional $1 billion into its prized F-22A program,
stretching production through fiscal year 2010 -- two years longer than
previously planned -- and raising total acquisition numbers from 179
aircraft to 183.
To that end, the PBD trims $3.3 billion from the F-22A program in fiscal
years 2007 and 2008 and provides $4.4 billion in fiscal years 2009 and
2010.
The Pentagon also plans to terminate the B-52 Stand-off Jammer System,
an electronic attack capability, saving $1.1 billion across the
five-year spending plan, according to the PBD..
Cuts to the long-range B-52 bomber fleet would reduce the inventory from
94 aircraft to 56, a move that would not affect any international
treaties, the document states. The Air Force is banking on $4.6 billion
in savings with this early retirement: $680 million in the procurement
accounts and $3.9 billion in personnel reductions associated with a
smaller B-52 fleet.
The 33-plane fleet of high-altitude U-2 reconnaissance aircraft would be
retired by 2011, according to the budget decision, in a move that
garners $1 billion in savings from the procurement accounts and $3.3
billion in manpower reductions. United Press International first
reported details of the U-2 cut last week.
Cuts to the stealthy F-117A Nighthawk, which played a prominent role in
the open salvos of the 1991 war with Iraq but has seen limited duty more
recently, produced $6.2 billion in savings -- $1.1 billion from the
procurement accounts and $5.1 billion from associated manpower accounts.
In addition to these decrements, the Air Force plans to slash its fleet
of C-21 jets from 76 to 38 aircraft. C-21s are used to ferry Pentagon
executives, cargo and execute medical missions.
"There are some pretty sound operational reasons" for the Air Force's
move to retire these aircraft early, said Rebecca Grant, vice president
for defense at Defense Forecast International, a Washington-based
consulting firm. "What you see is an attempt to get down to the right
force structure that's more manageable and sustainable."
-
Did they ever decide how they were going to replace the KC-135s? Lease? Buy?
The airbase here (Bangor, Maine.. ANG base) stands to gain 1 or 2 aircraft from the base closings of other bases. They are a very busy outfit.
I'm not surprised to see the F117 being reduced. Its quite specialized.
-
Not surprised by the F-117 but the B-52 is just something that I would hate to see go away. Its a thing of beauty that amazes me every time I see one flying.
-
You don't think maybe there's a 117 replacement...
:noid :noid :noid
-
Originally posted by *NDM*JohnnyX
You don't think maybe there's a 117 replacement...
:noid :noid :noid
(http://www.xp-office.de/bomberb1/f22berge.jpg)
-
It's as stealthy as a 117? I knew it had stealth capabilities but didn't know they were that great. My mistake.
-
Originally posted by *NDM*JohnnyX
It's as stealthy as a 117? I knew it had stealth capabilities but didn't know they were that great. My mistake.
http://www.edwards.af.mil/articles98/docs_html/splash/apr98/cover/stealth.htm
While not invisible, the F-22's radar cross section is comparable to the radar cross sections of birds and bees. Compared to other current fighters, the F-22 is much more difficult to detect.
-
Anyone know why they decided to give the 117 the F designation?
It's nothing but a subsonic light bomber. Worthless in a dog fight.
-
It's an "F" aircraft because the USAF does not have "Attack" ('A') aircraft like the Navy does. It's a dual matter of simplifying the designation system and historical precedent.
Plus nobody's going to waste their time re-writing a couple dozen policy directives, regulations, instructions, acquisition manuals,etc. to add an aircraft type "A" just so the USAF can be more like the Navy. We gots better tings to do wit our time.
Even the F-22 switched back to the "F-22" from the "F/A-22", because the new CSAF thought it was stupid making up a name that was not even an authorized designation according to the long-standing definitions. In the USAF, an "F" aircraft can be multi-role, and it doesn't need no stinking "A" in the name to prove it. Look back through history... Nearly every single "F" designation fighter in the last 40-50 years has had at least a limited mult-role capability, and they all did it without being designated "Attack" or "F/A" aircraft.
The F-117 simply fits the fighter designation better than the bomber designation, so that's how it was named. Why mess with a regulation when it works? Would it really have changed anything if the F-117 had been named the A-117 or B-117? I doubt it would have changed anything except maybe it might have resulted in nuke treaty investigations into the aircraft capabilities. Better to avoid the whole thing and call it a fighter 'cause it looks sort of like a fighter.
-
Originally posted by eagl
It's an "F" aircraft because the USAF does not have "Attack" ('A') aircraft like the Navy does. It's a dual matter of simplifying the designation system and historical precedent.
Plus nobody's going to waste their time re-writing a couple dozen policy directives, regulations, instructions, acquisition manuals,etc. to add an aircraft type "A" just so the USAF can be more like the Navy. We gots better tings to do wit our time.
The USAF does have the A-10A and A-10C Warthogs.
MiG
-
You make a good point, but I always thought it should have been the B-117. F or A implies that it has guns or missiles.
-
Well, other than the A-10 :)
I think the point I was trying to make is that the "A" designator isn't commonly used.
Of course, the A-10 probably should have been the "F-10" or something, but F-10 sounds ghey. Then again, the A-10 has forward firing ordinance and the F-117 doesn't... Might as well call the F-16 an "A-16" and the F-15E a B-15 especially now that it's made by Boeing.
Just don't call it an F/A-whatever. The boss really hates that apparently. I don't know what he thinks about a possible "F/B" designation, but personally that would be my choice for naming a strike version of the F-22 or stretched YF-23 variant.
-
The A10 is also 1970's technology...
-
B-117 sounds like an amino acid or vitamin.
F/B-22 or F/B-23 sounds good though. I wonder if they could use lessons learned from the B-2, JSF, and F-22 to build an F-15E replacement out of the YF-23. Stretch it a bit, make the wing bigger, and keep it stealthy but don't go that last 1% that costs sooo much more, because we have standoff precision weapons that can make up for that last 1% of detection range. Keep all the A/A weaponry it was going to carry anyhow, but add a nice big bomb bay that's long enough to carry a hybrid GPS and laser guided version of the GBU-28.
It would be like the F-15E with about the same speed and probably longer range, with some mission flexibility and maneuverability traded for stealth and internal weapons carriage.
I doubt they could do it on the cheap though... Too many people with an interest in making it cost $200 mil each. But something like that is what we're going to need to replace the F-15E in about 10-20 years. The F-22 just won't cut it because it's not big enough and there won't be enough of them. The JSF won't cut it for the exact same reasons why the F-16 can't be used to replace the F-15E.
-
The 117 is utterly a POS. Its not able to carry out ordance that the f22 will be able to and it has no gun for defense.
Now the b52, how can they get rid of that thing. There wont be a plane like it to replace the amount of ordance it can unleash it an area. Only thing they possibly can be thinking of is saving gas.
-
I think theres been a few holes found in the F-117 technology such that the effective "stealthiness" is only marginally better than the F-22.
-
Originally posted by Hoarach
Now the b52, how can they get rid of that thing. There wont be a plane like it to replace the amount of ordance it can unleash it an area. Only thing they possibly can be thinking of is saving gas.
(http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/images/b2_9.jpg)
(2,000 lbs. maximum payload capacity difference between B-2 and B-52)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/images/b2_9.jpg)
(2,000 lbs. maximum payload capacity difference between B-2 and B-52)
Now compare the cost of each aircraft. ;)
-
Can anyone tell me why the F-117 is designed exterior-wise, at angles, and the B-2 curved? They both Stealty...here is a clue: It has to do with technology.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Can anyone tell me why the F-117 is designed exterior-wise, at angles, and the B-2 curved? They both Stealty...here is a clue: It has to do with technology.
Because ugly aircraft suck?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Can anyone tell me why the F-117 is designed exterior-wise, at angles, and the B-2 curved? They both Stealty...here is a clue: It has to do with technology.
They switched from Mac's to PC's and with the boost in processing power got better definition on the reflection prediction algorithms?
-
I'm wondering now what the heck they are gonna toss me on if the U-2 and many F-15s are being retired. I know that the F-15s won't completely go bye bye but with the loss of the U-2 and alot of F-15s will cause our manning to be cut.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The A10 is also 1970's technology...
You realize that the F-117 is 1970s technology, right? It was developed throughout the 70s, and the production began in 1978.
-
...oh, and the B-2 is curvy because available processing power increased by an order of magnitude between the original Have Blue program and the B-2 program.
Funny trivia, the technique used to calculate radar cross-sections and design stealth aircraft was developed by a soviet mathematician. He published in a science journal, and a US scientist realized what the implications while the soviet government didn't. Hi-lar-i-ous.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I think theres been a few holes found in the F-117 technology such that the effective "stealthiness" is only marginally better than the F-22.
It's the other way around, F-22 has better RCS than F-117.
-
Originally posted by Hoarach
The 117 is utterly a POS. Its not able to carry out ordance that the f22 will be able to and it has no gun for defense.
Now the b52, how can they get rid of that thing. There wont be a plane like it to replace the amount of ordance it can unleash it an area. Only thing they possibly can be thinking of is saving gas.
Read the article they are not getting rid of the 52. In fact the 52 is going through its MID-LIFE upgrade. As in, it will be around for another 50 years or so. They are cutting the fleet in half. The article says the USAF wants to get rid of some "tired iron" wich it is, Old, and warn out.
When an aircraft reaches a point were they are spending X amount of mait. hours per flying hours for the air frame type it becomes ineffecient to fly and the money can be spent better elsewhere.
The 117 is dated and perhaps surpassed greatly by the FA-22. This also makes sense as they are not getting rid of the 117 fleet merly cutting it down. This also helps the remaining fleet by adding numerous spare parts to the supply system.
There's only so much money to go around and congress sets our manning levels. The USAF HAS to cut people due to overmanning. It's a must and a fact of life. This helps solve that problem a little.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Read the article they are not getting rid of the 52. In fact the 52 is going through its MID-LIFE upgrade. As in, it will be around for another 50 years or so.
Yep. The B-52 will be over 100 years old before it's retired. Amazing.
-
They should sell some of those 117s to Israel.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
They should sell some of those 117s to Israel.
Interesting thought to say the least but you never know, we may be selling TS hardware to a country that may not allways be "friendly" towards us.
-
Israel has nuclear weapons and I bet they can deliver them wherever they need without slow, old & busted "Stealth" planes. Because all their enemies live next door, I think they can go supersonic, right on the deck, all the way to the delivery lob.
-
FB-22
(http://www.f5.dion.ne.jp/~mirage/message11/fb_22_1.jpg)
-
Remember when the AF said the A-10 was obsolete and that the F16 could do the job just as well. Face it those folks are freaking fickle. The 117 had a niche it filled very well just as the A-10 does. My guess is that they will realize that later on and the 117 will be back to go to work again.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Remember when the AF said the A-10 was obsolete and that the F16 could do the job just as well. Face it those folks are freaking fickle. The 117 had a niche it filled very well just as the A-10 does. My guess is that they will realize that later on and the 117 will be back to go to work again.
i.e. Taiwan straights.
-
These fleet retirements and reductions are really the first step toward integrating the future force of UCAV's into the Air Force inventory.
(http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/images/J-UCAS_x45c_calendar_375x300.jpg)
An example is the X-45C with the following features. It can:
Cruise at 0.85 Mach speed.
Carry a 4,500--lb. payload.
Fly 40,000 feet with a mission radius of 1,200 nautical miles on internal fuel.
Be refueled by Air-to-Air Refueling
Transport eight 250-lb. Small Diameter Bombs.
Carry auxiliary fuel tanks and other payloads.
Hit a ground target with a 250-lb. inert near-precision-guided weapon.
Operate independently, fully integrate with manned aircraft operations or execute multi-vehicle coordinated operations.
Be deployed from one location and controlled by another.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/ (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/)
-
Fear the takeover of R/C combat vehicles...
(http://www.metalstorm.com/clientuploads/directory/videos/1video_pics/may11B1_dragonfly.jpg)