The U.S. Air Force — plagued by a recent series of F-15 fighter crashes and the loss of a B-2 stealth bomber — is fighting to maintain its approved force levels and to move forward with several aircraft programs. And, the Air Force has initiated a controversial move into Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
In the fiscal year 2009 budget request the Air Force is asking for $117 billion to sustain the existing force, modernize the force, and provide for increasing personnel costs. The request is up $8.6 billion, or roughly eight percent, compared to the $108.4 billion that Congress provided for the Air Force in the current fiscal year. That amount may not be enough to maintain and modernize the 86 combat wings that Air Force officials refer to as the “required force.”
The increasing costs of fuel and the invariably higher-than-predicted costs of new aircraft threaten the force level unless Congress provides additional funds. But the Army and Marine Corps, both being expanded and both suffering major material problems after several years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Navys massive ship cost problems make a substantial increase for Air Force programs unlikely.
Of the several aircraft programs being discussed the most critical in the view of senior Air Force commanders is the F-22 Raptor, the “next generation” stealth fighter aircraft. The Department of Defense has approved only four more F-22s after the fiscal 2009 budget which would provide a total of 187 aircraft. Previously the Pentagon has stonewalled buying more F-22s when Air Force studies indicated that at least 250 are needed with a goal of 381 aircraft. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has written that “in depth” reviews by the Pentagon show that buying F-35 Lightning II multi-role aircraft for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps “provides more effective capability to the joint force commander than concentrating investments in a single service by buying more F-22s.”
There are 20 F-22 aircraft in the fiscal 2009 budget, which reaches the 183 number (the 20 being part of a three-year, 60-aircraft multiyear contract). The four aircraft provided under Mr. Englands plan enable the Lockheed Martin production line to remain (barely) open until a key decision point in early 2009, when the new administration could make the decision about continuing F-22 production.
Beyond the F-22 issue, the Air Force is seeking more C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft (although none are provided in the basic fiscal 2009 budget request) while the forthcoming tanker aircraft procurement and the initiation of a new bomber aircraft will also demand more funding. And, there is the UAV issue. Of the 93 aircraft requested in the Air Forces fiscal 2009 budget, more than half are unmanned aerial vehicles:
20 F-22 Raptor
8 F-35 Lightning II
6 CV-22 Osprey
4 MC-130 Combat Talon (Hercules)
2 HC-130 Hercules
1 C-29A
52 UAV
The unmanned aircraft are: 38 MQ-1B armed Predators, 9 MQ-9 Reapers (Predator B), and 4 RQ-4 Global Hawks.
Meanwhile, the Air Force and Army have agreed to cooperate on procuring and supporting Predator and Sky Warrior UAVs, which is expected to save money for both services. But the Air Force is concerned that the Army is using “software” to fly its UAVs as opposed to trained aircraft pilots, as does the Air Force. The Air Force does use non-pilots for controlling micro-UAVs (similar to the Army’s five-pound Raven, which are used for base security functions). The Air Force uses rated pilots for the larger UAVs, being concerned about mission flexibility and the potential for collisions with other UAVs or manned aircraft.
The Air Force is expanding its UAV qualification and training programs, with a major effort underway to increase the number of pilots being transferred to UAV programs. The Army — which uses mainly warrant officers as pilots for its thousands of helicopters — cannot provide rated pilots to man the planned force of several hundred UAVs.
Thus, the Air Force is facing major challenges in several important areas.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Why on earth are UAVs “controversial”
The Air Force needs to get what it needs one thing at a time. ;) Focus sharply on the top priorities. So, KC-X, the tanker, is the first priority. Second priority, the new satellites, third, to expand production of F-22 and F-35 for more airframes. Despite the B-2 crash, the new strategic bomber can wait a little bit. ;)
“required force” … required for what? Keeping the Air Force’s share of the DoD budget? Seems rather circular, no?
Time for the AF to change:
o Long Range UCAV drones
o Combat UCAVs.
o Manned cargo plane force.
o Missiles, rockets Force.
o Stealth Stragetic UCAV Bomber force.
Thats the Future.
Only manned planes would be the AMC.
All else Drone mode esp for Combat.
That includes the KCX Tanker- manned.
The Air Force also needs another 40 manned low and slow armored aircraft similar to the A-10 in Afganistan and Iraq. You want to make jihadists and Taliban tremble and have sleepless days and nights send an upgraded A-10 with smart munitions and a more capable EO-IR/Radar suite at them…
In some cases a Pilot’s eyes are needed on target even if he’s still primarily looking through a camera–he has a better feeling for terrain and target/friendly location ot get the job done safe and effectively. Some things can’t be felt/seen/heard through a TV console a few thousand miles away…Every tool has a use–we still need the big blade in the our Gerber Multi-tool of an Air Force.
We don’t need more A-10s. The problem isn’t killing the terrorists, it’s finding them. That’s why I roll my eyes every time someone suggests the Air Force move away from an air superiority focus towards ground support. The problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t equipment related. When we fight them, we win. The problems we face in those countries stem from the initial lack of troops we sent in, not the equipment they had (Humvees notwithstanding).
The AF’s stated acquisition priorities are:
KC-X: New tanker
New CSAR helo
Space Systems
F35
B-x: Next generation bomber
Wait. The Air Force uses trained pilots to fly UAVs? Seriously? For the Global Hawk, yes, I understand, but for the Predators?
Like hillybilly says to the truck driver jackknifed in his cornfield, ‘well, there’s your problem.’ It costs big money to get a pilot trained, especially if they use commissioned officers.
Didn’t the Fighter Mafia just lick the windows around here a few weeks ago and call it an article about how procurement is affecting (adversely, of course) pilot training? Stop. Cut out the maid service for airmen, make airmen shine their own damn shoes, make the Air Force sleep on base in the little bullshit tents we have to when we (Marines) deploy. All this little stuff adds up.
I would like to see some new A-10-like planes manufactured, maybe just 100, to keep us going for the next 30 years. The A-10s right now are really fatigued.
“The problems we face in those countries stem from the initial lack of troops we sent in, not the equipment they had (Humvees notwithstanding).”
The problem was more the ROE when we went in, because we did not go in strength into the “Sunni Triangle” (because, the thinking went, we did not want to provoke an insurgency by our presence; OOPS!); did not establish order (looting); were hesitant on cracking down on militants in mosques, etc.; did not close borders and all. More troops are a better thing, all things being equal, but the surge has worked with just fourteen thousand more troops than we had in May 2003 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_es.htm)
Obviously, there is something else that spelled the difference between victory and failure, and that is strategy, tactics.
Good Morning Folks,
The real question here is I think do we need our current Air Force?
Stratgic Bombing is no loner on the table, thus the need for manned bombers is nill. A unmanned B-3 can do any mission currently tasked to the manned bomber and more at a fraction of the cost or risk to aircrews.
The ICBM was made history last week, think Billy Mitchell, the current 450 ICBM slots the U.S. has are mostly unfilled and no new ICBM is in the pipeline till at least 2040.
The manned fighter has become a legacy system that no loner can be afforded, hit, nothing manned is in the pipeline after the F-35.
The ground support role of the A-10 and F-16 could be better turned over to the Army and a system like that of the Marines be put into place.
In short ladies and gentlemen the days of bomber LeMay and the fighter mafia are over. Our current enemies have no air power and any futire projected enemy powers, read China and Russia, are still several generations behind where we are at now.
It’s time to take a hard look at the Air Fore and the mill stone it is on the defense establishment.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
In my opinion:
- We have enough F-22s
- KC-X (choose the KC-30 because of its cargo functions in addition to fuel — insist production takes place here)
- F-35 production (as requested)
- Upgrade A-10s (alot of life left – alot of need now)
- Spec ops aircraft (AC/MC-130 with “J” model)
- No more C-17s (we have enough for Tactical airlift and Strategic airlift doesn’t require an advanced aircraft. It requires a flying truck (B-747). It would be nice to get this type of mission to move towards unmanned status.
- Do we really need a new SAR helo? Are blackhawks really that bad? / could we use the Osprey for this instead of a limo for 4 stars?
- Lets put off the new bomber until we catch out breath.
- UAVs
- space systems
just my thoughts
Byron Skinner,
Don’t tear down a wall until you know why it was built.
That’s all I can say.
As for tankers, I was hoping for the KC-777 (superior payload and capability,) but I guess they’ve preferred the -767 which already has undergone testing and eval.
Ok ppl here who keep advocating uavs for every mission/task/giving BJ(kids ask your papa…hehehe hell hate for that) think about all the viruses and hackers….now imagine someone hacks into a uav with a hole bunch of paratroopers or maybe fuel then crashes it into down town LA or something?
UAV’s ok IF we can say it isnt possible for them to be used against us or just messed up? ok
Alright, another AF discussion. I thought this was another AF article from Axe. Guess not.
Anywho, the AF will do what they please within the limits set by Congress and the Pentagon. The tanker fleet needs new planes. Without a doubt. Airlift is a huge plus so C17s should be fine but, why not upgrade the C-5s? They carry more. Then having trained pilots on UAVs… I have no idea about this. Have a competition of AF and Army pilots versus each other in the same aircraft and see who wins. I don’t know. The whole military should be working together on the UAVs. Navy, Marines, AF, Army, and Coast Guard.
“Why on earth are UAVs “controversial”?????”
Simply put, turf war between army and air force.
“Airlift is a huge plus so C17s should be fine but, why not upgrade the C-5s? They carry more.”
The air force said it would cost at least $5 billion to upgrade the C-5 fleet to current engines, avionics, and whatever else is needed to keep them flying. You can buy a lot of tankers and C-17s for that much money. And with the airframes getting older, in 5-10 years it could cost billions more to keep them going.
You know,I just do not have an appreciation for how huge these UAVs are.I didn’t realize that the Global Hawks & Predator drones were so huge.
Now,on the topic of using solely unmanned fighter aircraft & bombers.Is the hope that our “potential enemies” will still be using “manned” aircraft.
What if our potential enemies also use unmanned aircraft,are we going to have one big “Robot Wars?”
Also,it’s a whole lot easier to use soulless,amoral machines to control the populations of the earth than to use pesky humans who allow their conscience to get in the way of cracking down on civilians.
Like the draft is supposed to make us feel the pain in wartime,having human beings in the cocpit makes war serious business.It does not trivialize war the way that exclusively employing AUVs,UGVs,& Unmanned surface craft in a war would.
WHO would,or even could,take seriously a “war” fought exclusively with unmanned vehicles & aircraft? Where’s the pucker power in that?
It would be just one big “entertainment” joke.
I remember a cartoon in Mad Magazine back in the 80s where robots were fighting robots,& a fallen robot was calling for a medic while a man was running towards it with a tool repair box.
A Predator in a dog fight with another Predator drone,oooooh scary.
Byron Skinner, you are daft.
“Our current enemies have no air power and any futire projected enemy powers, read China and Russia, are still several generations behind where we are at now.”
Our current nation-state adversaries all have air power. Our air force is just superior. But they are not “several generations” behind, they are about 1 generation behind.
Should we let them catch up? That would be sporting, wouldn’t it? But, alas, that’s not the wise thing to do. The idea of arming our military is to make even the idea of attacking us utterly so futile that they don’t even try. If we put off future projects because we’re in the lead, we won’t be in the lead very long and suddenly the security and stability we’ve come to rely on evaporates.
–
“Stratgic Bombing is no lon[g]er on the table…”
Huh? You mean, like bombing factories, bridges, supply lines, power plants, and ports? Like we did to Serbia? How is that not on the table?
Not only is it squarely on the table, it is bedrock upon which the United States builds its long term war strategy when fighting a nation.
–
Look, I just don’t get people who think every future conflict will be like the last (or current) one. That is the old joke about the French; they are always fighting the last war. Well guess what, COIN is *the last war*. We have the goods to fight that now (armored humvees, MRAPs, UCAVs, Strykers, a whole arsenal of M4s instead of M16s, better tactics, etc etc etc).
The NEXT war will be something unexpected, as they all are. We’ll need to maintain preparedness and strength against a wide array of potential threats.
I posted this elsewhere, but it applies here as well:
1960 Price Reality:
House: $16,500
Car: $2,600
Gallon of gas: 31 cents
Gallon of milk: 49 cents
F-4 Phantom: $2 million
Multiply all of the above by a factor of 10 for today’s median prices means we should be able to pick up a new fighter for about $20 million, correct there little buddy.
Apparently not.
Now lets look at other trends:
1380 B-47
744 B-52
100 B-1
21, oh wait, 20 B-2
Do you see a clear trend? Are we heading for negative balances in Air Force aircraft procurement?
Or could it be that 20 B-2 are sufficient for the threat as are about 200 F-22s? The USAF can choose invulnerability and fewer numbers or limited vulnerability (F-35) and larger numbers. They can’t have the best of both worlds without exponentially increasing USAF procurement costs that start to eat into other service budgets.
To “Cole”: Excellent reflection . You could also have reminded everybody that one single new type of naval weapon (like for example that new Russian hyper-speed torpedo) or one single new land weapon on the battle-field (like those Russian anti-tank missiles in Southern Lebanon, or the Russian / Iranian E.F.P.s in Iraq, or those Russian “Storm” computer “worms”, etc.) suffice to completely render ALL previous generations of targeted attack weapons obsolete, and all that for merely a SMALL FRACTION of the invaders’ weapons’ costs, he he, this way robbing bullies like the U.S.A. of their only survival strategy (war), even turning their overgrown, but impotent Armed Forces into costly “white elephants”, whose superstitious maintenance only ruins their populations’ and their regimes’ futures.
Against every technical measure, there is a technical counter-measure.
Unless, of course, that somebody gets lost in thoughts on how to stop all possible enemies from ever resisting him again, without pronouncing it publicly (he better) …
freefallingbomb,
Are we talking about the Russia that has Algerians wanting MIG-29 refunds.
Or how about the Russia that has India complaining about T-90 missile and thermal imagery systems,
Maybe it is the super-duper Russian Navy?
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20080221.aspx
And we all shiver in stark terror over the potential for Bear bomber attacks.
Launched many Sub ICBMs lately?
Figured out how to defeat F-22/F-35 AESA radar and AMRAAM yet with your fighters equipped with semi-active radars?
I’m sure they are the same Russians who are going to jam our cheap but powerful JDAMs…you know, those same GPS jammers they sold the Iraqis…that we destroyed with GPS bombs?
I know they’ve solved their conscript problem by now and have lots of eager volunteers for their military…especially the sub forces. Probably working on translator machines to solve the language barriers, too.
How many Russian tanks were destroyed in Chechyna by RPGs…you know those ones our armor regularly defeats.
Why in the world would China decide to reject perfectly good SU-27s in favor of their own J-11s. Don’t those Chinese have any sense?
Shot down many satellites lately?
As freefallingbomb is a jagoff with its “US Americans” schtick, I’ll let you get away with a point or two, Cole. This could actually be a new era of peace, agreement and armistice between us, you know? I’m popping the bubbly.
I believe it was the former head of lockheed martin who said something to the effect that as technology advanced, they were approaching aerospace materials which were infinitely expensive and weighed nothing. Then he concluded, “We found it. It’s called software.”
More seriously, at the rate cost is spiraling up, we are looking at an air force of half to a third of the current size within 20 years. Of course, the machinery will be more capable. There are basically two options: accept a far, far smaller air force, or cut the acquisition and development cost of new planes. Pretty much, this is occurring already with the F-22 and tanker fleet, and will most likely happen with all new aircraft we develop. In the end, we probably will end up supplementing our wonder-fleet with a low mix of foreign off the shelf products as has been the case recently. Europeans who accept a resource constrained environment have been better recently at producing actual stuff that flies rather than drags on in the development process for decades.
Maybe we should “privatize” our military.You know,put Blackwater in charge of our national defense.They can hire foreigners to be like a “Foreign Legion” & have total control over our UAVs,UCAVs(fighters & bombers),UGV(both armed & unarmed),& unmanned surface craft.Where the use of unmanned vehicles,boats,& aircraft are impractical,they can use the “Foreign Legion”,who have no allegiance whatsoever to our nation,to do the unpopular jobs like enforce martial law & “crowd control.”
Yep,UAVs,in the hands of money first mercenaries who are in it only for the money,are the way to go.
Convert the USAF from a branch of the military to a Unified Combat Command. The new “USAIRCOM”, as I like to call it, will be responsible with all aviation needs (for Army, Navy, etc) and will be composed of members of all military branches (since aviation is a vital component need of all forces). That way you have input from everyone, and can create a better mix of different air assets. When a future air war comes by (maybe with China, or Russia), USAIRCOM can take command of all air assets and act as if it was a separate branch of the military (in much the same manner that USSOCOM does). And the debate of whether the Air Force should be a self-sufficient force for the big war or a support service for the small wars pretty much becomes moot. It can be both. Problem solved.
Good Morning Folks,
Not a bad idea G, certainly deserves a good hard unbaised looking into.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner