This article first appeared in AviationWeek.com.
“All options are on the table” for U.S. Air Guard officials struggling to fill a gap in the number of fighters available for units in the near term to fly missions protecting the homeland, says Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt, director of the Air National Guard (ANG).
“I am basically platform agnostic,” Wyatt says. “I don’t care.“
This could include stealth aircraft — more F-22s or earlier fielding of F-35s — or the purchase of older, fourth-generation aircraft such as F-16s or F-15s. Technologies needed for the mission include an active, electronically scanned array radar (which can be used to detect small and stealthy air threats including cruise missiles), infrared search and track systems and beyond-line-of-sight communications, Wyatt told reporters during a Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington this morning.
Congress appears amenable to the president’s request to close Lockheed Martin’s F-22 production line in fiscal 2010, capping the buy at 187 of the twin-engine fighter. Most observers expect the testing and delivery schedule for the single-engine F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to experience slips, possibly widening the gap for receipt of the new aircraft. F-35s aren’t due to the Guard until the middle of the next decade, he says.
Many of the 250 fighters being retired early in FY 10 are F-16s assigned to the Guard, and many of them are apportioned to the air sovereignty alert (ASA) mission. Some of those units will lack a flying mission until the F-35 is introduced into the fleet.
The U.S. Air Force has historically professed a preference to buy only fifth-generation fighters (F-22 or F-35), closing the door to additional procurements of the Lockheed Martin F-16 and Boeing F-15.
While Wyatt says he’s open to all options, he says “If you can get stealth [in the F-22 or F-35] at the same price, why not?” The general is not in favor of buying a particular aircraft and dedicating it to the ASA mission; he says the Guard should operate the same platforms as active duty units in order to handle the same missions as their active duty counterparts. Still, however, he says the Air Force is not “there yet” in terms of considering a buy of fourth-generation fighters to fill the gap.
Wyatt says he was incorrectly characterized as an advocate of additional F-22s after sending a June 19 letter in response to an inquiry on the issue from Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). F-22s are assembled in Marietta, Ga.
“While a variety of solutions abound, I believe the nature of the current and future asymmetric threat to our nation, particularly from seaborne cruise missiles, requires a fighter platform with the requisite speed and detection to address them,” Wyatt wrote in his letter. “The F-22’s unique capability in this arena enables it to handle a full spectrum of threats that the ANG’s current legacy systems are not capable of addressing.”
Read the rest of this story, jump into the controversy over Col. Reese’s memo to declare victory and bail, see the new armed Lakotas and check out the Jordanian Falcons from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t get it. Didn’t I just read over at StrategyPage.com that we have a bunch of slightly used F-16s left over from the Cold War sitting in the desert waiting to be sold to foreign countries? Why not upgrade enough of them to fill the gap until the F-35 arrives in enough numbers to pass on to the Guard?
Now, I know the Guard would rather have 5th gen fighters, but…
The F-16 version that is being offered to India is extremelly capable with reduced radar signature and AESA, at the same time is withing budget.
Asymmetric threat? Gimme a break. The good general seriously thinks I am going to buy the notion that we are going to secure America’s coastline from an asymmetric cruise missile launch with even 5000 new planes? What a load of phooey. Some scow sitting off the coast is going to be able to pop something like that off and we could have the Death Star and not intercept it.
I agree, we have enough air frames sitting in storage that keeping the current #s flying is not a big deal. It is about money. It is about fighter jocks wanting their new toys to carry out missions that aren’t going to happen. They can’t have their shiny new F22 with the arguments they’ve tried to pose, like huge air battles of the Straits of Taiwan with China, so now we are talking about Dr. Evil launching cruise missiles of the coast of NY from his super yacht. Nonsense.
The Air Force is going to continue do what they are already in the process of doing, and that is continue to give service life extensions on all existing legacy aircraft, until F-35 is ready. Hopefully, no one will get killed while they wait through likely F-35 program delays.
I am confused about the seaborne cruise missile reference. How are fighter jets supposed to stop that? Do we really plan to shoot down cruise missiles with fighter jets?
I’m not being sarcastic. I honestly don’t understand. I thought we used big ship and land based radar with anti-missile missiles to deal with that threat.
Do the fighters fly ahead and give an early radar warning? That makes sense. Do the fighters actually shoot down the cruise missile?
Low level targets like CMs are very hard to detect. The best way to deal with this is a AWACS / F22 combination.
The AWACS vectors in the fighters who take out the CMs. a ship or shore based radar has a much closer horizon so it just cant see as far.
The F-22 is best for the job because of its ability to super-cruse (in order to catch the darn thing) and advanced radar (all the better to see you with)
Another fighter can do this role but not as well. Ideally an interecptor aircraft like a Mig-31 or F-14 would be used but the closest thing we have is a 22 or 15.
Good Evening Christian and all,
The issue of the F-22 is over, 187 and that’s it, no mo’. Where the F-35′s will go. or even when they will be ready is yet to determined. In the mean time the question should be how many fighter squadrons will the Air Force/Air National Guard need in the future.
If we look at our current advisories and the likely ones into mid century (2050) it would appear that the projected inventories of fighters for both the Navy, Air Force, Marines, Air National Guard and the Navy/Marines Reserve units are far in excess of any foreseeable future needs. By 2050 all the current fighters if even still in the air will be obsolete.
The unmanned X-45 and X-47 are well into and are a head on their developmental curves and time lines and by the middle of the next decade these weapon systems should be ready for deployment into operational squadrons of the air services. Already the AF is having trouble recruiting new fighter pilots because they can’t see a career in the fighter seat any longer.
The rest of the world is reducing fighter development and construction programs. No other country or groups of countries (the European Union) are even at this time do any R&D on a fifth generation fighter. Even the not yet ready for prime time Su. 35′s/Mig 35′s/J13′s are being billed as fifth generation fighters.
Tongue in cheek the Russians/Indians are calling the Su.35, which they are co-developing as Generation 4.5 fighters. The Chines J12′s and J13′s are maybe equilivant to F-15D and F-15E/F’s. None of these countries are planning production anyway near the 1000.s projected for the F-35.
One aspect that is being ignored here is the roll of the short range fighter in light of the U.S. leaving land bases in Europe, Asia, the Pacific defense line and the lack of enemies that have any kind of an air fore at all. Who are these fighter expected to shoot out of the sky if the can’t reach them and they don’t exist?
I think instead of trying to replace aging air frames to fill existing units the DoD should be structuring a future force to deal with what the war planners see as trouble spots into mid century.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Aviation Weeks’s Check 6 podcast was saying that the coming QDR may lower the numbers of tac air that are needed, so maybe Skinner is on to something.
Good Morning Drake 1,
I always enjoy your support on an issue, but one thing that must be kept in mind about the QDR, with in the military it really doesn’t mean sh**.
The QDR’s and Threat Assessments that periodically appear are for public consumption and to build public and media support for pentagon spending on weapons platforms/systems, ie. the Chiefs of Staff, and should be taken as such.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
pfcem
I’m not sure what you are talking about in regards to uninformed on Skinner’s part.
Russia claiming to have some airframe ready for 1st flight is a long way from fielding a legitimate system. It’s even further off to talk about fielding them in any real #s, and we won’t even talk about training and logistics.
In regards to the USAF and it’s claim that SU30s were superior, frankly that was a lot of hot air and they knew it. They were trying to come up with justification for the F22. If you are talking about some of the training scenarios against the Indian air force, you might want to look at the ROEs that were laid out and the scenarios themselves. Bottom line is the US pilots were forced to fly with one hand behind their back and their eyes closed more or less. The scenarios were the worse case of worse case scenarios that are not going to happen.
pfcem
I’m not sure what you are talking about in regards to uninformed on Skinner’s part.
Russia claiming to have some airframe ready for 1st flight is a long way from fielding a legitimate system. It’s even further off to talk about fielding them in any real #s, and we won’t even talk about training and logistics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ditto that, but he calls everyone misinformerd out of hand.
The SUs are likely superior, but many other things factor into whether an airframe is used to its full capability. The resources we have to bear are superior to the Russians, Chinese, and the buyers of these planes.
Furthermore, 2015 seems optimistic given the troubles the Russians are having. By then we will have 187 Raptors (give or take)and a number of F-35s, with better trained pilots, backed up by the full force of the U.S. military machine.
In regards to the USAF and it’s claim that SU30s were superior, frankly that was a lot of hot air and they knew it. They were trying to come up with justification for the F22. If you are talking about some of the training scenarios against the Indian air force, you might want to look at the ROEs that were laid out and the scenarios themselves. Bottom line is the US pilots were forced to fly with one hand behind their back and their eyes closed more or less. The scenarios were the worse case of worse case scenarios that are not going to happen.
Posted by: STemplar at August 2, 2009 11:00 AM
From Posted by: Byron Skinner at July 31, 2009 09:48 PM
”
The rest of the world is reducing fighter development and construction programs. No other country or groups of countries (the European Union) are even at this time do any R&D on a fifth generation fighter. Even the not yet ready for prime time Su. 35′s/Mig 35′s/J13′s are being billed as fifth generation fighters.
”
Quite the opposite is true.
Russia has a 5th generation fighter that is at this very moment being prepared for its 1st flight. China is at this very moment designing/developing its own 5th generation fighter which it expects/hope to have ready for its 1st flight is just a few years.
Su-35′s/Mig 35′s/J13′s are NOT being billed as fifth generation fighters.
And my post made it perfectly clear that they are still some ways off but contrary to Byron Skinner’s BS other nations ARE do much more than just R&D of 5th generation fighters, they actually expect to have them operational some time in the 2010′s.
It was after the last Red Flag where the USAF/DOD aknowledged AGAIN that the Su-30MKI (& later Flanker variants) are superior to US F-15s & F-16s – WELL AFTER the call from above (GATES) to ‘shut up about the F-22, you aren’t getting any more’.
Good Afternoon Folks,
As usual pfcem is out in his never, never land, trying to salvage business for the defense industry. One would think that even his small mind could grasp the concept that the F-22 is dead at 187 planes.
I would suggest that before any more fighter aircraft are bought that instead of engaging in the fanisties that pfcem freely engages in some type of fighter doctrine for the United States Air Force and Navy should be made bases on reality. The purpose of the fighter, interceptor or pursuit aircraft as they called was to either protect bombers or to protect target from bombers so let go on that.
Since the Chinese have no intercontinental bombers it would seem that they pose zero threat.
The Russian by treaty can have about a 100 bombers but in reality have on hand about 75 planes that are air worthy and most (65) of the are old Tu.95 bomber/maritime patrol plane first flown in 1952. This old cold warrior in a demonstration did fire an ALCM in 2008, big deal. Current fighter aircraft the F-15 E/F, F-16D and the F-18E/F are more then capable of dealing with these flying antiques if all 65 came over the North Pole at once.
So where is the need for any new fighters? To say that one fighter can defeat another fighter is a fools argument, with out trying to protect a bomber or a target from enemy bombers why would the ever meet?
The blatant truth is that there is no justification for any fighter aircraft over what we already have.
On to another subject. A couple of weeks ago Chief of staff of the AF Gen. Norton A. Schwartz mentioned that the U.S. now had non kinetic weapon that could defeat radars and air defense systems. Well over on another site I ran across what he was maybe talking about. In 2007 when Iran was putting on their war games to show the world that they were for real, the U.S.A.F. flew a couple of F-16′s along the Iraq/Iran border to tease the Iranians into turning on their Russian S-300PMD ADS, which they did and they went dead. They fired a couple of SAMS, SA 21 Growlers?, toward the F-16, most likely out of frustration and they fell to the ground. End of story.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Byron Skinner,
Good God man.
The ONLY thing I have posted about it this thread is your being uniformed as to there being no other nations working of 5th generation fighters. You are the one in never never land.
The blatant truth is that the most of F-15C fleet should have been replaced already (the YOUNGEST was built in 1986) & the F-16 fleet will before you know it be in as much danger as the F-15C fleet is already.
Sounds to me like they’re perfect candidates as customers for the F-15 Stealth Eagle.
What’s the problem in buying F-16E/F Block 60′s if new airframes are desired? The ANG would have Vipers more capable than the regular USAF.
The problem with new F15/16 buys is that it bites into their budget for buying F35s. Not to mention if they buy more F15/16s they are admitting that the need for the F35s isn’t as pressing. In reality, with the advances in avionics and ever increasing ranges of air to air missiles, coupled with the ever decreasing mission, there probably wouldn’t be anything wrong with new buys at all. It all just gets to the heart of what is really needed.
STemplar,
The question was more rhetorical in nature. I’m far from the biggest F-35 fan and really don’t see much value/$ for it in the ANG.
“I am basically platform agnostic,” Wyatt says. “I don’t care.”
LOL… break out the old A1 Spads! :D
… Hey! They’d be cheap! I don’t think any of them would be airworthy, but they sure as hell would be cheap. ;)
“They fired a couple of SAMS, SA 21 Growlers?, toward the F-16, most likely out of frustration and they fell to the ground. End of story.
It is NOT the end of the story; ECM is here today, gone tomorrow. You never know when it will be countered and become useless.
I agree with your comments, justbill. If the logistic and manufacturing costs are reasonable, it seems much more sensible to add F-16 airframes to the ANG right now.
The point Skinner was trying to make is that we tend to overinflate adversaries capabilities. Despite all the dire warnings about Iranian capability, they really don
Good Evening Folks,
A couple of responses:
DualityOfMan, I agree that we can expect counter measures for counter measures it’s the nature of the beast of war fare. My point was/is simply that the kinetic solution to ADS’s is no longer the solution to the problem. The days of the “Wild Weasel” are part of history now.
STemplar, I think the flaw in your logic is that buying fighters is a zero sum game, it’s not. The Pentagon since WW II has always looked to the next war and it’s planning rather then fighting the war at hand. We did this in Korea, in Vietnam and we are doing it now. The fact that that next war never came bother no one.
The Air Force and Navy need replacement aircraft now not in 2012 or 2015 or 2020. The F-15′s,F-16′s and F-18′s are being worn out. These aircraft are being used everyday and a large chunk of them are nearing the magical 6000 Hours on the airframe. They need to be replaced now.
With what has been happened since 9/11 is the Pentagon doesn’t has lost the luxury of putting most of their resources into planning 10-20 years down the line and spending money on long term development of weapon systems and platforms the as history has shown since WW II will never be used and most will just disappear like the Crusader, Comanche and now the FCS Vehicles. This is causing a lot of pain both to those in uniform, who have made a career of planning how other should die and the arms merchants who want to make bigger, more complex and costly, re profitable weapons.
It has yet to penetrate the minds of the generals that ALL of our expensive ground combat systems have been defeated by weapons who major components can be bought on the internet, toy stores, consumer electronics, stores, the grocery store or a home supply store.
The best tank in the world the M-1A1 Abrams at 63 tons can be sent into the air and landing on it’s turret by less the $20.00 worth of parts from Home Depot/Lowes. Our million dollars a copy MRAP are not, so what do we do, we buy more of the. DoD PO’s of last week to Oshkosh Trucks for 2k more MRAP’s. This thinking is counter productive and is costing lives. In military jargon these people who ordered these MRAP’a have their heads up their arse and they are lock in place.
We need to support the troops in the field now, if we don’t it will be useless planning gold plated uber expensive systems and platform for some fantasy conflict, the game will be over, reality is we can lose the current wars.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Skinner.
I actually agree with you. I’m not saying I agree with witholding funds for now to pay for F35s later. I’m just pointing out that’s why the USAF won’t buy new air frames of existing options. Frankly given realistic scenarios it’s unlikely we’ll need all the capabilites the F22 and F35 have ever, and never in the #s we are buying them. There is plenty we could buy right now that we do need and aren’t. I think we should think outside the box and start to think about fielding options that step outside expectations.
heh, took too long, make that “…TWO posts below.”
sorry STemplar, no offense…
Gentlemen,
A couple of posts have made the incorrect assumption that lower cost = lower profits for a manufacturer. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. No matter if you’re building consumer electronics, plumbing fixtures, automobiles or fighter bombers…lower costs are manufacturer goals. The cheaper you can offer something, the more you will sell. Who does more business every year, Wal Mart or Saks Fifth Avenue? Very few buyers can afford an Aston Martin or F-22. But more customers can handle a Cadillac or F/A-18. And the market gets even bigger for those who can afford a Ford, Su-27 or rebuilt F-16.
I get the economies of scale argument, however, we don’t need thousands of COIN aircraft, and we don’t need thousands of new fast movers. We have too much of not the right stuff, and not enough of what we need is what it boils down to.
justbill-
You’d be absolutely right if we were talking about a regular market, but this is US defense acquisitions. It’s not like we can pick up 20 F-23s this year because Lockmart couldn’t meet the price on F-22s, and they know it.
I’m not quite as down on the DoD as Skinner is, but I do think the obvious battle between those that want to buy things that we need, and those that want to buy things they think are cool is magnified at this time because we are in conflict.
I’m encouraged when programs like the F22 are curtailed, not killed, but reined in. Although I worry when a cost overrun pig like the LCS continues on. I hope the QDR will instill even more reality, but I worry without an outside unbiased assessment we will end up with a watered down version of more stuff we don’t need.
mike j. wrote:
“You’d be absolutely right if we were talking about a regular market, but this is US defense acquisitions. It’s not like we can pick up 20 F-23s this year because Lockmart couldn’t meet the price on F-22s, and they know it.”
The example you cite is only partially correct. No, we can’t go out and buy some F-23′s instead of -22′s. But that is much more a result of Congressional malfeasance and cozy relationships between the Pentagon and industry than anything to do with the market itself. Both fail in their jobs to get the most bang for the taxpayer’s buck; in holding industry’s feet to the fire with respect to timetables, cost overruns, etc. So let’s look at the ANG-specific scenario germane to this discussion. If Washington did its collective job Lockheed Martin would be informed that if the F-35 isn’t delivered on time and at the previously agreed price of $xx million each, no a/c will be accepted and company officials will be dragged into court for breach of contract. While we’re at it, we’re going to buy upgraded F-15′s from competitor Boeing that will serve the ANG’s needs quite nicely for many years to come.
Byron Skinner,
You have is absolutely backwards. The DOD, for the most part, (I agree completely that their are too many in the DO who should not be there) is quite good at winning wars. It is the civilian leadership’s unwillingness/inability to get out of the way & let the miliraty do what is needs to do to wins wars that has been our undoing.
I especially love you Stalinist idea of getting rid of most/all of the people who are those most likely to actually know how to fight & win a war.
Ar for preventing 9/11, ever hear of the “Gorelick wall”…
justbill-
Agreed. That’s a much more thorough summation than what I had said. It’s all about those defense power games the reform movement has identified. They’ve suggested the solutions, possibly the budget crisis will force that change to happen.
Good Morning Folks,
To pfcem: yea, the uniforms are subordinate to the Civilians in the DoD, Goldwater/Nichols specifically makes the Chairman of the Joint Chief nothing more then an advisor to the Civilian Chain of Command. As we saw with the tenure of Sec. Rumsfeld it’s not mandatory that their advice be taken. In fact General or Admirals like Army General Shenseki the telling of his/her mind was not a good career move. The only successful General were those like Meyers and Pace who got down on their knees in front of Rumsfeld tended to do well in the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld DoD.
Oddly enough, it is hard to find a General or Admiral above Theater Command charged directly with war fighting in the Pentagon.
The service chiefs have been delegated mostly to finding ways to spend money of which has become the main career path into flag ranks and lucrative post service employment deals with defense contractors.
Although I wasn’t thinking of Stalin and the 1939/1940 period and “The Great Patriotic War”, The Soviets did win, didn’t they?
I think Putin’s current plan of “retiring” all 1,100 flag officers by 1012 or 15 and replacing them with only 200 officers that currently are not in the Admiral/General ranks is an easier idea for Americans to accept. Shot ‘em only if they write a book.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Good article to enjoy
http://www.hd-videoconverter.com