Air Force Fleet Decisions

kyleb

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
7,525
Location
Marietta, GA
Display Name

Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
What's the logic behind the USAF's airframe inventory plan? They are proposing retirement, actively retiring, or cutting purchases on the following airframes, with little or no replacement hardware coming on line:

1) The E-3 AWACS. Basically, they have proposed retiring half the fleet next year with a replacement starting to come on-line in about 5 years.
2) They are planning to retire 4 of their 16 JSTARS this year (2022).
3) The F-22. They are proposing to retire 30ish of the 170 airframes because they are too costly to modernize. I'm sure the next silver bullet fighter will be much less expensive. <snort>
4) They proposed building >200 new F-15EX's to replace aging F-15C's and D's with the possibility of a follow-on order to begin replacing the F-15E's. Now they are considering reducing the buy to <100 aircraft. Not sure what tactical asset is gonna reach out over 300 miles without tanker support if they don't have the F-15 or a derivative in the field.
5) They have already <recently> reduced the B-1 fleet and the A-10 fleet.

Is all of this to buy F-35's and B-21's? What's the interim plan when all these older airframes are in the boneyard and the new stuff isn't online?

What are they planning to do for airspace management (E-3) and battlefield management (JSTARS) in the interim while they wait on whatever comes next?

It really feels like they are cutting their own throat in the interim before the B-21 comes online and before the block 4 F-35's are fielded. I can't see either of those programs being produced in the quantities the AF is talking about today.

It is baffling to me unless there are stacks of magic UAV's sitting in restricted access areas all over the world.
 
Logically, fleet decisions can be anywhere from really complex to really political. Everything really comes down to what Congress is willing to fund.

Also, there’s a ton of parochialism going on. Even before I retired (2016), there was very little added value the E-3 or E-8 brought as a platform due to advances in certain technologies. Can’t drop a bomb, refuel another plane, or do even tac airlift from either one, either. Historically in between war fighting events, C2 platforms languish for all those reasons. The E-8 is worse because neither the AF nor the Army really want it.

The F-15/F-22 debate has been around since as far back as 2004 when the effort was known as the Golden Eagle program and comes down to the fact that you can still get a new production airframe off the assembly line but you can’t get an F-22 airframe without $10B just to start the assembly line up again.
 
I never understood why the F-22 production was capped. It appears to be the finest Gen 5 fighter plane in the world. Also found it interesting the USA would not allow export sales, even to our best friends.
 
I never understood why the F-22 production was capped. It appears to be the finest Gen 5 fighter plane in the world. Also found it interesting the USA would not allow export sales, even to our best friends.

Money. We were in the middle of the peace dividend. Russia was neutered. China wasn't recognized as a threat. So we didn't need the -22.

Or maybe we did...

I would argue that we needed an enlarged F-22 with longer range that didn't put as much emphasis on close-in dogfighting.
 
I read recently that we haven't purchased any Stingers in the last 18 years and Raytheon is working to get the line cranked up. If there isn't a replacement, are we just not interested in shoulder launched SAM's?
 
Probably have warehouses full of them. Didn’t we just ship something like 18,000 of them to the Ukraine?
 
I work for the Defense Logistics Agency. There's no single simple answer but at the 100,000 ft level it boils down to a combination of money, politics, and mission requirements. All the Services, not just the USAF are in a logistics, maintenance, and aquisition dilemma that's been exacerbated by an incredibly high opstempo that the Service's budgets and force structure were never designed to support. In many instances we're playing a hand in a card game that wasn't invented when the hand was dealt.
 
I'll admit my bias up front on this, but the AF should really consider the E-2D to replace the E-3. Much smaller crew. Much more capability. Service inoperability. Turboprop efficiency. Plus you change your own radio frequencies without the O-6 approval. The Hawkeye does have its limitations, but the upside is pretty nice. The E-7 is an upgrade on the E-3, but not by much.
 
I work for the Defense Logistics Agency. There's no single simple answer but at the 100,000 ft level it boils down to a combination of money, politics, and mission requirements. All the Services, not just the USAF are in a logistics, maintenance, and aquisition dilemma that's been exacerbated by an incredibly high opstempo that the Service's budgets and force structure were never designed to support. In many instances we're playing a hand in a card game that wasn't invented when the hand was dealt.
DLA (AKA DELAY) Where initiative and accountability go to die.
 
I'll admit my bias up front on this, but the AF should really consider the E-2D to replace the E-3. Much smaller crew. Much more capability. Service inoperability. Turboprop efficiency. Plus you change your own radio frequencies without the O-6 approval. The Hawkeye does have its limitations, but the upside is pretty nice. The E-7 is an upgrade on the E-3, but not by much.

more capability? with a smaller antenna? with fewer eyes? um, I think the physics don't support the more capability claim. Of course, we really can't get into an in-depth discussion of capabilities.
 
I am a DOD aviation customer. Please don’t take it personally.

I'm not, but you chucked a spear from cover. DLA has its worts no doubt, but the Services aren't any better -- I'm retired USAF BTW. My office is in HQ CENTCOM and the HQ Staff and the CENTCOM Service components have their days too. ARCENT and 1 TSC aren't on my Christmas Card list for sure.
 
What's the logic behind the USAF's airframe inventory plan? ...

very little logic and mucho mucho mucho politics. There has been a game between the DoD and congress critters... knowing that certain congress critters will support a particular airframe, say the C-130J, the DoD proposes cuts (or insufficient support) of the 130J and sure enough congress adds money for those planes. The game goes back and forth from both sides.

Certain airframes are more like the red-headed child for services. The USAF isn't particularly enamored with non-sexy airplanes like AWACS and JSTARS (but will suddenly become enraged if the Army tries to take JSTARS).

And then there are the platform contractors. Boeing doesn't like Northrup Grumman who doesn't like Boeing who doesn't like... Everyone thinks their platform is the greatest thing since sliced peanut butter.

and so on.

It's pretty hard to get the DoD to create an overall plan and strategy/approach... especially when no one has really defined the military's mission.

did I mention the politics?
 
I'm not, but you chucked a spear from cover. DLA has its worts no doubt, but the Services aren't any better -- I'm retired USAF BTW. I work at HQ CENTCOM and the HQ Staff and the CENTCOM Service components have their days too. ARCENT and 1 TSC aren't on my Christmas Card list for sure.
I’m not in management. I’m just an engineer in the trenches. So our perspectives are different. I wait up to six months for common materials that I could buy on Amazon. I have waited so long for material that when it finally shows up I forgot that I ordered it. I have bought material with my own money at the local ACE hardware store because we needed it now. I could go on. Warts indeed. I am old enough to of worked pre-DLA and the difference is astonishing and not for the good. I’m just glad DLA doesn’t run our local hospital.
 
Last edited:
The F-15/F-22 debate has been around since as far back as 2004 …

The challenge here is that they are planning (or talking about) reducing the fleet size of both platforms. It isn’t an either/or conversation, it is a “less of both” conversation.
 
I’m not in management. I’m just an engineer in the trenches. So our perspectives are different. I wait up to six months for common materials that I could buy on Amazon. I have waited so long for material that when it finally shows up I forgot that I ordered it. I have bought material with my own money at the local ACE hardware store because we needed it now. I could go on. Warts indeed. I’m just glad DLA doesn’t run our local hospital

Do you have to go through DLA? Units and the Services do local purchase all the time both CONUS and OCONUS for common items/commodities that DLA can supply but nothing forces them to use DLA. Contracting and/or acquisition rules (that aren't written by DLA) can certainly goon up the works. DLA's bureaucracy certainly can have a negative impact, although it's pretty responsive downrange, insofar as support to CENTCOM is concerned. So in the end its definitely a mixed bag, and I get that your perception is going to be negative if you can't get support even if DLA is handing 99% of our other customers without issue.
 
Having spent almost 45 years in the USAF Development area on both sides of the fence, I still have zero clue how Force Structure decisions are made. I always felt it’s up to the operators and Fort Fumble to issue direction and me to execute. I dealt with the real world and they lived the Twilight Zone. To each their own.

Cheers
 
I don't know why we don't scrap the expensive stuff and build a whole bunch of something cheap and hit them like a swarm of angry Hornets (pun intended).
 
I don't know why we don't scrap the expensive stuff and build a whole bunch of something cheap and hit them like a swarm of angry Hornets (pun intended).

Because citizens like to see all the F-117’s coming home from Baghdad, as opposed to F-105’s being scattered across North Vietnam. We’d rather pay more and take fewer casualties.
 
Do you have to go through DLA? Units and the Services do local purchase all the time both CONUS and OCONUS for common items/commodities that DLA can supply but nothing forces them to use DLA. Contracting and/or acquisition rules (that aren't written by DLA) can certainly goon up the works. DLA's bureaucracy certainly can have a negative impact, although it's pretty responsive downrange, insofar as support to CENTCOM is concerned. So in the end its definitely a mixed bag, and I get that your perception is going to be negative if you can't get support even if DLA is handing 99% of our other customers without issue.
Suffice to say, and again don’t take this personally, if we didn’t have to use DLA we wouldn’t. Does your part of the organization get an hour after lunch for naptime? Because our local DLA contingent does. When I was first told that I thought was a joke. We have been told that DLA internal metrics are 85% completion is deemed fully successful. my question to them is which 15% of the aircraft can we do without?
And who writes your vendor contracts? I’d like to meet them, in a dark alley.
 
Last edited:
Suffice to say, and again don’t take this personally, if we didn’t have to use DLA we wouldn’t. Does your part of the organization get an hour after lunch for naptime? Because our local DLA contingent does. When I was first told that I thought was a joke. We have been told that DLA internal metrics are 85% completion is deemed fully successful. my question to them is which 15% of the aircraft can we do without?
And who writes your vendor contracts? I’d like to meet them, in a dark alley.

No, of course not. Can't speak to MA rates -- not my lane as I'm a CCMD log planner and don't work in any of the supply chains. What base, what's the DLA office, and what aircraft series? There's a ton more that goes into aircraft fleet readiness than DLA managed parts. There could be issues that you have zero vis on both on DLA and on the Service side. I get you're frustrated, but I don't have much to go on other than your detailess side of the story. Lets not hash this out here on POA -- contact me at todd.stovall@dla.mil, give me some details and I'll try and get someone involved that can help.
 
more capability? …
Without going into details the Hawkeye 2000/E-2D uses a different frequency band for the RADAR. Detection range is a matter of effective radiated power, listening time, and signal to noise processing.

As someone with a few thousand hours in the E-3 as a mission crew instructor and flight examiner and spent a career up until 2016 in Air Force command and control, you’d be hard pressed to convince me a manned Air Force airborne sensor or C2 platform is anything other than a leftover legacy mindset, for a lot of reasons, one of which is the entire concept of a High Value Airborne Asset in a contested operational environment which is what the current National Military Strategy says to do.

Had big blue not, in a fit of guilt, rated the mission crew AFSC and instead just combined them into the Panel Nav/WSO 12XX career field as the Navy does with NFOs, we probably wouldn’t even be having this conversation as the 1300 or so 13Bs wouldn’t be effectively out of aerial platforms and therefore be a dead career field when the E-3 and E-8s die. Instead, they would just be mixed in to the larger AF needs for rated non-pilot aviators and the ground based C2 people would have had am entirely different path to go down, but I digress.

Bottom line is congrats to the AF for making a tough decision to divest itself of these two fog of war generators. Now let’s see if they have to gall to do what needs to be done with the force structure.
 
The challenge here is that they are planning (or talking about) reducing the fleet size of both platforms. It isn’t an either/or conversation, it is a “less of both” conversation.

That’s a function of money that Congress authorized to be spent and how that number is used in the extrapolation formula for out-year planning and contract cost, which can be impacted by inflation.
 
Without going into details the Hawkeye 2000/E-2D uses a different frequency band for the RADAR. Detection range is a matter of effective radiated power, listening time, and signal to noise processing. ...

Having worked the engineering of various sensors, I know more than a little about how sensors work and such. But sometimes, size really does matter (especially size relative to wavelength)

Having retired 5 years ago, I'm certainly not current on the 5 and 10 year plans for these sensor platforms...
 
One only needs to look at the Marine Corps mission realignment proposal Force Design 2030 basically getting rid of all aviation…then again something they don't do very well…can’t comment on any other platforms but the Party in power seems to drive as much of this rather than mission necessity.
 
Every service has its questionable aircraft fleet decisions. Army probably being the worst. RAH-66, great idea but no money for it. ARH-70, a Bell 407 on crack but not a worthy successor to the OH-58D. OH-58F, well might as well just keep the OH-58D. After 10 years of no dedicated recon helicopter platform the Army decides, well I guess we do need a recon helicopter (FARA). Unbelievable. Don’t even get me started on the UH-72 and the C-27 fiascos.
 
Having worked the engineering of various sensors, I know more than a little about how sensors work and such. But sometimes, size really does matter (especially size relative to wavelength)

Having retired 5 years ago, I'm certainly not current on the 5 and 10 year plans for these sensor platforms...

I just know the radar math, I don’t engineer it, but I’m fairly certain the APY-9 operates in an entirely different band than the APY-2/3 which also plays a factor in determining optimal antenna size. What I do know is that with unclassified numbers, the sensors are equivalent enough in performance to do the job.

I’d argue the Navy has a much better case for a manned airborne sensor/C2 platform than the AF does.
 
I’d argue the Navy has a much better case for a manned airborne sensor/C2 platform than the AF does.

It depends on where you need to have airborne surveillance, doesn't it? Fixed ground-based sensors are great... until taken out or are too far away from the fight.
 
It depends on where you need to have airborne surveillance, doesn't it? Fixed ground-based sensors are great... until taken out or are too far away from the fight.

Where a sensor is required is half the equation. The other half is whether that sensor needs to be manned or not. This doesn’t even get to the discussion of whether fused data is suitable nor the ultimate question of what mission is actually being performed.
 
Where a sensor is required is half the equation. The other half is whether that sensor needs to be manned or not. This doesn’t even get to the discussion of whether fused data is suitable nor the ultimate question of what mission is actually being performed.

As I was typing my question I knew I wasn't addressing drones, etc.

I'll nitpick and say where a sensor is required is only part of the equation. A *lot* of other factors apply.

and I think we are in complete agreement that the mission objectives are key. ...instead of being slaved to one platform/service or another.... annnnnnnnd we circle back to the politics of the decision making process (being kind....)
 
As I was typing my question I knew I wasn't addressing drones, etc.

I'll nitpick and say where a sensor is required is only part of the equation. A *lot* of other factors apply….
Where big AF is lost and confused is trying to figure out whether a sensor is required to perform command and control operations (AOC has zero sensors…) and whether or not a fighter pilot doing C2 is better than a fighter WSO doing C2 who’s better than a 13B doing C2. The answer, since as far back as the beginnings of the Theater Air Control System and codified as NORAD became a thing has been the 11F>12F>13B.
 
One only needs to look at the Marine Corps mission realignment proposal Force Design 2030 basically getting rid of all aviation…then again something they don't do very well…can’t comment on any other platforms but the Party in power seems to drive as much of this rather than mission necessity.

You might want to go back and reread that document. There are aviation reductions which are relative to overall size reductions and changes with the elimination of artillery and the support and lift needed. Nothing at all about basically eliminating aviation. F35 squardrons will reduce to 10 aircraft each verses 12 uses for F18 squardrons but aligns with the norm for shipboard deployments.
 
Back
Top