F-15C also gets rumored for the scrap yard.....

[MigBuster 2,861]

WASHINGTON — Faced with steep budget cuts and the desire to keep existing procurement initiatives on track, the US Air Force is considering scrapping its entire fleet of KC-10 tankers and A-10 attack jets, according to multiple military and defense sources.

Also on the chopping block are F-15C fighter jets and a planned $6.8 billion purchase of new combat search-and-rescue helicopters, these sources say.

While these proposals are far from final, the options show the magnitude of the decisions facing Air Force leadership as the service wrestles with the prospect of cutting billions of dollars in planned spending over the next decade.

“You only gain major savings if you cut an entire fleet,” Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, told sister publication Air Force Times last week. “You can cut aircraft from a fleet, but you save a lot more money if you cut all the infrastructure that supports the fleet.”

When directly asked about phasing out the A-10 fleet, Welsh declined to comment on specific aircraft.

“We are looking at every platform we have, every one of those five core missions and trying to decide where must we recapitalize versus where can we modernize,” Welsh said.

The Air Force’s 2015 spending plan is due to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) by Sept. 23.

Each US military service is developing two budgets for 2015 — one that includes sequestration spending cuts and another that builds on the Pentagon’s 2014 budget proposal, which is $52 billion above the sequestration cap.

OSD must approve the services’ budget proposals during a series of back-and-forth deliberations in the coming months before a final spending plan is sent to lawmakers in February.

In an emailed statement, Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said no decisions have been finalized.

“As the Air Force plans for a future with sequestration, we are looking at all options to accomplish our mission within available resources,” Stefanek said. “At this time, all options being considered are pre-decisional.”

Deep Cuts

The four-month-long Strategic Choices and Management Review — a DoD effort that looked at ways the Pentagon might have to modify its military strategy due to budget cuts — found the Air Force could cut up to five tactical aircraft squadrons, DoD announced in July.

The proposed aircraft cuts, particularly the 340-aircraft A-10 fleet, are sure to face scrutiny in Congress. About half of the A-10 fleet resides in the Air National Guard. An Air Force proposal to cut five A-10 squadrons last year faced stiff opposition in Congress and from state governors.

The Air Force Reserve also operates A-10s, which were heavily used to provide support to ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. A-10s also are based in South Korea.

Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s.

The Air Force operates 59 KC-10s, according to a service fact sheet. The tri-jet, which is based on the commercial McDonnell Douglas DC-10 jetliner, is the workhorse of the Air Force aerial refueling fleet.

The tankers — equipped with both boom and hose-and-drogue refueling systems — can refuel Air Force, Navy and international military aircraft on a single sortie.

Also on the table is an unspecified number of cuts to the Boeing F-15C Eagle fleet. The Air Force has about 250 of the fighter jets, which, along with the F-22 Raptor, make up the service’s air-to-air fighter arsenal.

Pentagon leaders for several years have said they would like to get rid of single-mission platforms.

An Air Force plan to cut the A-10 doesn’t come as a surprise, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Virginia-based Teal Group. He said the active service has been trying to kill off the platform for years. But while congressional pressure has saved the planes in the past, budget realities may make cuts realistic for the first time.

“These are strange and dangerous times budgetarily, which means the Air Force might finally get their way,” Aboulafia said. He pointed out that the A-10 is not particularly useful for either counterinsurgency actions or for the so-called pivot to Asia, leaving the platform strategically on the outside looking in.

“If there were any plans to fight a land war, this would not be good news. But everything about the budget implies they have stepped away from land wars,” he said. “It’s a good way for the Air Force to save cash and declare victory in a turf war.”

Conversely, Aboulafia calls the potential KC-10 cuts “a baffler,” citing the relatively young age of the aircraft and its importance for movement across the Pacific. He speculated that including the KC-10 may be the Air Force attempting to drive home the impact of sequestration and budget cuts, as the program still provides a number of jobs that members of Congress would want to protect.

Retiring the F-15C would save maintenance and upgrade costs, Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Research and a former USAF official, said. The service could then use those funds to speed procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

“It’s a gutsy move assuming a lot of risk, but there’s risk to all these scenarios,” Grant said. “It may be there is less risk retiring the F-15C right now than there is in getting the fleet we need some years down the road.”

Air Force leaders are still locked in a passionate debate over whether to move aircraft and personnel into the Guard and reserve. Advocates for this move say the savings achieved could allow the Air Force to keep aircraft in the inventory.

New Rescue Helos Still in Limbo

While the Air Force sequestration budget proposal cancels the Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program, a separate 2015 budget proposal — the one that builds on the Pentagon’s 2014 budget plan — funds the effort, sources said.

Sikorsky is the only company to publicly announce a bid in the CRH program. A contract award was expected this month, but has been pushed to the first quarter of fiscal 2014, which begins Oct. 1.

If CRH is canceled, the service could coast with its inventory of HH-60 Pave Hawks, perhaps with limited procurement to replace losses. Grant, however, cautions that could be a mistake.

“The Air Force needs [CRH], but it wouldn’t surprise me to see it flip,” Grant said. “We’ve taken risk in the helicopter fleet for close to a decade now, and it’s time to take the risk somewhere else. They need to get that one done.”

While many factors can change over the next five months of budget deliberations, the decision to abandon the service’s one-time No. 2 acquisition program shows the desire of Air Force leaders to protect procurement programs already in production or of higher priority, sources said.

The Air Force brass wants to continue funding Boeing KC-46A refueling tankers, Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighters and development of a new long-range bomber.

Pentagon officials do not want to break the fixed-price tanker contract that requires Boeing to pay for development or production hiccups. The bomber is a key component in the Pentagon’s long-term, Pacific-focused strategy, and the F-35 is the only fifth-generation US combat fighter aircraft in production.

In the end, Congress will have the final say. Lawmakers were less than thrilled with the Air Force’s 2014 budget proposal, reversing several big-ticket items.

 

 

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004/USAF-Weighs-Scrapping-KC-10-10-Fleets

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

M what I dont understand is the point about the A-10, how can such a jet can`t be the best platform to counter insurgency forces? The F-15C is alot cost intensive to maintain than a current F-16. Sad to see so much birds heading to the scrapyard... F-4,F-111,F-117,F-14 now the F-15...

[MigBuster 2,861]

I think the F-15E will be a round a while for the USAF - and plenty of F-15s still in service around the world.

 

 

The A-10 debate rages on - thing is they have only just been upgraded!

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

It`s one of the best ground pounders in aviation history, comparable with the old il2, but that happen earlier in the USAF. They upgraded a whole fleet with new systems and put the planes to the boneyard, can`t remember what plane it was

[MigBuster 2,861]

It`s one of the best ground pounders in aviation history, comparable with the old il2, but that happen earlier in the USAF. They upgraded a whole fleet with new systems and put the planes to the boneyard, can`t remember what plane it was

 

hmm wonder what that was A-6/7? end of cold war budget perhaps?

 

Its still a better policy than the UK - here we upgrade them then scrap them before even flying them. (See Nimrod MR4)

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

& Phantoms, SLEP'd then scrapped to make way for Tornado F.3's. Theres plenty of F-4's still flying today so it stands to reason that with another updrade or two our F-4's could have easily served another 10-15 years. Then theres the Harriers, paint was still drying on the Gr.9's when they canned them.

 

Craig

[Vampyre 24]

 The Army recognizes the need for an in close CAS/Anti-tank capability that the Air Force seems to always want to get away from. It sounds like more of the same from the Air Force brass. The fact is that the A-10 is a highly effective ground attack aircraft. I think the Air Force needs to just give the A-10 to the Army if they don't want to support the Army properly.

[PFunk 198]

I hope the Army gets those old Warthogs.  They're still very useful birds, awfully shortsighted to axe them.

 

The F-15C, on the other hand, is getting dangerous to fly and doesn't function really well on the modern battlefield unless it has ECM support on a biblical scale.  Beautiful?  Yes.  Iconic?  Certainly.  Worth still trying to bootstrap into the future?  Probably not.

 

Hopefully, our forces won't be deployed so much that a smaller force will suffice for our needs.

Edited September 17, 2013 by PFunk

[bucklehead101 29]

If the AF cans the F-15C, what airframe will take over the air defense mission? The eagles at PANG here in Oregon are the only unit to provide this mission in the NW. If I recall correctly, they just got an upgrade to allow them to track and shoot down cruise missiles.

 

Point is, there aint enough F-22s around to fill the void left behind if F-15C gets retired. The F-35 it seems is just a sponge soaking up more and more money to add features that should have been on the design in the first place.

[PFunk 198]

Yeah, that's the rub.  What replaces it?   We didn't get enough Raptors to really take over the role.

 

Personally, I think we need to CILOP the F-16 to Block 60/62 version and then buy a bunch of Silent Eagles.

[B52STRATO 215]

Personally, I think we need to CILOP the F-16 to Block 60/62 version and then buy a bunch of Silent Eagles.

 

Could be a solution, however, the "mutirole" parasite continued to grow, feeding on its host the budget and still giving birth to a race of aircrafts average everywhere, but nowhere excellent.

[Vampyre 24]

Yeah, that's the rub.  What replaces it?   We didn't get enough Raptors to really take over the role.

 

Personally, I think we need to CILOP the F-16 to Block 60/62 version and then buy a bunch of Silent Eagles.

 If things are really as bad as the authors of the sequester are leading us to believe then perhaps they should give the Raptors to the ANG for Air Defense Duties and get rid of the Albino Eagles altogether. They could axe the C-5's, B-52's and B-1B's as well as the block 42 and older F-16's as well. They could also get rid of the KC-135's and accellerate the acquisition of the KC-46 as well. They could also finally make a decision to kill either the U-2S or RQ-4. It has already been proven that you cannot do more with less. You can only do less with less. Better yet, how about getting rid of the service altogether... it's almost a hollow force already. Just divide the assets between the Army and Navy. Tactical and battlefield assets to the Army and Strategic and Air Defense assets to the Navy. I'm just thinking out loud here but I think this scenario will be plausable in a few more years.

[bucklehead101 29]

I don't think the AF will merge with the Army. Multirole has been done in the venerable F-4 Phantom II (Air to Ground, Air to Air, Air Defense, Recon, Air Defense Suppression) but it was a large enough airframe that they could do all that with it. At the same time however, the AF also had particular aircraft that did those roles as their single purpose.

 

If the AF see's that unmanned stealth drones are the future, then why pump money into the F-35? Why not get rid of this plane which is costing more than its worth, invest in upgraded F-16s and the Silent Eagle type and put out a competition for an unmanned stealth fighter/attack aircraft developed on the company's own dime.

[Nesher 629]

don't know if it's the AF way to cause fear in congress by it could do the trick

no way that the F-15s, A-10s and KC-10s could be canned at this time

they still have enough time to keep doing their jobs in the air and the F-35 is not ready yet and the F-22 numbers are not enough to replace the F-15s entirely

hope this plan will be canned and not the jets :)

[macelena 1,070]

F-15Cs are kind off obsolescent by modern standards. Sure, they can still kick ass, but with budget troubles, it is not worth to keep a second line fighter (wich it is since the Raptors toke over) wich cannot be used for mud pounding, when not even the Raptors have found use yet. Yes, i agree that it may be hindsight to some extents, but i don´t think they are worth the spending in the current economic and military situation. Other aircraft can cover the gap and still be more useful. 

 

About the A-10, despite all the drones and PGMs, i think it is quite worth keeping. You might say that the same reasoning above applies, but right now, the mission they perform is more critical than that performed by the F-15Cs. You can attach AMRAAMs to an F-16, or make do with few Raptors, but you can´t find something that covers the role of the A-10 as it is needed

[Vampyre 24]

F-15Cs are kind off obsolescent by modern standards. Sure, they can still kick ass, but with budget troubles, it is not worth to keep a second line fighter (wich it is since the Raptors toke over) wich cannot be used for mud pounding, when not even the Raptors have found use yet. Yes, i agree that it may be hindsight to some extents, but i don´t think they are worth the spending in the current economic and military situation. Other aircraft can cover the gap and still be more useful. 

 

About the A-10, despite all the drones and PGMs, i think it is quite worth keeping. You might say that the same reasoning above applies, but right now, the mission they perform is more critical than that performed by the F-15Cs. You can attach AMRAAMs to an F-16, or make do with few Raptors, but you can´t find something that covers the role of the A-10 as it is needed

  The F-15C is ready to put out to pasture. Unfortunatly we did not build enough of its replacement to cover all of the current taskings and the F-35 is proving to be far more expensive then the Raptor per unit... oddly enough. Its too bad they mismanaged their CSAR replacement as badly as they have as well. They could have had a better CSAR platform in operational testing or even in service right now had it not been bungled so badly.

 I also think the A-10 needs to be put back into production a well. They should build the A-10C and A-10B as well. A two seat A-10 would be very useful for FAC-A and weapons system/tactical control especially considering the new requirements for tactical drone control that could be better handled by a dedicated on scene airborne operator.

[JediMaster 451]

It's money and politics.

 

These are only semi-serious military decisions about what capabilities can be sustained and what must be dumped. The rest is just political jockeying to try and force Congress to actually DO something for once instead of bicker and blame everyone but themselves.

 

The answer to "what will replace X" is "nothing". So when Congress asks "well what happens if we need X?" they can say "I dunno, maybe we can find something somewhere to do it, possibly" and shrug. I said the same thing Gen Welsh was quoted to say weeks ago when the A-10 proposal was first announced. It's far more cost effective to eliminate all the A-10s than to take out SOME A-10s and SOME F-15Cs and SOME B-1Bs...

[Vampyre 24]

It's money and politics.

 

These are only semi-serious military decisions about what capabilities can be sustained and what must be dumped. The rest is just political jockeying to try and force Congress to actually DO something for once instead of bicker and blame everyone but themselves.

 

  And that my friend is the problem. The Constitution of the United States says that one of the primary jobs of the government is to provide for the common defense. I think government officials are more interested in re-election campaigns and partisan politics than in actually running the country how it should be run. Unfortunately the government has taken over a lot of other things that are better administered to by the states and have added a plethora of social programs of dubious worth. Those programs are sucking an inordinate amount of resources away from necessary tasks for wasteful causes that have no benefit for the common good. The American people have decided to vote themselves more money through these programs at the cost of national prestige and the common defense. We need term limits for our Congress, Senate and Supreme Court officials. Just get rid of the elitiest career politicians, and a lot of our issues will disappear so we can get people in there who really care about the common good and are willing to take responsibility. Oh, and yes, it would be nice if the buck stopped somewhere.

 

Of course it is fun to speculate on what will go where capability wise. We do need new A-10's though. You can't zero hour a 30 year old airframe with a simple upgrade. It is funny the B-52 and C-5 were not mentioned in the article.

[hotrodss 0]

  And that my friend is the problem. The Constitution of the United States says that one of the primary jobs of the government is to provide for the common defense. I think government officials are more interested in re-election campaigns and partisan politics than in actually running the country how it should be run. Unfortunately the government has taken over a lot of other things that are better administered to by the states and have added a plethora of social programs of dubious worth. Those programs are sucking an inordinate amount of resources away from necessary tasks for wasteful causes that have no benefit for the common good. The American people have decided to vote themselves more money through these programs at the cost of national prestige and the common defense. We need term limits for our Congress, Senate and Supreme Court officials. Just get rid of the elitiest career politicians, and a lot of our issues will disappear so we can get people in there who really care about the common good and are willing to take responsibility. Oh, and yes, it would be nice if the buck stopped somewhere.

 

Of course it is fun to speculate on what will go where capability wise. We do need new A-10's though. You can't zero hour a 30 year old airframe with a simple upgrade. It is funny the B-52 and C-5 were not mentioned in the article.

 

 

YES!! We DO NEED term limits for ALL politicians AND fresh ideas to get us moving foward!

[PFunk 198]

Term limits are not enough.  We need jail time.

[+Brain32 265]

F-15Cs are kind off obsolescent by modern standards. 

 

Actually I just don't see that as feasible fact, I think it's more of a politics/budget problem...

[exhausted 55]

Congress has to work for American's interest. If they make us vulnerable to foreign, or domestic enemies then they are no friends of mine.

[bucklehead101 29]

I think I understand where some of you are coming with by saying the F-15C is old and outdated. However, what other mass produced fighter can honestly defeat the eagle in air to air? The physical airframe may be tired, but the design itself is still, in my opinion, competitive.