HASC refuses to allow F-22 retirement

For the last few years Congress has been grilling the Pentagon on why they aren't prepared to fight China, citing the short range of current fighters among other factors. But every time the Air Force tries to save money, Congress gives them the finger, except on platforms that really matter, like the KC-135 and KC-10. The latest example is the F-22. The Air Force wanted to retire 33 Block 10 F-22s, that are not combat capable and can only be used for pilot training. This would save them roughly $2B, and years of them going through upgrades to make them combat coded. The money that would be saved would go to the NGAD program, and to maintaining the combat coded fleet of F-22s.

They are also blaming the Air Force for capping the fleet at 187 aircraft, and say that they won't allow any retirements until the Air Force can prove that pilot training won't be affected. This means $1.8B and 8 years to bring all 33 Block 10 aircraft to a minimum of Block 30/35 standards.

The Air Force’s plans to divest its oldest 33 F-22 Raptor fighters met with a sharp rebuke from the House Armed Services Committee, which moved instead to mandate the Air Force maintain the full Raptor fleet and upgrade the older planes to the newest configuration in its version of the 2023 National Defense Authorization bill.

USAF sought to retire the early F-22s, currently rated for training use only because they are expensive to maintain and are increasingly mismatched to the combat-coded versions, reducing their value as training platforms. The roughly $1 billion cost to upgrade those jets was not affordable, Air Force officials said.

But the HASC chairman’s mark, released June 20, would not only block plans to retire the aircraft, but would also direct the service to upgrade all its F-22s to at least “Block 30/35 mission systems, sensors, and weapon employment capabilities.”

www.airforcemag.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58
I would admit F/22 raptors are superior jet fighters and quite good in dog fighting.
A bit early for retirement of them.

Even though i do believe that the Chinese might have their own versions of them.

a reply to: vNex92

The 33 in question can’t be used for anything but pilot training, and their value in that role is decreasing with every update to the fleet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well either they airforce has something in the pipe that can replace the F-22 or they don't. If they do then they right call is to retire the 33 in question and spend the 2B buying the new thing. If not then they need to upgrade them and probably add to the fleet honestly.

a reply to: RickyD

NGAD is scheduled to go operational sometime around 2035, which is when the rest of the F-22 fleet would start to be retired. The problem is that they can't retire anything without Congressional approval, and Congress refuses to approve retirements of anything like the F-22s or A-10s, despite the fact that the A-10s won't survive a peer conflict, until defenses are almost wiped out, and these F-22s can't be used in combat, but will retire far more valuable platforms that we desperately need like the KC-10s.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Nasa can’t keep anything on schedule or on budget because of government interference so I guess we can’t expect a better outcome when they play the hands on approach with the military.
Those 33 birds will look beautiful sitting beside the runway though….😜

a reply to: Bluntone22

They'll look awesome sitting on the ramp at Eglin because they're useless for pilot training, or in the hangar at the Depot stripped down to almost bare frame.

a reply to: Zaphod58

They are also blaming the Air Force for capping the fleet at 187 aircraft, and say that they won't allow any retirements until the Air Force can prove that pilot training won't be affected. This means $1.8B and 8 years to bring all 33 Block 10 aircraft to a minimum of Block 30/35 standards.

Refresh my memory, didn't the F-22 program get cancelled back around 2010-12? By congress and the president at the time. It was said that the U.S. could only afford so many aircrafts at what was around (and don't quote me) $100-$300 Million USD per craft.

I agree that the training aircraft, which would likely include the F-22 Raptor Demo Team should go towards the currently used fighters.

I'm not seeing many K-46's as of yet, they are being made. Just saw 2 brand new ones a couple months back headed to New Jersey. Need those refuelers badly to keep up too.

Low battery gotta run. Good to see everyone.

a reply to: Bigburgh

It was capped at 187 in 2010 by Rumsfeld, and approved by Congress. Flyaway cost was in the $140M range, and the argument was that there was nothing even close to its capabilities that would be a threat for a lot of years.

The problem with the training aircraft going toward the current used fighters, is that to do that the Air Force now has to use almost $2B that they could use for other things. And the money that they're having to spend on maintainers, and maintenance on them could be used for other things too. But unless they can prove that pilot training won't suffer, that money has to go to upgrading these aircraft. Congress commented that the NGAD timeline has been pushed, well part of the reason for that is because the Air Force can't get rid of the planes that suck all the money, and can't be used in a near peer conflict (like the A-10, that they're having to upgrade again, in addition to putting new wings on the rest of the ones that haven't), and Congress won't give them the money to build the force that they need to fight in the Pacific.

As for the KC-46, it's capable of refueling 97% of the fleet, but it's a damn joke. They're still delivering them, but they can't be used in the AOR or other areas where they might run into threats until the RVS is fixed. The RVS 2.0 upgrade that is supposed to fix the problems with the refueling cameras is already running into problems on the two aircraft that it's installed on for testing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you for your time. You and others have pointed out these budget and technical issues for as long as I've been here on ATS. Made me really rethink what Poeple say about being 50+ years ahead of the rest of the world. The crunch on time and money to stay ahead seems thin at the moment.

My device is having issues, so I can only pop in sporadically.
Again thank you as always.

a reply to: Bigburgh

We aren't 50+ years ahead. We're ahead still, even without having operational systems, but not having operational systems is largely because we don't put systems operational until they're well tested and we know they work. Contrary to popular belief, operational doesn't mean effective. You can declare something operational after proving it flies, that doesn't mean that the entire system works or will be effective with less than a mass launch. Our material science is ahead of potential near peer opponents, which gives us an edge. But that edge is closing rapidly.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yet another Congressional idiot waste of money. Any extra funds should be devoted to the next generation post F-35 systems, manned and particularly unmanned.

The entire concept of the space will be different in the future and it's time for major new thinking, like the transition from artillery on a battleship to an aircraft carrier.

For instance imagine an air superiority F/B-21 with 80 very long range air to air missiles targeted by a stealth drone 150 miles in ahead. Software and chips are eating the world.

a reply to: Bigburgh

I saw a few when I went to visit Boeing in WA. Very impressive.

a reply to: grey580

Too bad Boeing utterly #ed the program up beyond all possible belief. So far it's cost them significantly more than the cost of the original contract in overruns and fixes.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I finally saw the Raptor perform live at airfest 2022 at Macdill. It was juet lovely, this thing can make some seriously tight turns and practically dances ballet in the air. It even breakdances.

Sounds to me like defense company lobbyists are padding the accounts of some of these HASC members.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. A Democrat controlled HASC has an ally in the Heritage Foundation:

breakingdefense.com...

a reply to: anzha

Congress is not going to give them the funding to make them Combat Coded.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: grey580

Too bad Boeing utterly #ed the program up beyond all possible belief. So far it's cost them significantly more than the cost of the original contract in overruns and fixes.

One of the reasons for not having real competition.

Would be nice to manufacture tried and trued older designs like the F-15, A10’s, pack them with todays modern electronics and weapons. Funny how the good aircraft stop being built. Like the Cessna 150 and Beavers.

a reply to: 38181

You mean like the F-15EX? Still wouldn’t improve their survivability enough.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Wouldn't the A10 be a lot more useful now to the Army than the Air Force now anyway?

They aren't any use anywhere the Army can't go, but would make a nice wingman for their Apache fleet.

The range of Army Air assets seems to indicate that they could handle maintaining and operating the Hog IMO. Or at least grow into it.

Would the Army or congress actually refuse a USAF plan to gift the A10 fleet to the Army?

Let the Army justify the A10 costs, which they could probably do (especially with the current congressional love for the machine).

Then use the entire existing USAF A10 budget for tankers and other things the AF needs a lot more than A10s that can only go where the Army is, again costs the AF could justify (especially with the next congress).

Then 'let' congress have their cake with the 33 trainers, and the USAF eventually gets 33 additional F22s for 60m each.

Bonus is that the Army gets to figure out if there is still a reason to operate A10s.

Problem solved?




IMO, we need to find other ways to fix AF funding, not scraping the 33 F22s.

2b sounds like a lot of money, but that's only around 60m per plane, for planes that can't be produced anymore, that (correct me if I'm wrong) are still the best air superiority fighters in the world.

I also think the time might be right politically to pull something like this off without congress just cutting the AF Hog budget by the amount the Army chooses to spend maintaining and operating them.