HASC refuses to allow F-22 retirement

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

The A-10, until air defenses have been seriously rolled up, will be sitting ducks for a modern IADS. I love the A-10, but in a modern battle it's going to be swatted out of the sky. It's more of an extremely high end COIN platform, and essentially a no threat weapons system. People don't understand how much warfare has changed, and how vulnerable the A-10 really is to a modern air defense system. Yeah, it'll take a beating and come home, but once all your A-10s have been shot down, or beat to hell and back, they're done. And that won't take long.

Transferring the A-10 out of the Air Force is actually a terrible idea. The Army doesn't have the facilities or the experience to handle them, thanks to the Key West Agreement. The Army is only allowed to have fixed wing aircraft for ISR and medical evacuation roles. So they'd have a steep learning curve to handle the A-10s, and they don't want the extra funding requirements that they'd bring. It would be a very steep requirement to build the hangars, train the maintainers, get all the maintenance items, etc.

The problem with the $2B/$60M per aircraft is that the budget is currently flat. And the Air Force has a ridiculous number of priorities that all need money, and all need to be done now because of mismanagement by the Fighter Mafia. They're currently buying new tankers, spending several billion on new engines and radars for the B-52, buying the B-21, the F-15EX, the F-35, replacing the E-3 with the E-7A, developing NGAD, possibly buying AETP engines for the F-35, ABMS, T-7A, KC-Y/Z. They have to get money from somewhere. Congress won't let them retire any A-10s, which would have freed up maintenance personnel and money for the F-35, they won't let them retire the non combat coded F-22s, which would free up money for NGAD, they're retiring KC-135s and KC-10s when the KC-46 is a completely #ed POS that won't be ready for combat operations until AT LEAST 2025, probably closer to 2030.

Currently the B-21 cost is classified, but it's believed to be roughly $550M per airframe. The Air Force plans to spend $203B for 100 aircraft, and associated costs for 30 years. This year they requested $108M. Starting next year with production ongoing, it goes to $1.787B, then in 2024 it really ramps up going to $3.551B, $4.429B, $4.638B, and $5.023B through 2027. The good news is that the cost per airframe is fixed. The plan is to buy 21 in the initial five lots, which with those amounts works out perfectly. The total fleet size is planned at 100 aircraft eventually.

Watching the procurement/retirement process is both comedy gold, and the most frustrating thing you'll ever watch in your life if you are interested in this stuff.

a reply to: Zaphod58


I'm not at all interested in the government procurement process, and know very little about it.

Every time I tried looking into it a little many years ago it looked like the stooopidest thing I'd ever seen.




Yeah, I'm with you on the Hogs 100%, I'd just like to give the Army a chance to fit them into their battle plans. If they can't, turn em into scrap. Surely congress wouldn't think the Army is exaggerating the platform's extreme vulnerabilities like they think USAF is right now.

I highly doubt the Army will want them, and Congress might actually let you scrap them after that, but if the Army comes up with an innovate way to make them useful I'd be all for that too.

I say make a spectacle and publicly announce that the USAF is conducting a goodwill gesture of giving the Army their entire fleet of A10s.

I'd also like 33 F22s for 60m each please.

Along with faster deployment of everything currently being developed for the AF.

Sounds like the 'flat budget' and AF spending on unnecessary machine (Hogs) are the real stumbling blocks?

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Every time the Air Force tries to retire something, Congress sees their dollar sign decreasing and blocks it. They blocked the E-8C retirement until the Air Force could prove they had a GMTI capable platform, despite the fleet being retired airline 707s on their second life, the engine supply rapidly dropping, and other issues.

They did it with the Global Hawk, despite it being slow and even more vulnerable than the E-8C. They’ve done it repeatedly with the A-10, and then turned around and ordered the AF to upgrade them all. They’re doing the same here, and as long as their bottom line is hit they’ll continue to do it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Every time the Air Force tries to retire something, Congress sees their dollar sign decreasing and blocks it. They blocked the E-8C retirement until the Air Force could prove they had a GMTI capable platform, despite the fleet being retired airline 707s on their second life, the engine supply rapidly dropping, and other issues.

They did it with the Global Hawk, despite it being slow and even more vulnerable than the E-8C. They’ve done it repeatedly with the A-10, and then turned around and ordered the AF to upgrade them all. They’re doing the same here, and as long as their bottom line is hit they’ll continue to do it.

I agree.

Congress is the problem.

But I don't care about congress, I care about national defense.

Why take your congressional frustrations out on those 33 F22s @ 60m?









No offense, but your proposed 'solution' sucks.

Though it may be the best one I've heard, it isn't nearly good enough for the USAF, national defense, or taxpayers.

How can we get the 33 F22s without cutting any funding for the many urgently needed USAF development projects?

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Short of congress approving all the AF plans, which won’t happen, or increasing their funding, which won’t happen, there’s no way to do it. The F-22 Is getting long in the tooth now anyway, and losing aircraft that can’t fly in combat without a huge investment isn’t going to hurt us.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Short of congress approving all the AF plans, which won’t happen, or increasing their funding, which won’t happen, there’s no way to do it. The F-22 Is getting long in the tooth now anyway, and losing aircraft that can’t fly in combat without a huge investment isn’t going to hurt us.

How much is USAF currently short for those plans?

(Ballpark total is all I need)

I have an idea.







ETA: I just went through the USAF budget request, that 20b increase is about the right size for the first phase of my new evil plan.

Give me 2 weeks, then keep your eye on the tube.

Gonna try to apply some unexpected pressure from totally unexpected directions on congress critters.

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

They're juggling things right now and keeping up with the budget, but over the next few years it's going to catch up to them. Next year NGAD requested $1.66B, going up to over $11B through FY27. That's triple what they paid from FY15-22. Estimated cost per airframe is "a couple hundred million or more". The F-35 buy for FY23 was reduced slightly to free up funding for NGAD, since they couldn't go the planned route. With some juggling programs can get funded, but they're going to take longer to get them to IOC and operational. They're going to have to prioritize programs, but they can mostly meet their budget requirements.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

They're juggling things right now and keeping up with the budget, but over the next few years it's going to catch up to them. Next year NGAD requested $1.66B, going up to over $11B through FY27. That's triple what they paid from FY15-22. Estimated cost per airframe is "a couple hundred million or more". The F-35 buy for FY23 was reduced slightly to free up funding for NGAD, since they couldn't go the planned route. With some juggling programs can get funded, but they're going to take longer to get them to IOC and operational. They're going to have to prioritize programs, but they can mostly meet their budget requirements.

I just added a bit to my last post, I'll start with the 20b you need right away first.

Gonna try to get some 'friends' that 'owe us' to apply some public pressure in creative ways.

Higher chance the F-22 will start seeing retirements in FY24:

breakingdefense.com...

And the authorizers are saying no way, Jose.

breakingdefense.com...

Older F22,s..Harder to upgrade or is their structural life that bad?

a reply to: Blackfinger

They aren’t Combat Coded, so it’s going to cost a couple hundred million to update.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Could you explain what “combat coded” means? Just a general Cliff Notes breakdown for dummies like me.

I THINK I have a basic understanding of the term, but I’ll bet there are a lot of lurkers reading this that may not want to risk looking ignorant in front of the more seasoned and knowledgeable contributors.

a reply to: sqd5driver

A combat coded aircraft has all the required equipment and software to be used in combat. They can use all the required weapons. A non combat coded aircraft may be able to use some weapons, but they’re limited as they use older software, and haven’t gotten the hardware updates that the rest of the fleet got. They’re primarily used for pilot training.