Air Force chiefs want their new stealth fighters, bad — so bad, they’re willing to scrap some of their best-performing planes early, in order to free up cash for their controversial, next-generation jet.
Inside Defense reports that “nearly half the B-52 bomber force and the full U-2 spy plane and F-117 stealth fighter fleets” will be retired ahead of schedule, under a Pentagon budget plan endorsed by the Air Force. It’s part of “a bid to save $16.4 $2.6 billion and boost spending” for the F-22 Raptor program.
About a year ago, a similar Pentagon “Program Budget Decision,” or PBD, cut $10 billion out of the F-22’s budget. Originally designed to duel with Soviet fighters, the Raptor seemed to be a plane without a mission; the Air Force touted the F-22 as everything from a cargo lifter to an IED-stopper. A fleet of 277 Raptors was downsized to 179 — despite a massive PR campaign from the Air Force.
This PDB, Inside Defense notes, “would allow the Air Force to inject an additional $1 billion into its prized F-22A program,” and add a grand total of four planes to the Raptor roster.
Cuts to the long-range B-52 bomber fleet would reduce the inventory from 94 aircraft to 56… The Air Force is banking on $4.6 billion in savings with this early retirement: $680 million in the procurement accounts and $3.9 billion in personnel reductions associated with a smaller B-52 fleet…
The Pentagon also plans to terminate the B-52 Stand-off Jammer System, an electronic attack capability, saving $1.1 billion across the five-year spending plan, according to the PBD.
Convincing Congress to go along won’t be easy, however.
Similar attempts in recent years — including moves to stand down B-1B bombers, KC-135E aerial refueling aircraft, and the F-117 — have met stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. But this time around, the Pentagon appears to be taking a new approach in proposing to retire three programs at once.
“Now they’re going for the whole enchilada,” Christopher Bolkcom, an aviation expert at the Congressional Research Service, said. “You can see that they seem to be launching a frontal assault.”
UPDATE 12:36 PM EST: “Privately, the Air Force sold the B-52 SOJ [stand-off jammer] on the merits of the very large antennas” that would jam the most dangerous enemy radar, Bolkcom tells Defense News. “If the B-52 is replaced with a smaller jamming platform, one may wonder how these frequencies will now be jammed, or whether the original argument for the B-52 was valid.”
UPDATE 2:42 PM EST: “Remember, this is the same Air Force that tired everything it could to retire the A-10s early,” Murdoc reminds us. “What is it about these guys that drives them to retire the most effective planes in the inventory for expensive new fighters?”
Well, let’s face it, despite what congress thinks, trading F-117s for F-22s does really make sense. The F-22 will have a similar ground strike capability and lower RCS than the F-117, and that isn’t even its primary mission. Congressmen prone to nostalgic attachments to existing aircraft should not be allowed to vote.
Well, trading the F-117 for the F-22 is a no brainer. The U-2, a unique aircraft, but most of what it does can be replaced by drones.
But the B-52 is a completely different aircraft than the F-22. During the Iraq war we couldn’t keep enough in the air. When you need to drop a whole lot of ordinance on one point, you just can’t beat BUFF. It’s reliable. It’s sturdy. It sure ain’t glamorous, but it gets the job done.
The F-22 may have a strike capability slightly bettern than the F-117, but surely we’re loosing ground when we give up the entire 49th Fighter Group (about 35 airframes) for a gain of four F-22As.
Can anyone dispute the figures here? One F-22A demonstrably does NOT have parity with eight F-117s when it comes to stealthy strike capability. Even giving up stealthiness by hauling ordnance externally, you’re still way behind.
Don’t even bring up the B-52 tradeoffs.
Axing the quantity of B-52’s as reported will be a decision that the “stars” higher up will live to regret. The payload and reliability of the warhorse is unmatched in todays “electrified and computerfied” air force. They need to remember their history, or they are destined to relive it.
“What is it about these guys that drives them to retire the most effective planes in the inventory for expensive new fighters?”
You’re not really expecting an answer, are you?
JSAllison: Nope. No answer expected. Rhetorical question. A “bang-the-head-against-a-wall” rhetorical question.
the F-117 being retired…wow. i’ve actually seen the birth and death of a military plane. kinda sad. RIP Wobblin’ Goblin.
This doesn’t shock me any.
The B-52 is very old, and it’s just keeps getting harder and harder to find replacement parts for it from bone yards.
Besides…The B-1 is newer, faster, and can haul nearly twice its load.
The U-2 should be retired because it no longer has a purpose to live, Any thing it can do the Global Hawk does better…and then some.
And the F-117, despite having an “F” designation, it isn’t a fighter…hell, it’s barely a bomber, and it can only hold two 2,000 pound bombs internally and nothing externally. It was a great aircraft, but its time for retirement has indeed come.
Murc,
I just don’t see it. You’re going backwards in strike capability for an unequal gain in A2A.
Mind you, I think it’s important that we bring out next generation fighter aircraft. This isn’t the way to do it. Here’s an idea: let’s cut every general officer’s pay 20%, and put forward a retroactive pay cut for all officers, and cut all retiree pay by 50%. THAT’ll solve everything; we can even have a bake sale like in that stupid bumper sticker.
They’ll have an interesting fight this time, though. Not only does the appropriation bill contain money for the B-52s and 117s, the authorization conference report expressly prohibits retirement of any 117s in FY06. So they can’t start until next year, by which time the fight will have been truly joined.
Good Morning,
May lightening strike me down, I can’t find anything to disagree with Murc about. All his reasons for scrapping the aircraft in question seem to be valid.
The only thing I can add is that Stealth as in the F-117 just doesn’t exist. That was shown during the Kosovo (I hate to call it a war) air exercise when an F-117 was shot down by the techonlogly advanced Serbs. A country that has put the M-98 Mauser in 7.92mm back into production.
Since currently there are only 97 B-52’s and about 40 B-1B’s still on active flying status I think the days of the large Strategic Bomber is more or less over.
With the X-45 and X-47’s advancing at the pace they are it would seem that the F-22 and the F-35 JSF (if it is ever built) will be the last manned Fighter/Attack aircraft built.
The A-1 Sky Raider got us into jets and these two aircraft will ground the heros.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Skinner,
There’s no such thing as radar invisibility for aircraft. (Properly, it’s “low observability”, anyway.) I don’t know how much you know about the F-117 downed by the Serbs but the excellent Wonderland.org.nz site (presently down for rehosting so I cannot give you a direct link) covered this several years ago. Without giving a lecture on radar cross sections and radar types, if the radar is close enough to the target you’ll eventually get a strong enough return for a shootdown. That NATO planners had their strike pacakges using the same air corridor every night. Eventually the Serbs wised up and got some SA-3s close enough to get a kill by a combination of optical cueing and luck. If the NATO air staffs hadn’t used the same corridors every night this might never have happened.
So there you have it- that F-117 was killed more by complacent planning than anything else.
Your point about the new LO UCAVs is a good one, but I do not think we are well served by retiring the ol’ Goblin before we have a replacement on call.
And four F-22As don’t carry anything like the wallop of a B-52 full of JDAMs. Or a B-1. I’d prefer the Buff for reasons of economy.
And be careful, the casual reader might mistake your post as supporting the F-22!
(Ah, the old A-1. I wonder if even the A-10 will ever live up to the legacy of that old warhorse… Breathtaking in simplicity and effectiveness by any yardstick. Wouldn’t want it near any kind of air defense, though.)
Good Evenig Trust But,
The F-117 that was brought down in Kosovo was done using the mobile phone net works in the area. The open channels of an analog net are disrupted when an object that reflects radio waves pass through it. A moving hole if you like.
This method of tracing aircraft may in the future have a use as a civilian air traffic control infrtastructure. The only solution to this ‘problem” is to invent anti-matter or shut down the mobile phone network.
I worked for Nokia in the late 90’s when this “problem” was found. A lap top could be called into a system that had base stations on either side of an airport runway and the planes could be counted going through the gates.
It wouldn’t take much of a software writer to come up with a program that would give all the tracking information for an air defense system. If you are the Serbs though and lack even this all you have to do is flood a zone with AAA and missiles and you have a good chance of downing an F-117.
Since the U.S. is relecunt to close down mobile phone systems, why I don’t know, the rat line during the 2003 invasion of Iraq at Karabala was also the product of functioning mobile phone and cost the 11th. Avn. Bn. one Apache and 36 damage beyond use ,Stealth will remain Science Fiction.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
New is allways better, or perhaps the generals and navy just want new toys! The f22 raptor designed for air to air combat. Now it will perform bombing missions, air refuleing and any thing else the pentagon can think up to get the tax players to fork up more of their money to buy them thir latest toys.
The B-52 is cheap to run, it has the fewest brake downs and delivers the biggest pay load at the lowest cost. There are all most 600 earlier B-52’s lying in the desert supplying the parts to keep the current fleet flying. Their air frames are still in perfect condtion.
The A-10 which the air force never wanted, but keeps proving it self in combat is another old war bird that gets the job done.
The f-16 and the F-15 are still unmatched in the world. The fact that with jets the electronics it carries and the weapons it fires are the real measure of a planes worth.
The navy wants to build over 20 plastic destroyers with two 155mm rapid fire guns at 3 to 5 billion each. There stealthy or so say’s the navy. But one silk worm missile will blow it apart.
Yet the Navy wants to get rid of their last two battle ships, the perfect platform for gun fire support at no near the cost of the DMX.
The most effective weapon in Irag is M2 fifty cal. heavy machine gun. Designed in 1926 and still in service. The M2 or ma duce [when ma duce speaks every one listens acordding to the Marines.] Will be in service for years to come unless the army decides to replace it with some fancy new weapon that promises much and delivers little.
New is not always better and old is not somthing you throw away. Most of all when the old still works1
Mr. Skinner-
I certainly agree that the X-47 (but not, it seems, the X-45) will give us a leg up in strike capability, as will the Raptor… When they’re available in sufficient numbers.
No, sir, I don’t think stealth is dead yet. Not when you’re taking on someone with a modern air defense. You might recall that F-117s dropped the first bombs of OIF.
As to the UHF/SHF backscatter detection method I can say that I’m aware of it as a prototype system but I don’t buy that this method was used by the Serbs. Can you provide some references here?
The Serbian air defense commander was interviewed recently and none of the periodicals which covered it mentioned this- they all mention certain SA-3 tactics (optical guidance, radar tweaking) and the constant re-use of the air corridor as being key to the shootdown. It was posted on Strategypage, published in some aviation journals, and kicked around the message boards a bit so you shouldn’t have a problem reading it yourself.
As a final note I’d like to point out why in my opinion we need to retain some of the systems for major theater war- North Korea, Iran, and China. And a low-observability strike capability just such a system.
Axing the B-52s early may not be a bad move. They’re wonderful aircraft, but last I heard, current plans were to try and extend their lifespan out to the 2050s. At that point, the planes would be nearly a century old, older than the grandparents of the pilots who would be flying them. Cutting them now for more Raptors may be a way to ensure that we get a newer long range bomber. “Oops, no more B-52s. Guess we need a new bomber now.”
What did I say, guys?
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,90636,00.html
The Air Force is looking to get a fly-away bomber before 2018. They aren’t cancelling the B-52 for nothing.
All may bow down and worship me now. Tell me you love me.
Here we go again. None military politicians deciding to throw away military hardware that works so their fat cat business [lobists] can make millions on a replacement that does not work. They retired the U-2/SR-71 2 or 3 times already only to find they had to put them into servie again.
The B-52 is the workhorse of the bomber fleet. Our Jets are currently unchallenged, and the B-52 along with the A-10 and C-130 are the main workhorses for the AF. We have already extended its longevity. We do need a new bomber program, but the B-1 should be cut.. it NEVER works, never launches, and is muuuuch more expensive to maintain.
I know its fiction, but talk to Dale Brown-Anyway the Raptor can sure help out everything else we put in the air.Navy please keep the Battleships-Kevin