USAF Woes

[CougarKing]

More on the aging F16 and F15 fleets:

Strategy Page

Elderly F-16Ds Cracking Up
by James Dunnigan
September 30, 2014

In August 2014 the U.S. Air Force grounded 82 F-16D jets after cracks were discovered in longerons (metal support beams inside the forward fuselage, which hold the cockpit in place). The D version of the F-16 is the two seater used for training. Some 16 percent of the 969 F-16s in the U.S. Air Force are the D model and these are all at least 24 years old with more than 5,500 hours in the air. The longeron design for the D model is different than that for the single seat models because the D model has a longer cockpit canopy. The air force is making repairs and replacements to put the grounded F-16Ds back in service.

There was a similar problem in 2013 with some older F-15s. In this case the longerons in question were eventually discovered to be defective, not suffering from old age. The inspections of the older F-15s found substandard parts in 182 aircraft. Boeing (the manufacturer) eventually admitted that it had built over a hundred F-15s using longerons that were not 2.5mm thick, as specified, but in some cases only one millimeter thick. That apparently worked when the F-15s were new but age was not kind to the thinner metal and it eventually broke. Thicker stuff apparently would not have failed because of age.

The U.S. F-16 fleet is rapidly aging. The average age of existing F-16s is over 25 years, and the average aircraft has over 6,000 flight hours on it. Back in 2009 the first Block 40 F-16 passed 7,000 flight hours. In 2008 the first of the earliest models (a Block 25) F-16 passed 7,000 hours in the air. The F-16C was originally designed for a service life of 4,000 hours. But advances in engineering, materials and maintenance techniques have extended that to over 8,000 hours. Because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, F-16s sent to these areas will fly over a thousand hours a year more than what they would fly in peacetime.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

F16s to soldier on until the F-35s are operational in sufficient numbers:

US Air Force moves ahead with F-16 service life extension

The US Air Force is pushing ahead with an effort to extend the service lives of 300 Lockheed Martin F-16C/D fighters as a stopgap measure until the F-35 Lightning II is operational in sufficient numbers.

The service announced on 2 October it would finalise the design of the aircraft within 18 to 24 months and wants to give prospective industry bidders a “first look” into the scope of work needed to extend the aircraft’s service life from 8,000 flight hours to between 10,000 and 12,000 flight hours.

The request for information (RFI) is seeking industry input into the production and deployment of modification kits for Block 40, 42, 50 and 52 aircraft. ...

According to the air force’s original SLEP schedule, the first modification kits will be purchased in fiscal year 2017 with installation beginning the following year. Until then, the service must perform structural testing on the kits it eventually develops, both on the ground and in flight, between 2014 and 2016.

Flight International

 

[CougarKing]

Military.com

Boeing's First Test Tanker Won't Fly Before Late November

Seattle Times | Oct 10, 2014 | by Dominic Gates

Boeing said Wednesday that the first test plane for its KC-46 Air Force aerial-refueling tanker program is expected to fly in late November or early December.
That's a delay of two months or more beyond the projection Boeing's leadership gave in July, when Chief Financial Officer Greg Smith predicted on an earnings call with analysts that first flight would be late in the third quarter.

Tanker-program spokesman Jerry Drelling also said that after the 767-based tankers roll off the commercial assembly line in Everett, Boeing workers will install military systems in the aircraft inside the large modification facility at the south end of Paine Field, sharing the building with Commercial Airplanes mechanics conducting extensive rework on the early 787 Dreamliners.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MarkOttawa]

New fans for BUFF?

USAF Strike Chief Urges B-52 Engine Replacement
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141019/DEFREG02/310190014

AvWeek's Bill Sweetman on why not done already:

Opinion: Bumbling Caused B-52 Reengining Delay
Better late than never to reengine the B-52
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-bumbling-caused-b-52-reengining-delay

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

The fight over the A10's survival continues...

Defense News

Fight Over A-10 Re-opens Hill, US Air Force Divide
Nov. 15, 2014 - 11:26AM  |  By AARON MEHTA

WASHINGTON — After a relatively quiet summer, the battle for the future of the A-10 Warthog exploded in the last two weeks, reopening deep fissures between Congress and the US Air Force that seem to show the two sides at a total stalemate.

The A-10 issue — the Air Force wants to scrap it, Congress wants to keep it — has aroused a passionate array of protectors in a way the Air Force seemed unprepared to deal with. At this point, neither side in the debate is willing to trust the other’s ideas or facts.

Deborah Lee James, service secretary, acknowledged in July that the service needs to do a better job of showing “consistency” to members of Congress, and the drive to better relations with the Hill was highlighted as a key part in the service’s newest 30-year strategy document.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

More USAF units headed for the chopping block:

Military.com

Two C-17 Squadrons Will be Inactivated in 2016

The News Tribune | Dec 23, 2014 | by Kate Martin
One of four C-17 squadrons, representing about 400 Air Force jobs, will be inactivated at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in summer 2016, JBLM announced Saturday.

The inactivation of the 10th Airlift Squadron, which includes eight planes, is part of a larger Air Force reduction in the 2015 federal budget, approved by Congress and signed by the president last week. The 17th Airlift Squadron in Charleston, South Carolina, will be inactivated this summer.

Staffing ratios for the remaining airlift squadrons will drop, said Col. David Kumashiro, 62nd Airlift Wing commander at Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[OldSolduer]

Could we be seeing the emasculation of the U.S. Military?

 

[Kirkhill]

More USAF units headed for the chopping block:

Military.com

Would it be worthwhile picking up some of these second-hand and having them refurbished?

 

[a_majoor]

I suspect that either the USAF will be placing them in mothballs, knowing or expecting them to be called back into action for some future "event", keeping them off the market.

Even if they were willing to sell, the real issue is would the Canadian Government be willing to fork over the extra costs to purchase, man and maintain these new aircraft (as much as *we* might want them).

 

[dimsum]

I suspect that either the USAF will be placing them in mothballs, knowing or expecting them to be called back into action for some future "event", keeping them off the market.

Even if they were willing to sell, the real issue is would the Canadian Government be willing to fork over the extra costs to purchase, man and maintain these new aircraft (as much as *we* might want them).

Call it a long-term lease or something

 

[dimsum]

Report:  General warns that drone crews are overstretched

In a memo obtained by the Daily Beast, Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle reportedly told Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh that the Air Force’s manning woes — a result of fewer airmen coming in and more leaving the program — require it to ask the Pentagon to ease off on a proposal for 65 unmanned combat air patrols, or CAPs. Each CAP generally includes four Predator or Reaper aircraft.

Mentioned later in the article is that 10 (min 8) are required to maintain a CAP.  Not sure if this includes the launch/recovery folks who are in-country (likely) or the maintainers (unlikely).

 

[MarkOttawa]

Severely reducing UK footprint:

USAF Names RAF Lakenheath As F-35A Base, Unveils Closures
...
Two squadrons, each with 24 F-35As, will be based at Lakenheath, eventually replacing two squadrons of F-15E Strike Eagles and a single unit of F-15Cs currently based there...

Meanwhile Brits currently only committed to 48 F-35Bs for RAF, RN:
https://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/mark-collins-royal-navy-or-how-to-use-a-carrier-when-you-have-no-planes/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Due to OPTEMPO the USAF is short UAV pilots.To try and solve the problem the USAF will try and recruit officers from the Guard and Reserve with the proper financial incentives.IMO they are better off trying to recruit enlisted personnel to fill these jobs.Not every job needs to be filled by an officer.Another way to fix the problem would be to allow allied pilots to fly UAV's just like current exchange programs.Most of our allies have more pilots than planes,so this might work.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/08/air-force-mulls-drone-pilot-bonus-to-boost-retention.html

 

[dimsum]

Due to OPTEMPO the USAF is short UAV pilots.To try and solve the problem the USAF will try and recruit officers from the Guard and Reserve with the proper financial incentives.IMO they are better off trying to recruit enlisted personnel to fill these jobs.Not every job needs to be filled by an officer.Another way to fix the problem would be to allow allied pilots to fly UAV's just like current exchange programs.Most of our allies have more pilots than planes,so this might work.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/08/air-force-mulls-drone-pilot-bonus-to-boost-retention.html

The officer v. NCM Pilot argument is a massive can of worms which I won't wade into, but I don't see how being a UAV Pilot is any different, career-wise, than a manned one.  Reaper, Global Hawk, etc are big pieces of kit that operate at high altitudes at a decent speed, and some are capable of dropping weapons.  Unless you're asking why all Pilots have to be officers (manned and unmanned), then I agree, but that's an argument for another day.

As for using exchange pilots, the one big stumbling block I would see is ROE and mission types.  If the USAF is in a mission over a certain area that the allied person's nation isn't part of, the unit is short one person.  Same with ROEs - even if the exchange officer/NCM is part of that mission, what happens if that nation doesn't subscribe to the exact same ROEs as the USAF does?  That being said, I don't know what the RAF does when they are (were?) in Creech AFB.

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting look at the quantitative advantages the USAF has over most other airforces. Even if the "Fith Generation" fighters are duds, the USAF could conceivably roll over their enemies by sheer weight of numbers. The negative of this is the USAF may have a massive edge in fighters, but given most potential enemies are a long way away, they really should have an overwhelming advantage in the number of heavy bombers they fly...

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/usa-has-more-fighter-planes-than-russia.html

USA has more fighter planes than Russia and China Combined

The United States currently has over 2200 fighter planes.

Currently the USA has:

AIR FORCE FIGHTERS

F15C                      222  Will stay in service until 2025
F15D                      22
F15E Strike Eagle    219  [Being upgraded and will stay in service until 2025]
F16 C/D                  983
F22A                      186  [Fifth generation stealth fighter]
F35A Lightning II      47  [Fifth generation stealth fighter]

MARINES
F18 A/C/D              149

NAVY
F-18 A/B/C/D          433
F-18 E/F                565
F-35 Lightning II        4         

At the end of 2014, Lockheed Martin and industry team had delivered 109 operational aircraft to the U.S. and partner nations since the program's inception. The USA could get 1700 to 3000 F35s. The US procurement of fifth generation fighters is currently set to far exceed the combined fifth generation jet procurement from Russia and China.

In 2014, Russia had over 750 fighters.

Russia will get 126 new fixed wing military aircraft in 2015. Some will be bombers.

China has over 1060 fighter jets and interceptors.

At the end of 2014, China had about 1900 combat air force aircraft, (includes fighters, bombers, fighter-attack and attack aircraft), 600 of which are modern (generation 4 or newer).

China has 253 J-11 fighter jets that are based on the SU-27K

China has 15 J-15 fighter jets which are a variant on the J-11.

The Shenyang J-16 designed and manufactured by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, China. This is a multi-role fighter/bomber variant based on the J-11BS with longer range and upgraded avionics, the concept is similar to F-15E Strike Eagle. There is currently 1 prototype flying and 24 have been built. The J16 is a copy of the Russian Su-30MK2.

China also has a stealthy version (J-17) of the Su-27. There is also an aircraft carrier version of the Su-30 (the Su-33, obtained from Ukraine) that is now being produced as the J-15.

France has about 283 fighter jets.
UK about 100 fighter jets.
Germany about 100 fighter jets

SOURCES - Wikipedia, Global Firepower, F35.com, Defense.gov, Sputnick news

 

[Jarnhamar]

How many jet fighters does Canada have?

 

[Mick]

77 Modernized CF-18s, according to the RCAF website (page modified 15 Jan 2015).

 

[MarkOttawa]

Back to USAF:

Less than half of combat squadrons fully ready for combat

Less than half of the Air Force's combat-coded squadrons are fully prepared for combat, top service officials told lawmakers on Wednesday [Feb. 25].

"While the specific numbers are classified, I'll tell you the overall combat capability of our combat coded squadrons in the Air Force is still below 50 percent, so fewer than 50 percent of them are fully combat capable," Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee on Wednesday.

And if Congress does not block the spending cuts called for in the Budget Control Act, the decline in squadrons that are fully combat ready will be "stunning," Welsh said.

The Air Force's proposed budget for fiscal 2016 does not include the steep Budget Control Act spending cuts, which could return next fiscal year unless Congress repeals the mandated spending caps...
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/02/25/fewer-than-half-of-combat-squadrons-fully-ready-for-combat/23997409/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Zoomie]

A large majority of those cockpits are owned by the Guard/Reserves.

 

[a_majoor]

From Chaos Manor, the USAF has adopted very poor personnel policies WRT their drone operators, leading to a huge outflux of trained and qualified people:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/netanyahus-dilemma/

Drone pilot exodus

Jerry,

With respects to Col Couv, the AF leadership is “at a loss to explain” the RPA pilot exodus because they’re the ones causing it, and it has nothing at all to do with “real pilots” being disgruntled at driving a drone around. Rather, it has to do with a loss of trust and respect bottom to top in the USAF pilot force. The AF leadership sends drone pilots to be “deployed in place” flying continuous combat ops 6 days a week (12 hr shifts around the clock) for 3-5 years straight, then the leadership refuses to adjust the promotion system to account for the fact that almost every one of these officer and enlisted crew members has little to put on their promotion recommendation forms beyond “flew classified combat ops”. It took 15 years after the start of RPA ops before we had a “drone pilot” come back to be a squadron or wing commander out at Creech AFB, not for lack of good officers, but because for 15 years those good officers were passed over for promotion and command in favor of officers who had down time to pad their promotion recommendation forms and do something, anything, other than continuous combat ops.

We had a guy who was a squadron commander as a Major get passed over for Lt Col. That NEVER happens, but it did to a drone pilot. Any wonder why he quit? It wasn’t because he couldn’t fly real airplanes anymore.

To hammer home the point that USAF leadership is completely out of touch with what is going on in the trenches among RPA crews, they took a long look at the high suicide and mental illness rate among RPA crews and decided that the way to fix it was through a “resiliency training” program. Sounds great, but in practice what it means is that on what should otherwise be a weekend day off with family and away from our job of hunting and killing people every single duty day for 5 years (what do people think armed ISR means?), we have to spend that day doing a social activity with others from our squadron. Taking away my family time is supposed to somehow make me more resilient? What they need to do is acknowledge that these are no kidding deployed combat billets and relieve the crews from the garrison nonsense additional duties and training requirements, and let us get on with the job without pestering us with nonsense. And come up with a scheduled training, garrison, or leave rotation, to give people some real down-time like every other combat unit in the history of forever. We are finally starting to see signs of improvement in the performance reports and promotion rates now that we have a couple of commanders who have flown RPAs before assuming command, but for crying out loud show us a little support and take some of the garrison admin nonsense off our backs while we’re flying combat ops. Bagram air base in Afghanistan has better support facilities than the bare-base facilities at Creech AFB. Questions about support functions are universally answered with “there are no further services facility upgrades planned for Creech AFB”.

We just got word a month ago that almost everyone at Creech is getting their tours of duty extended from the usual 3 years to 5 or more years, with nowhere to go after an RPA instructor or non-flying staff job except back into the grinder doing the same thing. That is a dead end career path no matter how you look at it or where the pilot came from.

A recent survey of RPA pilot experience asked a series of questions regarding various topics including things like “how many combat actions have you actively participated in that directly resulted in the death of enemy combatants”, and “how many engagements have you witnessed or participated in that resulted in the death of enemy combatants”. I had to laugh when the top answer was only “50+”. I witnessed, enabled, directly supported, or directly participated in more than that in less than 6 months, watching the carnage up close through the best zoom lenses money can buy. 5 years of that plus actually deploying overseas for 4-6 months every 2 years in addition to the combat ops shift work without any down time, and we’re demeaned by the likes of Col Couv for being selfish and quitting because we throw tantrums due to not being in the cockpit? Flag officers get compensated in many different ways for accepting that sort of duty tempo and responsibilities, but we’re talking about E3-E7 and O1-O5 here. The ops tempo situation hasn’t changed but the AF has halted the “use or lose” leave extension program. That means we have a lot of people, myself included, who will lose leave at the end of this fiscal year due to carrying too many days of leave built up since we can’t actually take it due to ops tempo. Thanks again AF leadership.
That’s why there is an exodus. There is one more thing, regarding it being unnecessary to be a “pilot” to operate RPAs…
The Army has been experimenting for a couple of years now with non-pilots flying their drones around, through the use of improved automation. The last time I was watching they were still routinely crashing quite a few due to errors in simple pilot skills (like flying a perfectly good drone into a mountaintop). There is no way the USAF will accept that sort of casual loss due to lack of training. The RPA business is far too important (and the current crop of unmanned aircraft too difficult to fly) to leave it to those without the proper rigorous training. The Army seems to be ok with letting kids drive around expensive M-1 Abrams tanks knowing that they’ll occasionally flip one upside down into a ditch, so maybe its no wonder there is a huge service-specific cultural divide in opinion on how to approach such things.

Come on out for a tour of the simulators and see how hard it is to fly these things. Then you’ll be able to imagine a 2Lt with less than 200 hours experience being asked to perform the on-scene commander role for combat search and rescue without the benefit of the normal recurring 6-12 month home-station training periods a “real aircraft” squadron tasked for CSAR support (such as the A-10) gets. The MQ-9 does ISR, CAS, SCAR, CSAR support, direct fire support to anyone with a high enough tasking priority, and air interdiction, with no training cycle built into the program. Except for a select few instructors and crews, its just continuous combat ops after initial mission qualification training with any advanced skills and upgrades picked up on the job. Nobody has to do that but us and we’ve been doing it for more than a decade now with no change even remotely considered in the long term planning process. Last year we had enough enlisted sensor operators that we could have initiated a plan to rotate crews out for advanced training, to improve the long term quality and health of our enlisted RPA crew members. Instead, the USAF involuntarily separated the “extra” airmen who had the bad luck of having nothing but combat ops on their performance reports. Hence exodus.

There is no mystery here, just what feels like either callous neglect or malicious mis-management of the personal welfare and careers of the crews who fly the USAF’s most in-demand platform. Anyone who quits has a far better future ahead of them regardless of what they did before they started flying RPAs, and the sooner they quit the better their opportunities and family situation especially if they want to transfer to the USAF Reserves to continue serving.

Serving fighter pilot turned drone pilot