F-117A, U-2 and Half of the B-52 Fleet Many Go Away

[syscom3]

The technology exists right now to do it. Its a proven and indisuputable fact that unmanned aircraft can far exceed the gee tolerances of humans. Plus just designing in the cockpit into an aircraft add's lots of weight and doesnt add much to the aerodynamics.

The one thing that will be the end of manned fighters and attack aircraft is the huge cost of building them and then training and keeping proficient the pilot.

I bet right now, we could equip a predator to carry a Phoenix missle, have it loiter far above the battlefield and just wait untill an enemy plane is sighted and "let her rip".

The Vietnam airwar ended 33 years ago. That technology is ancient. Just like comparing the aircraft of 1945 with that of the F16. In the next 33 years, we will be shaking our heads in amazement in what will be in avaiation.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The technology exists right now to do it. Its a proven and indisuputable fact that unmanned aircraft can far exceed the gee tolerances of humans. Plus just designing in the cockpit into an aircraft add's lots of weight and doesnt add much to the aerodynamics.

Agree

The one thing that will be the end of manned fighters and attack aircraft is the huge cost of building them and then training and keeping proficient the pilot.

Agree to a point - that's why you're seeing less in numbers and more in technology

I bet right now, we could equip a predator to carry a Phoenix missle, have it loiter far above the battlefield and just wait untill an enemy plane is sighted and "let her rip".

Possibly, but consider evasive actions by the opponent, countermeasures, etc.

The Vietnam airwar ended 33 years ago. That technology is ancient. Just like comparing the aircraft of 1945 with that of the F16. In the next 33 years, we will be shaking our heads in amazement in what will be in avaiation.

True but the lessons learned still apply today and are taught at places like the USAF War Colleges. We though the NVAF was hopelessly obsolete and through a combination of outdated technology (Mig-17s) and contemporary technology (SA-2s) we almost had out butts handed to us. The same will happen if we rely too much on autonomous technology. I support the induction of UAVs but having worked on (and flown) QM-107E drones and QF-4s I see the UAV as a supplement to the manned fighter.

UAVs are great but there has to be a real time human factor somewhere close to the battle field. If you notice there is a lot of emphasis of forward battlefield observation aircraft which are planned to fulfill this purpose, I believe its here the UAVs were eventually be controlled

 

[syscom3]

Thats where the unstoppable march of technology will redefine the aerial battlefield. I dont think you can honestly compare the simpleton drones of today with what they could do with high performance computers, software and communication of a couple of decades from now.

Manned aircaft will always be with us........... but the dangerous missions will be done by "smart" drones and UAV's

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thats where the unstoppable march of technology will redefine the aerial battlefield. I dont think you can honestly compare the simpleton drones of today with what they could do with high performance computers, software and communication of a couple of decades from now.

Read about was was planned in 1976. We should be living on Mars right now....

Manned aircaft will always be with us........... but the dangerous missions will be done by "smart" drones and UAV's

Agree...

 

[Twitch]

syscom3- exactly on the future money for all the reasons I mentioned! The future key element will not be whether ANY manned air vehicles exist but whether human pilots fly them in harm's way. They won't. The humans will be relegated to actual flying in non-combat areas while they manage UCAVs in hot zones. It doesn't mean that anyone will remove guns or modify the equipmental aspect of manned or unmanned aircraft. It doesn't entirely exclude that it could be possible for a manned aircraft to fly in a combat zone. It means that incidents of that will be almost non-existent.

Again the 2 main reasons I am convinced of are huge costs for manned air combat vehicles and the fact that we, as a nation, have lost the stomach to accept combat losses, no matter how insignificant relative to our population, as an extension of political will.

And instead of guns beam weapons will one day predominate. Yes, the USAF is commited to the technology now and is testing it. This not sci-fi any more than the B-2 is compared to a B-17. Time changes everything.

Here's what is going on NOW- beam weapon for the F-35
http://www.atsnn.com/story/36894.html

 

[FLYBOYJ]

While I agree whole heartily with this - my point here is there will always be a human element in this and agree the more dangerous missions will be accomplished by UAVs. There also needs to be a sanity check to ensure we're not pressing the technology button too hard, especially when combating the third world (re: my Vietnam example).

Just so you know - beam weaponry was first proposed on the F-117,,,,

 

[syscom3]

Actually, UAV's are perfect for third world applications.

Look at the success were having with the "Predator" loitering high over the battle field for hours and hours at a time.

Imagine a UAV a couple of decades from now orbiting far out of sight and unseen from the ground, loaded with "brilliant" PGM's that would be dropped as requested from troops on the ground or by a PFC sitting behind a console in a non descript building anywhere in the world.

Also imagine in the future where an enemies fighter force outnumbers the USAF/USN numbers, and a modified B52 carrying a few throw-away "dogfight/killer drones" that would be dropped by the bomber hundreds of miles away and they would automonously climb up to 100K feet and then dive on any enemy aircrfat in the air. The drones could easily be guided with multiple sensors and designed for extreme high gee maneuvers.

Just as Billy Mitchell was far seeing about the role of air power in a "future war", so are the pioneers with UAV's.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually, UAV's are perfect for third world applications.

Look at the success were having with the "Predator" loitering high over the battle field for hours and hours at a time.

It's done very well however if there were an inkling of any formidable AA or fighters available they'd be toast - we've been sending UAVs over China for years, every so often they knock down one. While better the UAV than a manned aircraft the point is in today's terms there is a vulnerability factor especially if you're gathering intelligence.

Imagine a UAV a couple of decades from now orbiting far out of sight and unseen from the ground, loaded with "brilliant" PGM's that would be dropped as requested from troops on the ground or by a PFC sitting behind a console in a non descript building anywhere in the world.

Agree thats around the corner...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I believe that eventually we will go to a UAV force, however in such things such as the Air Assault and transport roles, manned aircraft will never be replaced, because the risk is to high, if something goes wrong.

 

[syscom3]

That I agree with. I think the UAV's and killer drones will take out any AAA and SAM's before the troops are flown in.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That I agree with. I think the UAV's and killer drones will take out any AAA and SAM's before the troops are flown in.

The SAM mission would be the most advantageous - no more "Wild Weasel" missions required.....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That I can completly agree with. Even though Wild Weasel is just plain sexy!!!!!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here's a new report on this...

DoD Cuts Air Force Aircraft Fleet
InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Jason Sherman and Daniel G. Dupont | January 11, 2006

Editor's note: The original version of this story, published Jan. 9, erroneously reported that program budget decision No. 720 cuts a total of $16.4 billion from B-52, U-2, and F-117 accounts. The correct total is $2.6 billion.

The reporting error was the result of misinterpreting the PBD's end-strength reductions as dollar amounts. InsideDefense.com regrets the error and has reprinted the story in full, with correct numbers, below.

The Defense Department plans to accelerate retirement of key Air Force aircraft, including nearly half the B-52 bomber force and the full U-2 spy plane and F-117 stealth fighter fleets, in a bid to save $2.6 billion and boost spending for the services' prized F-22A fighter aircraft program.

In a Dec. 20 internal budget document, Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas approved significant spending changes between fiscal years 2007 and 2011 that were proposed by the Air Force. The moves, which affect the service's procurement and personnel accounts, are designed to realign resources to produce a more lethal, agile and streamlined force, it states.

The document, program budget decision 720, carries the imprimatur of the Defense Department leadership and reflects decisions made in the nearly complete Quadrennial Defense Review, according to these sources.

The decisions, however, will require more than support from Pentagon officials; the Air Force will have to convince Congress, which has rejected recent Air Force proposals to retire major aircraft types early, according to defense analysts.

"The Air Force is looking to get rid of what they call 'tired iron,'" said Christopher Bolkcom, an aviation expert at the Congressional Research Service. "Congress in the past has not allowed them to retire airplanes."

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," Bolkcom said. "You can see that they seem to be launching a frontal assault."

Underscoring the difficulty that the Air Force may face in selling this plan to Congress, the fiscal year 2006 defense appropriations bill, signed Dec. 30 by President Bush, includes $9.4 billion to maintain the fleet of 52 F-117s.

"The conferees believe it is premature to retire any F-117 aircraft at this time," lawmakers wrote in the conference report accompanying the final spending bill. "The F-117 provides a unique capability to the combatant commanders and remains the only tactical stealth aircraft capable of delivering certain types of precision munitions."

The fiscal maneuvers detailed in the 14-page PBD would allow the Air Force to inject an additional $1 billion into its prized F-22A program, stretching production through fiscal year 2010 -- two years longer than previously planned -- and raising total acquisition numbers from 179 aircraft to 183.

To that end, the PBD trims $3.3 billion from the F-22A program in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and provides $4.4 billion in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

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.

Cuts to the long-range B-52 bomber fleet would reduce the inventory from 94 aircraft to 56, a move that would not affect any international treaties, the document states. The Air Force is banking on saving of $680 million in its procurement accounts and reducing its B-52 personnel ranks by 3,924 airmen.

The 33-plane fleet of high-altitude U-2 reconnaissance aircraft would be retired by 2011, according to the budget decision, in a move that garners $1 billion in savings from the procurement accounts and 3,309 fewer personnel to operate the fleet. United Press International first reported details of the U-2 cut last week.

Cuts to the stealthy F-117A Nighthawk, which played a prominent role in the open salvos of the 1991 war with Iraq but has seen limited duty more recently, produced $1.1 billion in savings from the procurement accounts and reductions to the Air Force end strength of 5,180 billets.

In addition to these decrements, the Air Force plans to slash its fleet of C-21 jets from 76 to 38 aircraft. C-21s are used to ferry Pentagon executives, cargo and execute medical missions.

"There are some pretty sound operational reasons" for the Air Force's move to retire these aircraft early, said Rebecca Grant, vice president for defense at Defense Forecast International, a Washington-based consulting firm. "What you see is an attempt to get down to the right force structure that's more manageable and sustainable."
Sound Off...What do you think?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I really dont think they should mothball half the B-52 fleet. The world is too volatile right now and the Buff can hand it to them, if they mess up too bad.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Agree - they're really after the F-22....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap too bad I guess.

 

[Twitch]

I guess it really all comes down to how much do you have to spend when there is no major bad guy capable of designing and manufacturing large numbers of techno-fighers or bombers, spares, training and upkeep? The only folks that have the technical ability to construct anything that is top notch are our Allies.

Looks like we'll see a lot of the same aging planes that used to be "hot" on opponent air forces for quite a while. I suppose if they figure our current and forseeable threats are known and containable so they figure why overkill? There is NO ONE including the USA who can afford 500 techno-fighters at $100 million each. 100 is enough...maybe 75...or....

Since I've been a kid I can hardly recall a production quantity that hasn't been slashed for one reason or another on any aircraft project. Like it's some big game between the military guys and government spending guys. Besides we gotta save money so we can pay all those congressional and senatorial pay and retirement benefits for our loyal pubic servents.

 

[syscom3]

I think that the future air engagments will initially be handled by the drones. The manned planes will come in when its safer or the odd's are better.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No I do not see that happening for the next 25 to 50 years. It will be handeled the way it has been. Bombing the shit out of them, and taking out there radar sites, then the aircraft go in.

Cruise Missles all the way baby!

 

[Gnomey]

That is the way I see it going as well. I also think that there will be a human element in drones for at least the next 50-100 years before the technology can fully handle the decisions that would have to be made in a combat situation.