USAF Woes

[MarkOttawa]

GAO sugests, amongst other things, that F-22 be taken off NORAD mission in Alaska as part of concentrating on air superiority role (at moment USAF has no plans for F-35 to take on NORAD from Alaska)--a few excerpts:

Watchdog Says USAF Is Wasting F-22s On Patrols And Deployments, Should Consolidate Force
A new report says the jets and their pilots are too busy with missions that don't require their unique capabilities to prepare for conflicts that do.

The U.S. Air Force is reassessing the distribution and structure of its F-22 Raptor units, as well as their assigned missions and deployment schedules, following a highly critical review of how it is utilizing the aircraft from a top Congressional watchdog.  At present, the stealth fighters suffer from low availability rates and their crews have limited time to train for their primary air superiority mission, especially due to having to fly alert missions in defense of the United States, which could lead to a shortage in capability from the already small fleet during any potential high-end conflict.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the report publicly online on July 19, 2018. It acknowledges that the short-sighted decision to truncate the total purchase of F-22s has exacerbated many of the issues it uncovered and may make certain problems unavoidable to some degree, but makes clear that the Air Force is still not making the most of the Raptors it does have in inventory.

"The Air Force’s utilization of its F-22 fleet has limited pilot opportunities to train for air superiority missions in high threat environments," the reviewers wrote in the executive summary. "Without conducting a comprehensive assessment to identify and assess F-22 organization, the Air Force may be foregoing opportunities to improve the availability of its small yet critical F-22 fleet, and support combatant commander air superiority needs in high threat environments."

The Air Force has divided the fleet up among six combat-coded squadrons, including one in the Air National Guard, each of which has between 18 and 21 primary mission aircraft, along with a small number of additional planes in reserve. There are also two test and evaluation units with Raptors, as well as a formal training unit squadron.

...

Their [GAO's] suggestions included assigning other aircraft to the homeland defense mission...

[Suggestions by authors of article] Even more drastic measures could be taken, such as removing all F-22s from Elmendorf-Richardson and replacing those aircraft with updated F-16s, as well. The F-35 may be another option, though GAO notes in its report that the Air Force has no plans at present to use the Joint Strike Fighters for the alert mission. This, of course, could easily change as more of those jets enter service.

At the very least, the alert commitment should be taken off the F-22's back in Alaska. The mission sucks up three to four jets at any given time and the training requirements required to execute it also eats into the Raptor's core mission syllabus.

The alert role could be assigned to a stateside Air National Guard unit, which is not an uncommon practice...
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22307/watchdog-says-usaf-is-wasting-f-22s-on-patrols-and-deployments-should-consolidate-force

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

The USAF and Navy have had pilot shortages before,a good economy has something to do with it. Pilots opt for commercial airlines where they get big pay.I think a long term solution is to expand officer candidate schools to bolster pilot ranks with people that are already serving like we did during Vietnam.Gotta increase flight pay though.This what is currently paid out monthly.I think we should start at $1000 per month for an 0-1 and up.Oddly in our pay system these special pays aren't included at retirement maybe thay should change.

2 or less
$125

Over 2
$156

Over 3
$188

Over 4
$206

Over 6
$650

Over 14
$840

Over 22
$585

Over 23
$495

Over 24
$385

Over 25

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to post just above, more on GAO report of F-22:

Air Force should reassess how F-22 is used, squadrons are organized, report says

...
The GAO notes that the F-22 is used as part of an alert force in Hawaii and Alaska [NORAD], which requires certain bases to have jets ready at all times to respond to threats from civil or military aviation. But that alert force doesn’t require the F-22’s unique capabilities, the report says...
https://pilotonline.com/news/military/local/article_9e97ee28-8b6f-11e8-b486-47bd8d4146e9.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Some Alaska based F-22's are forward deployed to Japan/Okinawa.

 

[CBH99]

The USAF is the best funded air force in the entire world, bar none.  It's problems come from compulsive mismanagement of people and resources, period.

Yes, it is difficult to manage an organization as large as the USAF, no doubt.  Tons of capabilities.  Everything needs to be joint.  Tons of commands within the USAF.  Operations ongoing throughout the entire world, simultaneously, all the time.  I don't pretend for a moment that USAF management would be easy.

But, it shouldn't take a Congressional Watchdog to tell the USAF that flying through F-22 airframes dropping 500lb bombs on a few guys here & there with AK's and RPG's isn't the best use of that airframe.  F-16's, even ones that aren't updated, could do the job just fine.  And USAF brass should have known that years ago.

We talk about the USAF flying the wings off of their top end fighters doing CAS in Iraq & Afghanistan all the time.  It's a problem they are well aware of.  And yet it takes a Congressional Watchdog to say "Hey, ya know those really expensive jets that we don't have many of?  Yeah, turns out they don't need to be used to do the job a bloody A-29 could do."


I feel like this is just another example of how US military assets are poorly used.

You don't need an Aegis equipped DDG arresting pirates off the coast of Africa.  A LCS could actually do that job remarkably well, given their speed, 2 helicopters, and ability to embark security teams.  Ya don't need F-22 doing NORAD CAP.  Ya don't actually need tons of Teir-1 ships in the Persian Gulf when regional & EU allies could do that just fine.  Ya don't need Supercarriers in the Persian Gulf when you have airbases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.

If the US really wanted to stop stretching it's forces to the limit, and complaining they don't have enough $$ when their combined military budget is damn well near a TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR....get smarter.  Congress doesn't need to tell you an F-22 bombing a pickup truck is overkill.

 

[Good2Golf]

So where should the F-22 be uniquely employed?

 

[dapaterson]

So where should the F-22 be uniquely employed?

Airshows.  And low-level flight, where the ongoing problems with the oxygen supply won't be as risky.

 

[CBH99]

Not so much as uniquely employed, but wisely employed.

If the US seems to think a war with China is a probable eventuality, which it very much seems to be gearing towards with the "shift to the Pacific" and reinforcement of US forces in the region -- and China seems to very much think the same, as they are pumping out highly advanced warships on a near monthly basis...gravitate the F-22 fleet towards the Pacific. 

Don't fly them super close to China so China can gather all kinds of intel on them, although they seem to enjoy doing that with the F-35 so who cares at this point.  Or, in this case the F-22, have them stateside doing all kinds of training to get the pilots in top-notch shape for their mission profile.  Bring them stateside, upgrade them with radar & missile upgrades, and prep them for what they are meant to do.  Dominate the air.

They seem to recognize that they don't have anywhere near enough F-22's to fulfill the mission capability they want from the airframe and it's capabilities.  So why fly the ones they do have into the ground doing BS CAS missions in Syria & Iraq?  The Russians aren't going to shoot any US planes down, there are plenty of F-16's and F-18's sharing the same airspace as the Raptor with impunity...it's not as if it's the only airframe capable of operating in that airspace.

They think they have a numbers problem now with the F-22?  Wait until it needs wing replacements, or SLEP programs, or replacement engines (which are no longer manufactured, btw)

 

[BurmaShave]

(...)
If the US really wanted to stop stretching it's forces to the limit, and complaining they don't have enough $$ when their combined military budget is damn well near a TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR....get smarter.  Congress doesn't need to tell you an F-22 bombing a pickup truck is overkill.

I'm going to preface this with the usual warning. I've got less time in than my boots, E&OE.


To my understanding, the USAF wants combat time on the F-22s; they don't care how they get it. Makes sense to my mind, combat is something that you can't fully emulate stateside.

It wouldn't make sense to have the whole fleet over there, nor to have the majority of the burden shouldered by the F-22, but I don't see anything wrong with letting them get their feet wet a bit. Work out some kinks, and build some transferable knowledge. More instructive than bombing range targets, and accomplishes mission objectives too.

Might also be a chance to test their stealth against modern air defense, if they have a way to assess the quality of a radar paint (or, easier, if the Russians/Syrians are spiking coalition aircraft). That comes at the price of letting the Russians (and the French!) test the opposite.

 

[tomahawk6]

To help with NCO retention the USAF will allow for longer enlistments.

https://www.stripes.com/air-force-studies-letting-staff-tech-sergeants-serve-longer-in-rank-1.540295

Chief Master Sgt. Kaleth O. Wright said the service is examining the merits of allowing staff sergeants to extend their time from 15 to 20 years during a recent town hall meeting at Spangdahlem Air Base.

[During the Friday town hall meeting, Wright said extending the amount of time airmen can serve in grade could help with retention and that the idea could eventually be expanded to include technical sergeants, which would allow them to serve up to 22 years instead of 20./quote]

 

[MarkOttawa]

The effects on USAF of seemingly endless foreign deployments/combat:

Lengthy operations are grinding down the Air Force, according to Rand report

A new study sounds the alarm over the longer missions the Air Force has conducted overseas since the Cold War — and warns that the service won’t be able to fully do any of the jobs that may be asked of it in the future.

Top Air Force leaders have been expressing concern for some time about the pace of operations and the size of the force. But the Rand Corp. report — “Is the USAF Flying Force Large Enough?” — attempts to specifically identify how bad the problem is and where the danger areas lie.

The study aims to help the Air Force "develop planning tools to test the robustness of the flying force against a range of possible future demands.” It does so by estimating future fixed demands on Air Force aircraft, by missions such as homeland air defense, then predicting possible additional demands that might be placed on those aircraft, relying on historical data dating back to 1946.

The report outlines four different scenarios the Air Force most likely would encounter: a Cold War-type situation with a long regional conflict like the Korean or Vietnam wars; a Cold War situation with a short regional conflict like Operation Desert Storm; a peacetime environment, perhaps to include a no-fly zone; and a counterterrorism or counterinsurgency conflict similar to the current operations going on in the Middle East.

In all four of those scenarios, the Air Force would see significant shortfalls in multiple areas, according to Rand. For example, during a long regional conflict, the Air Force would only be able to field about half of the C3ISR/BM — or command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and battle management — as well as special operations aircraft necessary, and less than two-thirds of the airlift and attack aircraft necessary...
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/08/30/rand-study-lengthy-operations-grinding-down-air-force/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

I think the oxygen problem has been resolved. I think the Air Force will be sorry they only have 187 aircraft. Maybe the F35 can fill in.

 

[MarkOttawa]

USAF has high ambitions:

U.S. Air Force Seeks Largest Expansion Since Cold War
The increase reflects a shift in focus away from counterterrorism and toward possible conflict with China or Russia.

The U.S. Air Force has determined it will need a nearly 25 percent boost in combat squadrons in order to support a major war with another great power such as China or Russia, signaling the largest potential increase in air power for the United States since the end of the Cold War.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said the service wants to grow to 386 operational squadrons by around 2025-2030, compared with the 312 it has today. The rise would support Defense Secretary James Mattis’s shift in focus from the fight against terrorism in the Middle East to potential conflicts with near-peer competitors.

Wilson laid out the new road map during a keynote address at the Air Force Association’s annual Air, Space & Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on Monday. Foreign Policy obtained exclusive details about the makeup of the 74 additional combat squadrons.

Russia and China have spent the last several decades studying U.S. military strategy and investing in ways that would take away its advantage, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein. The new force structure is designed to counter new defensive and offensive capabilities that Russia and China are developing, such as long-range aircraft and nuclear weapons, he said.

“This is about how do we stay out in front of them based on the best assessment that the Joint Staff and the intelligence [agencies have] put together on where we think our adversaries are headed,” Goldfein said.

Under the plan, the Air Force would add tens of thousands of airmen and a range of sophisticated aircraft and other capabilities that will likely cost U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next decade, if not more.

Officials declined to put a price tag on the increase but said it would include more bombers, refueling tankers, fighter jets, and drones, as well as airlift, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and special operations aircraft. In addition, the Air Force would boost the number of combat squadrons focused on space and cybersecurity. The overall increase could also include a new light attack fleet, which the Air Force believes provides a cheaper way to fight militants in the Middle East.

Increasing the number of squadrons by about 25 percent would require roughly 40,000 additional airmen, for a total force of about 717,000, Wilson said...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/17/u-s-air-force-seeks-largest-expansion-since-cold-war/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

And note spending approved by Congress, President next:

Aircraft Win Big In FY19 Appropriations...

The big news about the $674.4 billion defense appropriation that conferees agreed to yesterday is that, for the first time in nine years, it’s on time. That’s a big relief to defense officials and contractors used to limping along on restrictive Continuing Resolutions for the first months of the fiscal year until Congress finally passes a proper spending bill. Given that the Budget Control Act caps (aka sequester) return in 2020, next year probably won’t go as smoothly.

But in a budget this big, even the “small” items are billions of dollars, and there are plenty of devils in them thar details. We dumped the procurement figures from the House-Senate appropriations conference report into Excel and found some fascinating patterns in the $135.3 billion Congress gave the Pentagon to buy equipment...

Aircraft of all kinds were the overall winner this year, with the House and Senate agreeing to plus up everything from Army Apache helicopters to Air National Guard C-130 transports to F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. All three military departments – the Army, Air Force, and Navy (which includes the Marine Corps) – got more aviation funding than they’d requested in the President’s Budget submitted back in February. That’s particularly surprising because the Senate had wanted to cut Air Force aircraft procurement, not increase it, while the House wanted to boost Army aviation more than three times more than the Senate proposed. In the end, they compromised on a still-striking 13.7 percent increase for Army aviation, 5.6 percent for the Air Force, and 5.5 percent for the Navy (where the two chambers were within a decimal point of each other)...
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/aircraft-win-big-in-fy19-appropriations-munitions-space-marines-hammered/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

I think I read recently (In the F-15X articles) - that the last USAF fighter was procured in 2001 or 2003 or something, which means even the "newest" fighters are nearing 15yrs old.

That may not sound like a big deal, but keep in mind those were the last F-15's and F-16's acquired.  Much of the fleet is much older than that.


Since we seem to be focusing on near-peep conflict, making sure the skies are filled with advanced FRIENDLY planes seems like a great idea. 

717,000 personnel just in the USAF alone?  Holy crap Batman...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Plus--of course Congress must find the money; good luck, esp. if Democrats control (at least) the House:

Air Force calls for 74 more squadrons to prepare for possibility of war against major power

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson on Monday called for growing the Air Force from its current size of 312 operational squadrons to 386 by 2030, as it prepares for a possible conflict against a major nation such as China or Russia.

This 24 percent increase in squadrons is the centerpiece of the service’s “Air Force We Need” proposal, which has been in the works for six months. This proposal seeks to lay out what it would take for the Air Force to fight a peer adversary and win, as well as defend the homeland, provide a credible nuclear deterrent, counter a medium-sized rogue nation that might try to take advantage of the Air Force’s focus on the major adversary, and fight violent extremists such as the Taliban and the Islamic State...

The additional squadrons would require a plus-up in total force manpower, including Guard, Reserve and civilians. Reuters reported that Wilson told reporters before the speech that the build-up would require 40,000 more airmen and civilians.

In addition to the additional Command, control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, or C2ISR, squadrons would see the biggest growth, increasing from 40 squadrons to 62 between 2025 and 2030, Wilson said. Tanker squadrons, which Wilson said is facing one of the biggest shortfalls, would also see significant growth under this plan, increasing from 40 to 54 squadrons.

The Air Force would add seven fighter squadrons to its current tally of 55, she said. And combat search-and-rescue squadrons would grow by one-third, from 27 to 36.

Bomber squadrons would grow from nine to 14, space squadrons would grow from 16 to 23, special operations squadrons would grow from 20 to 27, airlift squadrons would grow from 53 to 54 and remotely piloted aircraft squadrons would grow from 25 to 27.

Cyber and missile squadrons would remain unchanged at 18 and nine, respectively, but require modernization, Wilson said...
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/09/17/air-force-calls-for-74-more-squadrons-to-prepare-for-possibility-of-war-against-major-power/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Infanteer]

Isn't this the same service that can't find enough pilots and maintainers to fill the planes and squadrons it has?

 

[GR66]

Isn't this the same service that can't find enough pilots and maintainers to fill the planes and squadrons it has?

If you build them they will come!

 

[YZT580]

pointing out the obvious: U.S. 386 squadrons with a population of 300 million.  On an equal level we should have somewhere between 35 and 38 squadrons.  Woops

 

[Infanteer]

I'll trade 35-38 squadrons for universal health care, thank you.