F-22 Funding Cut - Please Comment OMG

[Dementia_Madness]

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003175295

An internal Pentagon oversight board has reported that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is two years behind schedule, according to multiple congressional aides familiar with the findings.

Talk of the program’s problems comes amid intense debate over the future of another fighter plane, the F-22. Defenders of the F-22 argue that continued production is vital to national security.

 The White House and some lawmakers who favor halting the production of any new F-22 warplanes say the F-35 will fill the gap and meet the nation’s combat aircraft needs.

Senators and aides now lament that the Pentagon oversight panel’s more pessimistic view on the F-35 program was not publicly released during the F-22 debate. They are calling for more open disclosure of the problems with the development of the F-35.

The Pentagon’s Joint Estimate Team (JET), which was established to independently evaluate the F-35 program, is at odds with the Joint Program Office, which runs the F-35 program, the aides said. The oversight panel’s calculations determined that the fighter won’t be able to move out of the development phase and into full production until 2016, rather than 2014, as the program office has said.

[The One Man Gang]

Hey! Quit stealing my links! 

[Dementia_Madness]

   oopsie.... 

[Sovereign]

Here is the Avenger it is a Stealthed version of the Global hawk.......

[The One Man Gang]

Pushing the whole issue id the fact that our air combat fleet is aging rapidly.  A couple of years ago an F-15C crashed in Missouri.  Upon investigation it was discovered that the ENTIRE NOSE SECTION of the fighter had broken off in mid-flight due to metal fatigue in the fuselage.  this scared the he** out of everybody and the entire F-15A/B/C/D fleet was grounded for some months.  It was discovered that most of the fighters had this exact same issue and an expensive fix was put in just to get them back in the air, but the decision was made to speed up the retirement of the F-15 in the air-superiority role.  The F-15E Strike Eagle bomber version was not affected as 1) the planes are newer (we haven't built an F-15C since about 1995) and 2) the fuselage had been strengthen for the bomber role anyway.  Once free of its bombs, the F-15E is just as capable in air-to-air as its predecessor but a/a is NOT its primary job.

From 2007: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20071212.aspx

What's happening is that every aircraft has a certain life-span measured in flight hours.  Modern military jets are generally built with a 15-20 year service life at 500 or so flight hours/year.  Combat changes all that.  The planes spend a lot more time in the air, so piling on 1000 or so hours in a year is not unusual.  Add to that the fact that the planes are carrying heavier "war loads" and, worse, often landing with heavy loads as well. All this stresses the airframe in ways that just don't happen in peacetime.

Naval aircraft have the added attraction of landing in a "controlled crash" during carrier ops.  The Navy's new F/A-18 fleet is now facing either major rebuilds or retirement.  A two-year delay in the F-35 program comes at precisely the wrong time.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090722.aspx

Over the last decade, the U.S. Navy found that their older F-18C Hornet fighters were wearing out faster than planned for. This was sort of expected with the F-18Cs, which entered service during the late 1970s and early 80s. These aircraft were to last about twenty years. But that was based on a peacetime tempo of operations, with about a hundred carrier landings (which is hard on the airframe) per year. There have been more than that because of the 1991 Gulf War (and the subsequent decade of patrolling the no-fly zone) and the war on terror. So to keep enough of these aircraft operational until the F-35 arrives to replace them in the next decade, new structural components (mainly the center barrel sections) are being manufactured. This is good news for foreign users of the F-18C, who want to keep their aircraft operational for longer. But if the tail cracks problem is not related to missing fasteners, that's another matter.

Two years ago, the U.S. Navy discovered that part of the wings on their F-18E (officially the "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet") were wearing out faster than expected. But an inspection of 476 F-18Es, only ten more were found to have cracks. The cracks indicated that, instead of lasting 6,000 flight hours, the portion of the wing that supports the pylons holding stuff (bombs, missiles, equipment pods or extra fuel tanks) is now expected to be good for no more than 3,000 flight hours. The metal, in effect, is weakening faster than expected. Such "metal fatigue", which ultimately results in the metal breaking, is normal for all aircraft. Calculating the life of such parts is still part art, as well as a lot of science. The navy will modify existing F-18s to fix the problem, which is a normal response to such situations.

[Jeremy Roenick]

Sounds like a good supply of duct tape and bailing wire is in order for our aging F-18 fleet.

Just lovely.

[The One Man Gang]

The double-domes have been thinking about "Rules of Engagement" for droids.

http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/robotics/teaching-robots-rules-war

Ronald C. Arkin, director of the Mobile Robot Laboratory at Georgia Tech, may have the answer. He is designing ethical guidance software for battlefield robots under contract with the U.S. Army.

“My research hypothesis is that intelligent robots can behave more ethically in the battlefield than humans currently can,” says Dr. Arkin. “That’s the case I make.”

Analogous to missile guidance systems that need the use of radar and a radio or a wired link between the control point and the missile, Arkin’s “ethical controller” is a software architecture that provides, “ethical control and reasoning system potentially suitable for constraining lethal actions in an autonomous robotic system so that they fall within the bounds prescribed by the Geneva Conventions, the Laws of War, and the Rules of Engagement.”

Rather than guiding a missile to its intended target, Arkin’s robotic guidance system is being designed to reduce the need for humans in harm's way, "… appropriately designed military robots will be better able to avoid civilian casualties than existing human war fighters and might therefore make future wars more ethical."

[Jeremy Roenick]

His whole premise is in err.

The software and the robot are designed and built by humans.  Thus they are not perfect nor reliable.  Nothing built by human hands is infallable.  Putting combat decisions in the hands of AI is a big mistake.  I hope no one beyond the human race is ever calling the shots on the battle field.

[The One Man Gang]

Well, well, well, it seems that un-noticed during all the folderol surrounding President Hopenchange's inaugural, came a report from the GAO which pointed out that within a very short (by government standards) time a majority of the USAF and Air National Guard fighter units assigned to ASA (Air Sovereignty Alert) missions will be OUT OF FIGHTERS.  ASA units are assigned to track down, identify and, if necessary, engage unidentified aircraft over the United States.  There are 18 ASA sites.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09184.pdf

Protecting U.S. airspace has changed over the years. During the Cold War, DOD focused its air defense operations to protect U.S. airspace from air threats originating from the former Soviet Union. Today, several DOD organizations are involved in air defense and ASA operations, which have expanded to include the defense of U.S. airspace from air threats originating from within the United States. Because ASA operations are considered the last line of defense against air threats, it is crucial for this capability to be functioning.

Rememver that last sentence.

We identified two key challenges to sustaining ASA operations over the long term. However, the Air Force does not have plans to manage or deal with these key challenges. First, our analysis of Air Force documents and statements from Air Force officials familiar with the service’s recapitalization efforts indicates that even if aging aircraft are replaced according to Air Force aircraft schedules, gaps in fighter aircraft at current ASA sites will arise within the next 7 years. Specifically, by fiscal year 2020, 11 of the 18 current ASA sites could be without viable aircraft to conduct ASA operations. Second, the Air Force must ensure that units are available and ready to perform ASA operations and support units receiving replacement aircraft, while simultaneously continuing to deploy units for overseas operations. Currently, when ASA units are deployed, the ANG must find units to replace them, which officials told us can be difficult. While Air Force officials have acknowledged the challenges we identified to the long-term sustainability of ASA operations, they have not developed plans to address them because the service has been focused on other priorities, such as overseas operations. Plans would provide the Air Force with information that could assist it in its efforts to ensure long-term sustainability of ASA operations and the capability of ASA units to protect U.S. airspace.

According to Air Force documents and personnel, many aircraft in the service’s current inventory are the oldest in Air Force history, and the older they get the more difficult and expensive they are to maintain. According to NGB/ANG, F-15s and F-16s are aging aircraft that cost more to maintain as they age. Of the 18 ASA sites, 12 are currently equipped with F-16s, which will reach the end of their useful service lives between fiscal years 2015 and 2020. One option is to replace the F-16s with either F-22s or F-35s, both of which the Air Force is acquiring. However, according to the current F-22 and F-35 fielding schedules, only 1 of the 12 units—Shaw AFB, South Carolina—will receive the new aircraft before its fleet of F-16s reaches the end of its useful service life. The House report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 directed the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to conduct a study on the feasibility and desirability of equipping certain ASA units with F-35s.31 Although the House report directed the Air Force to submit the results of its study to Congress by October 1, 2008, the Air Force had not issued the study by that date, and we were unable to obtain a draft copy.

Basically the bill for the feckless 1990s is now due.  Recall that we essentially shut down all fighter production during that time. Then came 9/11 and the War on Terror which soaks up most of the money that could have gone to fighters but (rightly) has gone to ground-pounders engaged in combat ops. However, F-16 production did continue at the arthritic rate of 20 (+/-) per year with the last USAF model delivered in 2005. These will be the newest operational fighters in the inventory other than the F-22s for the foreseeable future given the delays in the F-35 program discussed above.

Further, the production of F-15Cs ended in 1985. These fighters will be over forty years old when the last one heads to the boneyard.

[Jeremy Roenick]

Well, that's government planning at it's best.  Who wants this bunch who can't see into next week planning and running our healthcare?  show of hands...

I guess the F-16's will be running on duct tape and bailing wire until 2020.

Question OMG...  Couldn't the AF incorporate the Hornets and Super Hornets into the ASA sites?  What kind of problems would that present?  Probably not enough F-18's to go around?  Training an issue?

[The One Man Gang]

The DoD boss of all ANG units is open to the idea.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=43334&dcn=todaysnews

The Air Force is focusing its budgets on the F-35, which eventually will make its way to the Air Guard. But leaders insist they are open to other solutions, if necessary.

Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt, chief of the Air Guard, said last week he is "platform agnostic," but mentioned the F-18 -- along with the F-15 and F-16 -- as a possible solution, especially if the F-35 program falls behind schedule.

Earlier in the same article:

"Despite the Pentagon's head-in-the-sand attitude, I'm exploring any and every option on the table to address the looming fighter shortfall," said Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus.

Bond and others have proposed buying "4.5-generation" fighters - advanced versions of current fighters that are less costly than the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - as one option that could solve the problem quickly.

Across the Capitol, the House has passed a fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill that includes an amendment by Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., requiring Defense Secretary Robert Gates to review buying advanced F-15s, F-16s and F-18s for the Air Guard.

"To me, it's a very critical problem that needs immediate attention in order to avert a real catastrophe in eight to 10 years," LoBiondo said.

Both the F-15s and F-16s are still in production for international customers. But there is concern that advanced versions of the F-15, a Boeing Co.-built plane with a price tag that could top $70 million, would be cost-prohibitive. As for Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-16, the manufacturer is expected to focus its U.S. efforts on its F-35 program.

Full disclosure: Sen. Bond knows full well the F/A-18 fighter is built in St. Louis at the old McDonnell-Douglas plant.  "MacD" merged with Boeing in the 1990s. Next time you fly through the airport in St. Louis look across the field.

Another problem is that the St. Louis plant is running flat-out to provide F/A-18E/F/G models for the Navy and for certain foreign customers. The Navy bought the E/F versions to replace the F-14 series originally, but now is finding they are a lot better at most jobs than either the F14 or the earlier F/A-18C/D models and can boost the strike/fighter capabilities of a carrier air wing without breaking the bank. The E/F series planes are 25% larger than the earlier A/B/C/D models and have more powerful engines. The Squids are buying the "G" mod to replace the aging EA-6B electronic warfare birds.

Reference:

The F/A-18E is single seat, the F/A-18F is two seat.  Other than that they are identical as far as speed, range and warload. The EF-18G is a variant of the "F" model with sophisticated sensors and jammers to defeat enemy radars and air-defense systems.  It has been claimed that a even a single example of the older EA-6B flying over New York City, if it turned on its jamming systems, could shut down every piece of non-wire (cell phones, radios, wi-fi) communications in the city.

Fighter prOn:



An F/A-18F breaks the sound barrier at low altitude.

[Jeremy Roenick]

Interesting...

Seems to be a no-brainer to me.  The new model F-18's are quite impressive.  Generation 4.5 fighters is a good term for them.  With tax revenues falling like iron feathers and a Marxist President ramping up social programs and cutting military budgets, this seems like the best solution.  The F-35 will have to wait.

The good news is that the Communists are as bankrupt as we are, so they're not likely to leap frog us in fighter technology any time soon.  The new Hornets are going to maintain our strategic advantage for some time.  Yes, they're that good!