USAF Mods Necessity

[Radish]

OK chaps, the current USAF scenario is that they're fighting today's and tomorrows wars with an ageing airfleet.
Many aircraft are 20 years old, or in some notorious cases (B-52 etc) even older.

At the current rate of purchase, it's estimated that it'll take 100 years to replace the airfleet.

Solutions?

[Captain Canada]

A love-in with plenty of herb to pass around.

[Archibald]

OK chaps, the current USAF scenario is that they're fighting today's and tomorrows wars with an ageing airfleet.
Many aircraft are 20 years old, or in some notorious cases (B-52 etc) even older.

At the current rate of purchase, it's estimated that it'll take 100 years to replace the airfleet.

Solutions?

Yep that's a problem I "follow" for years now. F-16s, F-15, C-135, P-3s,
C-5, CH-46s, T-38s (among others) tend to be long in the tooth, and their replacements sometimes become troublesome affairs... mainly due to cost and complexity.

On the other hand we all know that a single modern aircraft can replace 2 or 3 older machines, so I don't think they'll need 100 years to replace their fleet  

But that's a very interesting subject you have there Mr Radish, the kind which can last as long as the RAAF F-18 one    

[XV107]

Dare I suggest Secretary Gates decides he likes the look of the Lockheed (nee Eurofighter) Typhoon as an F-15C replacement? Capable in the air-air role, but able to add that little extra je ne sais quoi in the air-mud role that the Eagle (light grey versions) can't and somewhat cheaper than the F-22? And irritates the hell out of Boeing.

Or the Boeing-Saab F-36 Griffon as an F-5E replacement in the USN aggressor units and with some ANG squadrons in lieu of older F-16s? Then, thanks to aggressive marketing by Boeing, this is bought instead of some of the JSF buy by the USMC.

F-16 Block 60s are a less exciting answer; perhaps the USAF might invest in the Super Hornet? Certainly a USAF EA-18G is a sensible idea that is (a) unlikely to happen (B) still a worthwhile use of the Italeri Growler

B-52 replacement - a B-52 with four fewer, but four newer and more fuel efficient engines (about which people have been banging on for at least ten years now, but the funding's never been there).

Boeing E-11 (767 AWACS); Boeing E-12 (777 replacement for the E-4); mixed buy of 767 and KC-330 to replace the KC-135 (dangerously close to the real world answer there, sorry, don't know what came over me); EC-40 Cobra Ball.

As for the A-10, er. More A-10s, drawn from the boneyard, relifed, perhaps fitted with some form of directed energy weapon in the 2025 timeframe?

[Mossie]

Do what we do here in the UK.  Run the aircraft into the ground then don't replace them when they give up the ghost & say that the Air Force is totally capable of meating todays demands while it's obviously falling apart around you.  

[The Rat]

Do what we do here in the UK.  Run the aircraft into the ground then don't replace them when they give up the ghost & say that the Air Force is totally capable of meating todays demands while it's obviously falling apart around you.

I always knew you were part Canadian!    

[Captain Canada]

I always knew you were part Canadian!  

What ? We have an air force ?

 

[Supertom]

Solutions?

Buy new stuff.

[Radish]

And they must have lots of oldies around to update, add new colours, etc...
perhaps we should advise the Pentagon on what to do?  

[Shasper]

Had the E-10 (J-Star) been produced, a AWACS follow on & the various RC/EC 135 replacements would have followed.

Shas B)

[Thorvic]

Its a flaw with the US system in the last few decades, rather than a constant development cycle, all the eggs are put into a super project that becomes so costly that only a few are affordable (F22, A12, B2, B1A).

As a result of this the existing designs are slightly revamped, with a few mod cons and are expected to soldier on (Much like Car models, where the dealerships load end of line models with all mod cons as the only way to keep the line going and stop sales leaching to the opposition with newer models !!!).

We know from our books there were plenty of next step designs envisaged to follow on, but these never got further than the drawing board !!!.

Surely Boeing could design a missile carrier to replace the B52 using some of its commercial aircraft parts. Be rather amusing to see Airbus design a bomber based on the A380 Wing but with a bomber fuselage !.

[Brian da Basher]

Oh Mr. Jennings...I think we need an A-380 bomber profile...

Brian da Basher

[Jennings]

As with women, it's not the age, it's the mileage  A 45 year old KC-135 might only have 5000-10,000 hours on the airframe, where a 45 year old 707 might have 150,000 or more.  The T-38C is probably a better airplane (despite having a 40 to 50 year old airframe) than it was when it was built in the 1950s or '60s.  

I agree that the BUFF is getting a bit long in the tooth (as is the KC-135), and at some point it becomes harder to maintain them than its worth, but given the cost of developing replacements, and given the USAF's recent track record of graft and corruption in the bidding process ("KC-767" and CSAR-X being prime examples), frankly, I'm happy to old on to the old stuff, speaking as a tax-paying American.

J

[Jennings]

Oh Mr. Jennings...I think we need an A-380 bomber profile...

HA!  Scarebus Industrie can't even seem to get their fecal matter consolidated enough to deliver a simple passenger airplane.  And today I read that they've officially shelved any further work on the A380F (from which said bomber would undoubtedly be derived).  Saying you're going to deliver in 2006, then saying "Uh, le woops... regrettons - we cannot deliver your aeroplane until 2012" isn't a good way to win friends and influence people

Do I detect a slight hint of schadenfreude in the air??

J

[Mossie]

I always knew you were part Canadian! 

Well, my surname's supposedly derived from a French name so Brit+French=Canadian, yep!!!  And I do like my beer, pass the Labatts!