USAF Woes

[daftandbarmy]

In this economy, I wouldn't sign any obligatory service for less than 30k a year extra pay.  It would come to 15k extra a year in my pocket.  There were rumors of lump sum of 25k for 5 years of obligatory service. That is less than 3k a year extra in my pockets (or less than 1/2 month's net pay).  No thanks.

Offers on the outside are tempting and very lucrative.

I wonder how green that civilian side grass really is?

"The civilian pilot job market is normally erratic, and finding the jobs can be an irritating, sometimes lengthy, process. Demand for pilots in different roles varies a lot. It’s a good idea to scout out any areas of interest well in advance, so you have a realistic view of what’s possible. A bit of networking will help in locating leads to good jobs." http://www.cvtips.com/career-choice/military-pilot-vs-civilian-pilot-career-facts.html

 

[SupersonicMax]

Cyclic yes however the QoL cannot be worse than it is now in the CAF.  Less people to do the same work as before...  It also depends on your background but most fighter pilots can land 150k+ jobs out the door.

 

[dimsum]

I assume that you mean the BAE (or whatever they call themselves now) training in Saudi?  A couple of multi-engine folks I know left for the airlines and while they will make 150k, their first 3-4 years are a pay cut.

Have any fighter pilots got out and come back?  I know of several in other airframes that did that.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Nobody came back. There are jobs in the ME, Canada (Top Aces), Australia and other places.  Not airline jobs.  Some people try the reserve but generaly quiit after a while to truly take advantage of the QoL that those jobs offfer.

 

[Good2Golf]

... There were rumors of lump sum of 25k for 5 years of obligatory service. That is less than 3k a year extra in my pockets (or less than 1/2 month's net pay).  No thanks.

$25k/5yr is a ridiculously thinly-veiled attempt at trickery to lock folks in to a constrained future.  Anyone who actually accepted such a ridiculous offer probably wouldn’t appreciate how much freedom they were giving up.  In some cases, such an amount would be an annual (or even shorter duration) bonus on top of a good salary on the outside. Caveat emptor.  It’s not just pilots.  A solid, capable junior NCM IT tech is worth so much more in the civilian market, etc.

:2c:

G2G

 

[MarkOttawa]

LockMart lobbies back vs F-15X:

Lockheed Martin is Waging War on Boeing’s F-15EX

The F-35 makers sees the Pentagon’s plans to buy new F-15s for the first time in 19 years as a threat.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has reportedly been racking up kills against older warplanes during U.S. military drills in Nevada — even the F-15, whose record in real combat is a flawless 104 to zero. Now the two jets are heading into a fierce dogfight, one that doesn’t involve missiles or guns.

The battle between Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and Boeing’s F-15EX is being fought by lobbyists in and around Congress, which is beginning to review the Pentagon’s fiscal 2020 budget request. Tens of billions of dollars are up for grabs over the coming decade.

This week, Pentagon officials proposed buying new F-15s for the first time since 2001, even though top Air Force officials have said as recently as two weeks ago that they didn’t necessarily want the the planes. For nearly two decades, Air Force officials have argued against buying so-called fourth-generation planes, preferring for stealthier fifth-generation planes with newer technology.

The proposed F-15 purchase is rather small: eight jets in 2020 and a total of 80 through 2024. By comparison, the Pentagon wants to buy 78 F-35s in 2020, with 48 going to the Air Force.

But Pentagon budget documents also signal that the Air Force could buy hundreds of F-15s over the next decade. A tranche of 144 planes would “initially refresh” squadrons that fly Cold War-era F-15C Eagles designed for air-to-air combat. And the plane has the “potential to refresh the remainder of the F-15C/D fleet and the F-15E fleet.” In all, that’s more than 400 planes [emphasis added--and foreign sales?].

That was enough to draw a full-court press from Lockheed. One day after that announcement, company officials began circulating a three-page white paper detailing the “F-35’s decisive edge” over unnamed fourth-generation warplanes. Defense One reviewed the white paper...
https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/03/lockheed-martin-waging-war-boeings-f-15ex/155598/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of major article, CSBA report seems very optimistic in terms of funding being available:

What aircraft does the US Air Force need to beat China and Russia? This new study has an answer.

Last September, the U.S. Air Force revealed that it will need a total of 386 operational squadrons to take on future threats posed by Russia and China. A new congressionally mandated study posits that number may not be enough.

Further, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments study — which has been obtained exclusively by Defense News — goes on to recommend that the Air Force begin developing a handful of new technologies not in its plans, including a stealthy weaponized drone, a new unmanned reconnaissance plane that can penetrate into contested spaces, and refueling tankers that are unlike anything in its current inventory.

The study is the result of language in the 2018 defense policy bill, which called for the Air Force, the government-funded research firm MITRE Corp. as well as CSBA to make recommendations for the future force structure of the Air Force.

In its study, which was delivered to Congress earlier this month, CSBA found critical shortfalls in the tanker, bomber, fighter, strike/reconnaissance drones, and command-and-control/intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance inventories, with the bomber, tanker and drone fleets especially needing a bump in aircraft numbers...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03/20/what-aircraft-does-the-us-air-force-need-to-beat-china-and-russia-this-new-study-has-an-answer/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Rifleman62]

....total of 386 operational squadrons to take on future threats posed by Russia and China.

Simultaneously?

Well the USA's ally, Canada will assist with a very few CF-18 sqns.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Why F-15X:

...
A senior defense official told reporters today that Shanahan had no role in either the strategic decision to buy a fourth generation aircraft, which was made by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, or the later one made by the office of Cost Assessment and Program (CAPE). Shanahan, the official said, was “excluded” from the F-15X decision and was not involved in the larger strategic decision to tilt toward buying more fourth-gen aircraft.

Today’s [March 22] press conference was a rare and intriguing look behind the curtain of the Pentagon’s strategic decision making. CAPE deliberations have rarely been discussed in the nine years since the office was created. Its predecessor, the Office of Program Analysis & Evaluation (PA&E) was similarly discreet.

The senior defense official who spoke with us was concise and precise in his description of how the F-15 decision was made. As I noted above, it came in two pieces. First, a report done for Congress in 2017 found that the US military’s tactical air component needed to retain a mix of fourth generation aircraft carrying large bomb and missile loads with the eye-watering stealth, data sharing and analysis that an F-35 brings to the fight. The fourth generation aircraft are needed for base and homeland defense [emphasis added, i.e. NORAD], as well as to serve as standoff aircraft using targeting information from F-35s to strike targets in a hot war. That mix will be needed through 2030.

F-35A

Cost was also an important element in the decision. The cost of each airplane was not so much the issue as was the cost to maintain and sustain them, the senior defense official said. The F-15X’s just cost less to keep and stay in the air. There’s not that much difference in current unit cost between the two aircraft, as best I can tell. The official said the CAPE estimate for the F-15X is $90 million a copy. An F-35A, the comparable plane of the three-aircraft fleet, costs $89.2 million in Lot 11 and the program and Lockheed Martin have both pledged it will go lower, to $80 million.

Another factor played a role: the health of the industrial base. The other advanced fourth-generation fighter available in the US is the F-16. However, the F-16 is also made by Lockheed Martin and the senior defense official said there was a conscious decision to ensure the industrial base remained competitive. I asked if the Trump Administration’s increased focus on the industrial base had made any difference in that decision. The response was: “Not that I’m aware of.” CAPE and its predecessor have always made their decisions with an eye on maintaining the health of the industrial base...
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/shanahan-ethics-agreement-out-how-the-f-15x-decision-was-made/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

great article  8)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Congress, please help (and that wall...):

US Air Force: We Need $5 Billion To Fix Weather-Damaged Bases

Without the cash, service says it will cut pilot training, ground planes, stop other base construction projects.

The U.S. Air Force says it needs nearly $5 billion over the next three years to rebuild bases in Florida and Nebraska severely damaged by weather in the past six months.

If it does not receive $1.2 billion of those funds by June for repairs at Tyndall Air Force Base and Offutt Air Force Base, service officials warned they would be forced to cut projects at bases in 18 states (here’s the list) and cancel 18,000 pilot training hours.

“We desperately need the supplemental funding to recover from the natural disasters that hammered Tyndall and Offutt,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said Wednesday at Heritage Foundation event in Washington. “There are other decisions we’ll have to make if we don’t [have supplemental funding] by May or June. These are just the first decisions that we had to make yesterday…61 projects in 18 states are not going to happen because we have not gotten a disaster supplemental for Tyndall.”

Recovery efforts at Tyndall, leveled by Hurricane Michael in October, have so far been funded through the service’s operations and maintenance account. But an Air Force document about the emergency request, released Wednesday, says that money is running out.

The document says that if the emergency funding does not arrive by May 1, all new recovery work at Tyndall will stop, which “delays the return of full base operations, severely impairs flight operations and forces personnel to continue to work in degraded facilities [emphasis added].” As well, aircraft repair funding would be cut, which would grounding of five bomber aircraft as soon as September. It would also delay maintenance of E-3 AWACS radar planes...

The ultimatum comes as President Trump, through a controversial emergency declaration, is preparing to raid $3.6 billion from the Pentagon’s military construction budget to extend barriers along the U.S. border with Mexico.

The Pentagon has not said which projects it will cut for the border extensions. Instead, it released a list of projects that have had money appropriated by Congress, but not yet spent. Two projects are at the bases singled out by the Air Force Wednesday: a $17 million fire station at Tyndall and a $9.5 million parking lot for U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt...
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/03/us-air-force-we-need-5-billion-fix-weather-damaged-bases/155863/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Interesting, saving WSO for future while replacing single-seat Cs?

USAF Plans To Fly New F-15 With Empty Back Seat

Boeing’s two-seat F-15EX aircraft will be flown with an empty back seat by squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs, the U.S. Air Force confirms to Aerospace DAILY.

Although derived from an international version of the two-seat F-15E, the Air Force plans to acquire at least 144 F-15EX aircraft, including 80 over the next five years, to replace an aging fleet of mainly single-seat F-15Cs.

Boeing designed the F-15EX to operate in both the air superiority role of the single-seat F-15C and the fighter-bomber role of the F-15E. The latter includes a back-seat station for a weapon systems officer to manage the munitions and sensors for land attack while the pilot in the front seat concentrates on flying and air-to-air engagements.

The F-15EX comes with two functional cockpits, but the pilot can manage air-to-air and air-to-ground missions alone in the front seat, the Air Force says. F-15EX aircraft delivered to squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs will not be staffed with an expanded cadre of weapon system officers, which would leave the back seat of the two-seater empty.

“Fighter squadrons that receive the F-15EX are projected to retain their current mission and crew composition,” an Air Force spokeswoman says in response to questions by Aerospace DAILY.

Although the role of former F-15C pilots flying F-15EXs would expand under the current plan, the Air Force does not expect an increase in training costs during or after the transition.

“There should be no need to expand aircrew training requirements,” the spokeswoman says.

Boeing offered the Air Force a single-seat version of the F-15X for the F-15C replacement, which was designated as the F-15CX concept. The Air Force decided to buy only the two-seat F-15EX, which minimizes nonrecurring engineering costs.

The F-15EX is a straightforward derivative of the F-15QA ordered by the Qatari air force. It features a lightened wing, but still carries the same load of weapons and sensors as the F-15E. The F-15EX also includes other upgrades added since the Air Force last ordered the F-15E in 2001, including fly-by-wire flight controls, the Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System, the Advanced Display Core Processor II mission computer and a new cockpit with a large format display.

https://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-plans-fly-new-f-15-empty-back-seat

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Or, the "backseater" could be managing a Squadron flight of Loyal Wingmen while his "driver" manages the "ride".

 

[dimsum]

Or, the "backseater" could be managing a Squadron flight of Loyal Wingmen while his "driver" manages the "ride".

I predict that will be a reality in the next 20 years.  There's already been a successful test of Apache gunners doing something similar with smaller RPAs.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is there a difference between loyal wingmen and drones?

 

[Kirkhill]

Is there a difference between loyal wingmen and drones?

As I understand it, a drone follows a pre-programmed  route loaded into it on the ground via an 8-Track Tape.  A UAV has some dude in a comfy chair with a cup of coffee and a joystick driving it in between porn breaks.  The Loyal Wingman is a higher level UAV that takes instruction by radio then flies off into the wild blue yonder, never to be seen again.... kind of like a fighter pilot with Artificial Intelligence.

But Dimsum may be better equipped to give you a good answer.

 

[Good2Golf]

As I understand it, a drone follows a pre-programmed  route loaded into it on the ground via an 8-Track Tape.  A UAV has some dude in a comfy chair with a cup of coffee and a joystick driving it in between porn breaks.  The Loyal Wingman is a higher level UAV that takes instruction by radio then flies off into the wild blue yonder, never to be seen again.... kind of like a fighter pilot with Artificial Intelligence.

But Dimsum may be better equipped to give you a good answer.

Actually, you were eerily close to the truth, Herr Pook! :nod:

 

[tomahawk6]

The F15 and F22 will work together in the air superiority mission.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/f-15-become-flying-arsenal-193000462.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

BUFF forever--and B-1B getting well along in years:

Boeing awarded USD14.3 billion for bomber support

Boeing has been awarded USD14.3 billion to support and upgrade the B-52 Stratofortress and B-1B Lancer bombers over the next decade.

Announced on 12 April, the indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract "provides for the upcoming modernisation and sustainment efforts to increase lethality", the Department of Defense (DoD) said.

Work will be performed in Oklahoma and is expected to be complete by 11 April 2029.

The US Air Force (USAF) fields 76 Boeing B-52H Stratofortress and 62 Rockwell B-1B Lancer bombers (Boeing acquired Rockwell International in 1996, becoming the original equipment manufacturer for the platform). All of these aircraft fall under the auspices of the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC).

The B-52 has been in service since 1952 and is scheduled to remain operational into the 2040s. Upgrades planned to take it out to this date include the Radar Modernization Program (RMP) to replace the aircraft's obsolete Northrop Grumman AN/APQ-166 mechanically scanned radar; B-52 Software Block (BSB) upgrades that take place every 18-24 months to enable the integration of new weapon and sensor capabilities; a communications upgrade known as the Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT) system, which enables the aircraft to communicate with the air force's digital communications network; the Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) Program; and potentially a re-engining programme that will fit more efficient engines while retaining the aircraft's iconic eight-powerplant configuration.

The B-1B entered USAF service in 1985 [emphasis added], with recent enhancements being conducted under the Integrated Battle Station (IBS) effort. These have included the Radar Modernization Improvement Program; the Vertical Situation Display Unit (VSDU) in the forward cockpit; and the Fully Integrated Data Link (FIDL) and the Central Integrated Test System (CITS) in the aft cockpit. Work is being carried out concurrently and is to be completed later this year. The Lightning ATP is also being integrated.
https://www.janes.com/article/87898/boeing-awarded-usd14-3-billion-for-bomber-support

And those B-1Bs have been used a great deal for some time:

Overtasking of B-1 Lancer Fleet Led to Faster Deterioration, General Says

The U.S. Air Force overcommitted its B-1B Lancer bomber fleet in Middle East operations over the last decade, causing it to deteriorate more quickly than expected, according to the head of Air Force Global Strike Command.

The bombers were recently called back to the U.S. to receive more upgrades and maintenance to prepare for the next high-end fight [not what they have been doing up to now].

"We overextended the B-1s in [U.S. Central Command]," Air Force Gen. Timothy Ray, commander of AFGSC, told reporters during a defense writers group breakfast Wednesday in Washington, D.C.

"Normally, you would commit -- [with] any bomber or any modern combat aircraft -- about 40 percent of the airplanes in your possession as a force, [not including those] in depot," he explained. "We were probably approaching the 65 to 70 percent commit rate [for] well over a decade. So the wear and tear on the crews, the maintainers, and certainly the airplane, that was my cause for asking for us to get out of the CENTCOM fight."

Last year, the B-1s returned to the Middle East for the first time in nearly two-and-a-half years to take over strike missions from B-52 Stratofortress bombers. The last rotation of bombers from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, returned home March 11, according to Air Force Magazine.

"A lot of what we were doing was in support of ground forces in the fight against [the Islamic State], and now you know their status," Ray said, referring to the militants' significantly reduced strongholds in both countries. He said he doesn't foresee a "capability gap" despite the fact there are no bombers deployed, because fighters and other aircraft can focus on Middle East operations, particularly in Afghanistan where airstrikes continue.

Ray said the decision to bring the bombers home from the Middle East is in line with former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' prioritization of the National Defense Strategy "to turn to the high-end conflict" with near-peer militaries such as Russia or China [emphasis added].

But by the end of March, Ray had ordered the stand-down, marking the second fleetwide stand-down in about a year...
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/04/17/overtasking-b-1-lancer-fleet-led-faster-deterioration-general-says.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

I can't imagine that a whole lot of equipment not even in existence today can be made--or afforded--by 2030:

U.S. Air Force Fleet Is Structured For The Wrong War, CSBA Warns

Not only are they too small, by one-third, to fight a near-simultaneous war with Russia and China in 2030, the U.S. Air Force’s four newest frontline combat aircraft today—the B-2, F-35A, F-22 and KC-46—will be limited to stand-off distance from future highly contested airspace. 

In 2030, a new crop of Russian and Chinese very-long-range air-to-air missiles will keep Boeing’s newly delivered KC-46 tankers at least 500-1,000 nm away from defended airspace, flanked by a protective shield of aging F-16s. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin F-35As will still slip through an enemy’s long-range fighter screens but will now stay safely outside an enemy’s borders, lobbing Stand-in Attack Weapons (SiAW)—the Air Force’s future version of the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER)—at targets from hundreds of miles away. 

The long-range penetration mission—a mainstay of U.S. offensive strategy since World War II—will now rely on a new family of frontline aircraft designed to avoid detection by low-frequency tracking radars[emphasis added] . Led by Northrop Grumman B-21s, a still undefined next-generation fighter and a mysterious new penetrating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (P-ISR) aircraft, this sixth-generation strike package penetrates deep inside enemy airspace from multiple directions and lingers there as long as possible.

As the successors of the Northrop Grumman B-2 and Lockheed Martin’s F-22 and F-35A, these aircraft find the most elusive or dangerous targets then nullify them using electronic or kinetic effects or by sending the target information to distant F-35s with SiAWs or Boeing B-52s loaded with long-range weapons, including hypersonic missiles.

That sobering scenario, presented in an April 11 report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), describes not a distant vision of aerial warfare but a near-term wake-up call for the airpower community and Congress, according to the authors. The National Defense Strategy (NDS) released by the Pentagon in 2018 calls for the military to be prepared to win a war with China and Russia within a decade, but today’s Air Force is woefully short of the aircraft and capabilities needed for the task, the CSBA concludes in the congressionally mandated report.

“We have a force that is not well-suited to these kinds of conflicts because we haven’t invested in the force in the last 25 years the way we should have,” CSBA Senior Fellow and report co-author Mark Gunzinger tells Aviation Week. “Now we’re playing catch-up. We really, really are.” 

Indeed, the CSBA report echoes the eight-month-old, unclassified summary of the Air Force’s own analysis, “The Air Force We Need.” In late 2017, Congress commissioned the reports by the CSBA and the Air Force—along with another unreleased, classified analysis by Mitre Corp. The objective was to gather insight for shaping resource decisions in the absence of a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The latter was replaced in 2018 by the Defense Department’s less detailed NDS...
https://aviationweek.com/defense/us-air-force-fleet-structured-wrong-war-csba-warns

Mark
Ottawa