Plan Reshapes U.S. Air Power

[Boltgun88]

Please read or re-read Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising"........   It is called Air Superiority and Air Dominance for a reason.  I can't believe how the Raptor program has been sloughed off.  Seriously?

[Bill L.]

The Predator Brigade (from strategypage.com)

July 7, 2009: The U.S. Air Force's 432nd Air Expeditionary Wing is the main American unit operating MQ-1B Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper UAVs over Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The wing has six Predator squadrons now. Each squadron has about 200 personnel (operators, maintainers, and other support troops). The Predators fly CAPs (Combat Air Patrols). Each CAP requires 3-4 Predators and 80 airmen. Fifty of the troops are overseas, taking care of maintenance, and landing and take offs. To do this round the clock, each CAP requires two ground control stations. One is overseas, to handle takeoffs and landings. The other ground station is back in the United States, where 30 members of the squadron operate the Predator, in shifts, as it patrols. Currently, the 432nd has 35 CAPs operating overseas, four of them with Reapers (one of them is a British controlled aircraft).
The air force is training 220 operator crews (a pilot and a sensor operator) a year. In two years, this will increase to 400 a year, which will enable the air force to run 50 CAPs simultaneously. The large number of new crews are needed because the pilots only operate UAVs for three years, before going back to manned aircraft.
The air force currently owns 115 MQ-1Bs and 28 MQ-9s. Another 70 MQ-1Bs are on order, and nearly as many MQ-9s. Last year, these UAVs flew 138,000 hours over Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. That will be over 200,000 hours this year. It took ten years of service (including development) to reach the first 100,000 hours. It took another two years to reach 250,000 hours. Getting from 300,000 to 400,000 hours took only ten months. There are about a hundred Predators in service, and they are averaging about 200 flight hours a month. That's over three times as much air time as jet fighters get. Predators fly over 30 missions a day over Iraq and Afghanistan.
Predators are mainly reconnaissance aircraft, but ones that are capable of carrying out a relatively new airborne mission; surveillance (keeping an eye on one patch of ground for an extended period). Surveillance missions tie up a lot of airborne hours, but yield big results on the ground, where lots of enemy activity can be observed (especially at night). The army and marines have developed new tactics to take advantage of these new reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities. As more Predators become available, the ground troops put them right to work. So far, too many Predators are not enough.
It was only two years ago that the U.S. Air Force formed the first UAV Wing (the 432nd). The Wing began with six Predator and one maintenance squadrons. Each Predator squadron has at least twelve UAVs, and sometimes as many as 24. Squadrons sometimes have over 400 personnel and 24 aircraft. But the air force prefers to keep them smaller (12 aircraft and about 200 airmen).
Only about two thirds of those troops go overseas with the UAVs. The rest stay behind in the United States, and fly the Predators via a satellite link. When in a combat zone, each Predator averages up to 200 hours in the air each month. Each aircraft flies 6-10 sorties a month, each one lasting 15-25 hours.
Air Force Wings, which are roughly the size of army brigades, are the largest units in the air force, aside from the numbered air forces (1st Air Force, 7th Air Force, and so on). There used be Air Divisions (composed of two or more Wings), but these were phased out in the 1990s.  By next year, the air force expects to have fifteen Predator squadrons, and two or more Predator Wings.
While the Predator was a reconnaissance aircraft that could carry weapons (two Hellfire missiles, each weighing a hundred pounds), the Reaper was designed as a combat aircraft that also does reconnaissance. The Reaper can carry over half a ton of GPS or laser guided bombs, as well as the 250 pound SDB, or Hellfire missiles. The Predators cost about $4.5 million each, while the Reaper goes for about $8.5 million (although that can go a lot higher depending on what kind of sensors you install).
The Reaper weighs about four times as much as a Predator, and carries sensors equal to those found in targeting pods like the Sniper XL or Litening, and flies at the same 20,000 foot altitude of most fighters using those pods. This makes the Reaper immune to most ground fire, and capable of seeing, and attacking, anything down there. All at one tenth of the price of a manned fighter aircraft. The air force expects to stop buying the Predator in three years, and switch over to the Reaper and MQ-1B.

[StanA300BigBrown]

As all the faulty planners of the past as we fall into the trap believing the next war will be a copy of the last.

We have spent countless dollars developing the aircraft that will rule the skies for the next 40 years, and we cancel and scale back the orders after the money is spent for the R@D, which makes the unit cost for the few items we get extremely high.

Mark my word, after the F-22, the F-35 will be the next target to scale back so we can afford more 'midnight basketball' social entitlements.

The cry wil be that the old F-16's, F-18's and a handful of the modern fighters will be enough.

Meanwhile the rest of the world is quickly catching up to the 19-70-80's airpower we now weild.

Don't get me wrong, UAV's are going to be huge in the future indian wars, and I'm sure we have a UV that none of us know of that has replaced the SR-71 in the Strategic Recon business (of course, the story is we rely on satelites totally now...bogus)

We need to improve our means of waging limited war, while not falling victim to popular mantras.

The current mantra is the cold war is over, the US is the only superpower and we no longer have to worry about waging a major war.

I'm sure we are the first generation to think that we will have 'peace in our time.'

Just call me chicken little, but wait till the next 'real' war kicks off with an assymetrical attack, say a terrorist "style" attack that takes out our tanker and AWAC assets on the ground.

This country very well may be forced to rely on nuclear weapons or cede our stratgic goals in such a conflict, because we are well on our way to building a military with a glass jaw and no staying power.

UAV's are  cheaper in the regional war mode, where light casualites are required.  In full scale war, machines are expensive, and the human operateor is cheap.  I hate say that because it sounds so cold, but history shows it to be true.

When the next full scale war (notice I didn't say if) comes, it will be much different than what we can ever now imagine. The only thing you cn be sure of is the situation will be desperate. Thats the only constant.

[Lee_K]

No real suprises here.  We all know that the future of the Air Force is in unmanned vehicles.  They're cheaper, can loiter over the battlefield longer, and prevent putting pilots in harm's way than their traditional counterpart.  The F-22 program has been curtailed at 180 or so, and the F-35 is slated to replace the F-15E, F-16C, and A-10C aircraft and will probably be in service for the rest of this century.  Combined with a flurry of new unmanned aircraft (which get very little attention in the press), the Air Force will be very different than we have known it in the past.

Lee K

[Bill L.]

Plan reshapes U.S. air power
By Erik Holmes - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jul 6, 2009 7:18:21 EDT

More than 10,000 airmen. Some 600 aircraft. Dozens of bases, wings,
squadrons, training centers and depots.
All are affected by a sweeping force structure plan that, starting this
fall, will reshape U.S. air power more than any initiative in decades.
The plan represents a dramatic shift away from fighter aircraft — the heart
of the Air Force since Vietnam — and toward the Pentagon's priorities of
more robust intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; a greater focus
on irregular warfare; more attention to the nuclear enterprise; and
increasing emphasis on special operations forces.
"The Air Force has worked to achieve the proper balance across our
personnel, infrastructure, readiness, and investment portfolios while fully
committed to supporting overseas contingency operations," reads the force
structure announcement released June 26. "These ... changes enhance the Air
Force's ability to create, protect, and sustain all air and space forces
across the full range of military operations ... [and] support new and
emerging missions for the Air Force."
Winners and losers
The core of the plan is the retirement of 254 fighter aircraft and the
transfer of about 4,000 airmen's billets from fighter units to ISR, unmanned
aerial vehicle, nuclear, maintenance and special operations career fields.
Some airmen will have to transfer bases or retrain for new career fields;
others will be reassigned at their current locations. All told, more than
10,000 billets will be eliminated, added or shifted to a different base or
unit.
For many of the Air Force's 100 or so active-duty, Reserve and Guard bases,
the plan offers something — good or bad.
The hardest hit is Hill Air Force Base, Utah, which will lose 24 F-16s and
more than 700 active-duty airmen, 13 percent of its population.. Luke Air
Force, Ariz., will lose 10 percent of its airmen, and Tyndall Air Force
Base, Fla., is losing 48 of its 53 F-15Cs as the platform's schoolhouse
downsizes and relocates to the Air National Guard's 173rd Fighter Wing at
Kingsley Field, Ore.
The big winner is Barksdale Air Force Base, La., headquarters of the new
Global Strike Command, which will control all of the service's nuclear
missions inside the United States. Nearly 750 airmen will be added to
Barksdale's population when the new major command stands up in September.
Hurlburt Field, Fla., will add 435 airmen because of the focus on special
operations. Beale Air Force Base, Calif., stands to gain 348 military
personnel and 13 RQ-4B Global Hawks for the 9th Reconnaissance Wing as part
of the growth of ISR capabilities.
Eight fighter squadrons are losing all or most of their aircraft, though not
all the squadrons have been named and the Air Force did not respond when
asked if squadrons losing their aircraft will be deactivated.
The eight squadrons and their locations, according to Air Force documents,
are the 19th Fighter Squadron at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; one
squadron from the 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz.; the 58th
Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.; two squadrons from the 325th
Fighter Wing at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.; the 188th Fighter Squadron at
Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.; one squadron from the 388th Fighter Wing at
Hill Air Force Base, Utah; and the 71st Fighter Squadron at Langley Air
Force Base, Va.
A reality check
But whether the plan — broadly outlined in May by Chief of Staff Gen. Norton
Schwartz and strongly supported by Defense Secretary Robert Gates — will
become a reality is another matter. Lawmakers in Congress are skeptical of
the realignment, in part because they don't want to see aircraft and jobs
moved out of their home states.
The House Armed Services Committee inserted a provision in its version of
the defense authorization bill that would bar the Air Force from executing
the plan until it fully justifies the proposals to lawmakers. The Senate
bill supports the plan, setting up a possible showdown when the two chambers
convene later this year to work out the differences in their versions of the
bill.
Mackenzie Eaglen, an Air Force expert at the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative think tank in Washington, opposes the plan because it hurts
U.S. air dominance by retiring fighters without buying enough new ones. She
is calling on lawmakers to kill the proposal.
"Congress needs to assert its leadership over the budgetary process and
ensure that appropriate steps are taken to acquire new and replacement
fighters to meet the fighter gap and to continue American air superiority
and dominance into the next decade," she said. "The last time I checked the
Constitution, the U.S. Congress gets the last word on the president's budget
submission. This [plan] is clearly [putting] the cart before the horse."
What the future holds
The plan released by the Air Force covers only fiscal 2010, which starts
Oct. 1, and does not take into account some upcoming moves that will affect
bases and airmen.
Not included in the 2010 plan are about 400 airmen who will move to Lackland
Air Force Base, Texas, over the next 18 months for the stand-up of 24th Air
Force, the new cyber organization; another 400 or so who will staff a new
nuclear B-52 squadron, likely at Minot Air Force Base, N.D.; an undetermined
number of airmen to fly and maintain the new MC-12 light reconnaissance
aircraft; and a plus-up in acquisition career fields.
Also not included are most of the F-35s — and airmen tied to the Joint
Strike Fighter program — that the Air Force will buy in the next five years.
Hill Air Force Base will get back some of its lost personnel beginning in
2012 as one of the initial operational bed-down locations for the new
stealth aircraft, and Eglin will gain airmen beyond 2010 as the primary
maintenance and flight training site.
Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop is concerned about how Hill, which is in his
district, will fare between when the F-16s leave and the F-35s show up.
"We should never remove a plane until we have a replacement ready to be
used," Bishop said in a statement to The Salt Lake Tribune. "We are not
there yet."
Kadena Air Base, Japan, and Shaw Air Force Base and McEntire Air National
Guard Base, both in South Carolina, also will be initial bed-down locations
for the F-35.
Other bases — including Tyndall, which is losing its F-15s — remain in the
running, and local officials and lawmakers are lobbying hard for the
aircraft and the jobs they will bring.
A decision on future F-35 sites is not expected until sometime next year.