All BONES to the Boneyard?

[Vpanoptes]

FYI -

There is apparently a proposal being discussed now for early retirement of ALL the remaining B-1's. You can catch the article on the 6/25 Frago at Aviation Week, or here is the direct link:

http://defensetech.org/2010/06/24/b-1b-lan...o-the-boneyard/

- Dan

[Hawkeye's Hobbies]

Still no definite word yet but it looks as if the AF will be retiring the entire B-1B bomber fleet, Air National Guard F-15C/Ds

(and possibly the remaining active duty squadrons as well), and pre-Block 50 F-16s.

[IrishGreek]

Wow, seems like the Air Force is getting gutted...

[Vesper]

What a mess the Pentagon is in . . . Before too long Col. Sanders could takeover without a fight!

Ves :unsure:

[zerosystem]

Still no definite word yet but it looks as if the AF will be retiring the entire B-1B bomber fleet, Air National Guard F-15C/Ds

(and possibly the remaining active duty squadrons as well), and pre-Block 50 F-16s.

damn thats half the fleet right there...***

[Cobrahistorian]

That's gotta be one of the worst-written defense articles I've seen in a while. Where's his editor?!

[ST0RM]

Seeing how well the Bone is performing in Afghanistan in the CAS role, I cannot see how this is a well thought out decision. Plus all of the pre-Blk50 Vipers? That leaves what Shaw, Spang, and Misawa as the only combat-coded active-duty F-16 units? Oh yea, one squadron in Korea. Why bother with the CCIP for the Blk40s? Maybe they can bail back the Blk52s from the T-birds.

But then again, we've just got to have the F-35, so we'll sacrifice the rest of the fleet to have it. Even if it's 2-3 years out. Maybe we can start bombing up the KC-135s to fill the gap.

Here's a solution. Get rid of the dedicated VIP fleet. Aside from the VC-25s of course. They can fly on C-17s or commercial transportation.

-JS

[Jay Chladek]

Not a well thought out decision at all given that the guys on the ground really like the Bones overhead. They can loiter a long time, get to a crisis area in very quick fashion if called and drop precision guided HEAVY munitions as well. Granted the planes have their quirks, but they can do the job very well. In Nam, B-52s were good for heavy strikes on Charlie, but about all they could hit was the ground. At least with a Bone in Afghanistan, that heavy stuff is sure to hit the heads of the hostiles. I can't see thirsty little F-16s doing that as easily. BTW, does that report also say the Air Force seems to be trying to get rid of their A-10s AGAIN as well?

[Gator52]

Not a well thought out decision at all given that the guys on the ground really like the Bones overhead. They can loiter a long time, get to a crisis area in very quick fashion if called and drop precision guided HEAVY munitions as well. Granted the planes have their quirks, but they can do the job very well. In Nam, B-52s were good for heavy strikes on Charlie, but about all they could hit was the ground. At least with a Bone in Afghanistan, that heavy stuff is sure to hit the heads of the hostiles.

I'd respectfully argue that these days a BUFF has similar weapons capabilities as the Bone. Numbers and tonnage vary, but the B-52 has come a long way since Vietnam; offhand I can't think of anything the Bone can employ that the BUFF can't. Both aircraft have targeting pods installed, both can carry GBU-31v1, GBU-31v3, and GBU-38. B-52s can employ GBU-10 & GBU-12, I'm not sure if the Bones do or not.

Jonah

[mlicari]

It could also be posturing by the Air Force to try to protect itself from budget cuts. Pretty common tactic: offer up high-profile, popular, and/or vital programs for reductions in order to make it difficult for your superiors to actually push the cuts through, politically.

:lol:

Mike

[Cunumdrum61]

I guess in the end you'll have the most expensive and capable fighter in the world,only you'll also have the smallest Airforce. Jeez I hope they can do the job, as fighters will be few a far between. As they say, To hell in a handbasket and back. Politicians will never learn!!

:lol:

[Vpanoptes]

I guess in the end you'll have the most expensive and capable fighter in the world,only you'll also have the smallest Airforce. Jeez I hope they can do the job, as fighters will be few a far between. As they say, To hell in a handbasket and back. Politicians will never learn!!

:lol:

Capable as the Bone may be, it seems in terms of bang for the buck the Buff will win this one. Looks like the USAF & USN see the economic outlook for the near future as grim (like a lot of other folks) and are trying to "recapitalize" to maintain/prevent further degradation of their force structure and power projection capabilities. Betting the farm on the F-35 ("Jeez, I hope they can do the job"), with some hedging via the F-15C "Golden Eagles" & increased Super Hornet orders seems like about all they can or will do. Hope they're right. In a recent magazine interview (forget which) Richard Clarke makes an interesting point: Apparently the Chinese have hacked into a lot of sensitive data bases on the F-35; he speculates about what might happen if someone were to plant a few lines of code in the tens of millions in the Lightning II's software which would in effect eliminate or severely restrict some of its capabilities at a critical moment. Were that to happen, it could/would make Pearl Harbor and 9/11 (arguably) pale in comparison if'n'when push comes to shove. Say somewhere near Taiwan in about 8-10 years....

Edited June 26, 2010 by Vpanoptes

[big fatty]

What a mess the Pentagon is in . . . Before too long Col. Sanders could takeover without a fight!

Ves B)

Uh, i think that's the plan. :)

[zerosystem]

more functioning federal agencies cutting budgets and staff...guess they didn't qualify for stimulus money...

[MKopack]

Anyone here think this is a good idea, raise your hand. Anyone?

My opinion here - I know that we need to cut our military budget, but I find some of these possibilities to be disturbing.

Retiring the B-1's leaves us a very small fleet of B-2's - appx 20 acft - and an antique, although still capable fleet of B-52's - that averages nearly 50 years old. Let me put that another way, when the bulk of our nations bomber fleet was built, P-51 Mustangs were only just over 15 years old (nearly ten years newer than the average US fighter today.) Of the roughly 80 day-to-day operational aircraft in our bomber fleet, a good proportion of these are not available for conventional missions, as they are committed to Global Strike Command committments.

Retiring the ANG - and possibly Active Duty - F-15C/D's, would leave the USAF without a dedicated air-to-air combat aircraft, beyond the small number of F-22's purchased. Retiring the F-16's prior to the Block 50's would virtually eliminate the Air National Guard itself as an air combat force, once again, virtually eliminating the continental North American Air Defense mission, and a large percentage of the deployed fighter force in our current conflicts.

Without the Block 40 Global Hawks, the U-2S's will have to live on once again - and it is more than capable of doing so, for now. Extraordinary aircraft, but as everything, becoming older as each day passes.

I will assume that included in this study, although not written, will be a rather dramatic reduction in the purchase of the F-35 Lightnings. Without these aircraft in their currently planned quantities, and given aircraft development around the world, the US in the future, will cease to be the dominate air power in the world.

Without that air power, and the deterrence effect that it carries, consider exactly what that would mean to our world. How many potential 'hot spots' are out there that remain 'behind the scenes' only because countries know that they will be held accountable. There IS a tipping point, a fine line in US striking capability that others are hesitant to cross. Where that line sits exactly isn't known to us, and wherever it is, I don't want to find out.

Mike Kopack

[Julien (UK)]

That's gotta be one of the worst-written defense articles I've seen in a while. Where's his editor?!

I have to agree with you there.

Also given the excellent use of the B-1 in the stan I cant really see them getting rid of it.

Julien

[Wayne S]

FYI -

There is apparently a proposal being discussed now for early retirement of ALL the remaining B-1's. You can catch the article on the 6/25 Frago at Aviation Week, or here is the direct link:

http://defensetech.org/2010/06/24/b-1b-lan...o-the-boneyard/

- Dan

I do not see it has a cut, more like the Bone's have the snot beating out of them already. Crap like this happens when you only have so many birds in the fleet and only so many to use as spares.

[big fatty]

Seems like we (USSA) are going to model our armed forces western European Style. Feels like Jimmy Carter PT. II.

[GreyGhost]

Who ever came up with this idea is a real Bonehead !

Gregg

[Wayne S]

Capable as the Bone may be, it seems in terms of bang for the buck the Buff will win this one.

Buff is the bang for the buck, you mean all the ones that we scraped did not cost anything or the money we keep investing in them? We had about 750 B-52s and now that number of B-52s is under 100 in the fleet. No matter how much those in DC love the B-52 we are flying the last of the good B-52s now and have been for a while.

I think too many people in our capital are growing their own Magical Gardens if yah catch my drift, either that or they visited Willie on his tour bus.

[Vpanoptes]

Anyone here think this is a good idea, raise your hand. Anyone?

My opinion here - I know that we need to cut our military budget, but I find some of these possibilities to be disturbing.

Retiring the B-1's leaves us a very small fleet of B-2's - appx 20 acft - and an antique, although still capable fleet of B-52's - that averages nearly 50 years old. Let me put that another way, when the bulk of our nations bomber fleet was built, P-51 Mustangs were only just over 15 years old (nearly ten years newer than the average US fighter today.) Of the roughly 80 day-to-day operational aircraft in our bomber fleet, a good proportion of these are not available for conventional missions, as they are committed to Global Strike Command committments.

Actually, I think with the one test airframe and the loss in Guam there may only be 19 B-2's. IIRC, there are/were plans to keep the BUFF in service until the 2040-2050 range, which would certainly be a record for a military aircraft (although I'll bet there are still DC-3's flying "commercially" until the 2030's). Still, at some point they will be "attrited" (is that even a word?) beyond the economic/military/political point of no return.

Retiring the ANG - and possibly Active Duty - F-15C/D's, would leave the USAF without a dedicated air-to-air combat aircraft, beyond the small number of F-22's purchased. Retiring the F-16's prior to the Block 50's would virtually eliminate the Air National Guard itself as an air combat force, once again, virtually eliminating the continental North American Air Defense mission, and a large percentage of the deployed fighter force in our current conflicts.

Without the Block 40 Global Hawks, the U-2S's will have to live on once again - and it is more than capable of doing so, for now. Extraordinary aircraft, but as everything, becoming older as each day passes.

Hey, I for one would love to see the U-2 soldier on, and I suspect it will. Reports of its demise are likely premature.

I will assume that included in this study, although not written, will be a rather dramatic reduction in the purchase of the F-35 Lightnings. Without these aircraft in their currently planned quantities, and given aircraft development around the world, the US in the future, will cease to be the dominate air power in the world.

Without that air power, and the deterrence effect that it carries, consider exactly what that would mean to our world. How many potential 'hot spots' are out there that remain 'behind the scenes' only because countries know that they will be held accountable. There IS a tipping point, a fine line in US striking capability that others are hesitant to cross. Where that line sits exactly isn't known to us, and wherever it is, I don't want to find out.

The point about a "tipping point" is well made; apparently the policy wonks at the DOD have figured we will either be fighting folks with no effective air defenses for the forseeable future and/or we can deal with the Chinese with whatever we end up with in the way of reduced legacy assets, UCAVs and (IMO) what is likely to be a very reduced buy of F-35's simply because we can't afford 'em. Pretty big gamble. (Sorry for the text inside your text, don't know how else to do it).

- Dan

Mike Kopack

Edited June 26, 2010 by Vpanoptes

[HWR MKII]

Maybe were going to buy Flankers

[GreyGhost]

Maybe were going to buy Flankers :D

We couldn't afford 'em either ...

Gregg

[TaiidanTomcat]

more functioning federal agencies cutting budgets and staff...guess they didn't qualify for stimulus money...

Uh yeah, you need to use the money for the "shovel ready/ Greenjobs" that may or may not show results in ten years. with the appropriate committees, oversight, regulators, budget offices and czars that go with it.

I will go to my grave saying the F-22 kept 40,000 jobs and produced something we actually needed, but then they cut it because we can't afford to be wasting our money on things that "don't produce jobs" The F-35 is supposed to step up in order to save but a lot of that seems dubious... and of course it is not yet in production so the jobs are bit off still.

Its all a joke. Have we spent your future today?

Edited June 26, 2010 by TaiidanTomcat

[strikeeagle801]

That's what has me confused. Can we really afford to force so many people out of work in today's economy? If you retire the B-1's, there goes Ellsworth and most of Dyess AFB's, and the thousands of jobs and millions of dollars that they bring to those communites each year, not to mention the military people that will be out of jobs too. Some of them will be able to transfer to other units, but I would wager that a lot won't. If you start retiring the combat F-16's, same thing happens. There goes Hill and Osan (with the current situation there, that ain't a good idea at all). So, yes, we may be saving money on the actual airframes, but how many jobs and how much money is it going to cost in the long run? The B-1's may be getting the hell beat out of them (what airframe that we have is not right now?) but they've got plenty of life left in them. If we can keep a 50+ year old BUFF in the air, we can keep the BONES going for a while longer.

Aaron