USAF FY24 retirement request for 310 aircraft

[mushbuster]

Reported in various locations, the FY24 budget request includes a request to retire 310 aircraft
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-wa ... -aircraft/
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/pent ... -aircraft/ including the last E-8s and KC10s
A full list of the divestments are as follows:

A-10s: 42
A-29: 3
B1: 1
C-130H: 2
E-3: 2
E-8: 3 (last in the fleet)
EC-130H: 2
EC-130J: 4
F-15 C/Ds: 57
F-22: 32
HH-60G: 37
KC-10: 24 (last in the fleet)
MQ-9: 48
RQ-4: 1
T-1: 52

[alpharomeo]

Make that 47 MQ-9 !

[sjoerd]

Make that 47 MQ-9 !

Either way, AMARG will see some new entries again (as well attract more wrecks & relic hunters).

[witje]

32x F-22? That’s a lot

[red leader]

I agree. Very surprising.

[STN RAMP RAT]

I can’t believe they are planning to retire J model C130’s when they still have classics in service.

[Canberra TT.18]

I can’t believe they are planning to retire J model C130’s when they still have classics in service.

Isn't the EC-130 being replaced by EC-37s?
The EC-130J are among the oldest Js in service.
And most probably the EC-130H and J have a different task.

32x F-22? That’s a lot

They tried to withdraw the lower block F-22 last year, but had to find a way to secure training Congress demanded. Maybe they did?

The list only gives what will be withdrawn not what will (in some cases) replaces them.
For some aircraft on the list there is a direct replacement in production/on order.

[Alf]

Is anything replacing the T-1 Jayhawks? They seem to appear each month on the AMARG arrivals inventory, is it a reduction in the fleet size or a complete retirement?

[Canberra TT.18]

Is anything replacing the T-1 Jayhawks? They seem to appear each month on the AMARG arrivals inventory, is it a reduction in the fleet size or a complete retirement?

It seems retirement
https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/d ... ce-unclear

[65thAgressor]

42 A-10 There is a strong A-10 lobby in the us goverment lets hope they put a stop to this. Also with 32 f-22 for the chop,were looking at a usaf of f-35's.

[EGDR]

I can’t believe they are planning to retire J model C130’s when they still have classics in service.

Isn't the EC-130 being replaced by EC-37s?
The EC-130J are among the oldest Js in service.
And most probably the EC-130H and J have a different task.

Precisely. The EC-130J was their PSYOPS aircraft and already wrapped up operations last year, with the airframes planned to be reverted to C-130J spec. The role was put aside as it focused primarily on TV/radio broadcasting which are quickly being superseded by internet-based communications which don't require an aircraft overhead pumping out strong transmissions.

The EC-130H on the other hand is an electronic attack aircraft tasked with disrupting the command & control functions of an enemy.

The EC-130J's predecessor was the long retired EC-130E Commando Solo .

[mhm]

i can understand retiring older fighter jets with the latest fighters coming into service. Put the older as RTP that way they are not wasting money on keeping all the fleet airworthy and have loads of spares.

[quid21]

Surprised about the F-22 - even the lower blocks are surely still excellent aircraft!

[Malcolm]

They often talk about "Combat Coded" F-22's, which are the ones that have been kept up to date with latest software and hardware updates. It seems that only about 125 of the 186 odd are "Combat Coded", and it's too expensive to bring the other 60 or so jets up to full spec (a bit like the UK's Tranche1 Typhoons). Last year congress insisted on keeping the non Combat Coded jets in the inventory for training purposes, but it's fairly obvious the USAF wants rid of them.

As for A-10, yes there is a lot of congress support for them, but IMV that's because those Congressmen and Senators are from states (MI, ID, MD, MO) where their ANG units operate them, and those states don't want to lose their aircraft. However, as more F-35's come in, and F-16's are freed up from front line units I suspect these A-10 operating states ANG aircraft will get replaced with F-35/F-16 and once that happens there will be no need for the politicians from those states to kick up a stink to save "their" aircraft.

[Agent K]

Surprised about the F-22 - even the lower blocks are surely still excellent aircraft!

They probably are, but I suspect it's not about that, it's about interoperability. Once you start getting several mod standards of aircraft then it becomes more costly to maintain sub fleets within fleets and eve more importantly down line in an operational theatre it becomes even more difficult trying to maintain several sub fleets with varying equipment or equipment specs in a restricted/austere environment.

[quid21]

Surprised about the F-22 - even the lower blocks are surely still excellent aircraft!

They probably are, but I suspect it's not about that, it's about interoperability. Once you start getting several mod standards of aircraft then it becomes more costly to maintain sub fleets within fleets and eve more importantly down line in an operational theatre it becomes even more difficult trying to maintain several sub fleets with varying equipment or equipment specs in a restricted/austere environment.

Pity they didn't keep them up-to-date, but I guess it all comes down to cost.

I wonder how few in number the rest of the F-22 fleet would have to be before it becomes too costly to keep any!

[Agent K]

Pity they didn't keep them up-to-date, but I guess it all comes down to cost.

I wonder how few in number the rest of the F-22 fleet would have to be before it becomes too costly to keep any!

Agreed, it's an amazing aircraft, saw quite a few at Nellis last month and over the past few years, even the test ones with chrome/special skins. I guess it's a combination of there being something to replace it, as well as there being appropriate numbers.

[Pesmog]

Given its massive fuel capacity the KC-10 is a very useful aircraft for long haul refueling. I guess they have changed their refueling philosophy and now regard two aircraft as being better than one.
What happened to the KC-Y program which envisaged a larger aircraft to be build from the end of the decade where I believe one option was that it might be a 3rd party commercial operator using widebodies for the more routine long haul refuelings?

[Alf]

Given its massive fuel capacity the KC-10 is a very useful aircraft for long haul refueling. I guess they have changed their refueling philosophy and now regard two aircraft as being better than one.
What happened to the KC-Y program which envisaged a larger aircraft to be build from the end of the decade where I believe one option was that it might be a 3rd party commercial operator using widebodies for the more routine long haul refuelings?

Sounds like KC-Y will not happen and USAF will buy more KC-46 instead after the planned 179.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... n-approach

[Ghastly Whisper]

Given its massive fuel capacity the KC-10 is a very useful aircraft for long haul refueling. I guess they have changed their refueling philosophy and now regard two aircraft as being better than one.

True, but they are also ancient, break down a lot and I guess spare parts may be increasing in price.

The USAF is slightly obsessed with maintenance hours per flight hour, I assume that is also considered.