USAF active military aircraft numbers

USAF aircraft totals and serviceability rates just for some comparison.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2576114.html

Was just gonna post that.

Its pretty interesting, some types they have fewer than I'd have thought, others far far more.

Also kinda deceptive, I see 200 F15s & think 'Oh that's not so many' but then there are another 250 so its actually 450...
Then 150 F16 sounds OK until I notice the other 800 that my eyes skipped over

Had no idea they had anywhere near as many C-17s as that
Must have retired C-5?
And completely crazy numbers of KC-135.

But then for full picture you need to add helicopters, Marines & Navy (I wonder if they're including Air National Guard in these numbers?) and then the total numbers become mind bending.

hoom wrote:Was just gonna post that.

Its pretty interesting, some types they have fewer than I'd have thought, others far far more.

Also kinda deceptive, I see 200 F15s & think 'Oh that's not so many' but then there are another 250 so its actually 450...
Then 150 F16 sounds OK until I notice the other 800 that my eyes skipped over  

Had no idea they had anywhere near as many C-17s as that
Must have retired C-5?
And completely crazy numbers of KC-135.

But then for full picture you need to add helicopters, Marines & Navy (I wonder if they're including Air National Guard in these numbers?) and then the total numbers become mind bending.

You are making confusion between planes: F-15C is an air superiority fighter i.e. the equivalent of Su-27, F-15E is a strike plane i.e. something like a Su- 34 or better a Su-30 with primary A2G role.
F-15D and F-16D are OCU trainers so the equivalent of Su-30mk2 or any previous U market planes.planes (but retaining some operative characteristics).

hoom wrote:Was just gonna post that.

Its pretty interesting, some types they have fewer than I'd have thought, others far far more.

Also kinda deceptive, I see 200 F15s & think 'Oh that's not so many' but then there are another 250 so its actually 450...
Then 150 F16 sounds OK until I notice the other 800 that my eyes skipped over  

Had no idea they had anywhere near as many C-17s as that
Must have retired C-5?
And completely crazy numbers of KC-135.

But then for full picture you need to add helicopters, Marines & Navy (I wonder if they're including Air National Guard in these numbers?) and then the total numbers become mind bending.

Of course. Those assets are absolutely required for "US-style" power projection and they don't come cheap. The US is far away from Eurasia.

I think Air National Guard is included, not 100% sure though. If you include everything (Navy + Marines), I think the total is something like 3000 "fighters", or atleast pretty close, 2500+.

Best part of the US fighter stock old clunker, from the cold war.

The secret to the C-17s success is what they are trying with the F-35.

Make the factories that make all the parts in economically depressed areas so members of congress with rubber stamp new production orders to keep workers in their areas working and happy.

The Pentagon stopped asking for C-17s because Congress would order new production models every year without the Pentagon having to even ask... super successful.

Except this arrangement also made them super expensive... but you could turn that around and say they are an investment of money to depressed areas of the US... so think of it as welfare...

The C-17 is no better than an Il-476 yet costs 5-10 times more...

US Air Force Stats



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3039763.html

Technical readiness of the US Air Force fleet



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3114161.html

US Air Force Statistics

Official statistics on the US Air Force published in the USAF Almanac 2019 as a special issue of the Air Force Magazine for the US Air Force for June 2019. Statistics is mainly provided as of the end of the 2018 fiscal year (September 30, 2018).







https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3661193.html

Technical health of the US Air Force fleet continues to decline

As follows from the data of the US Air Force published by the American newspaper "Air Force Times", the level of technical serviceability of the US Air Force fleet in the 2018 fiscal year (ended September 30, 2018) further decreased compared to the previous 2017 fiscal year. The level of technical serviceability of the aviation fleet of the United States Air Force has been decreasing continuously since the 2012 fiscal year, having decreased in six years as a whole by 8%.


The level of technical serviceability of the US Air Force aircraft fleet in the 2018 fiscal year (c) Air Force Times

According to published data, a total of 39 out of 87 types of aircraft of the US Air Force were faced with a deterioration in the level of technical health in 2018 Finnish year, some significantly.

In particular, for fifth-generation fighter jets Ljckheed Martin F-35A Lightning II technical serviceability decreased by 5% (less than half of the 148 F-35A aircraft of the US Air Force were considered capable of flying in 2018 Finn year). Also, a significant decrease in technical readiness was affected by Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bombers (a decrease of 4%, due to a high level of deployment), Bell Boeing CV-22 Osprey convertible planes (by 7%), DRLO planes and control Boeing E-3G AWACS Sentry systems (by almost 9%), Lockheed C-130H Hercules military transport aircraft (by almost 5%), and Beechcraft T-6A training turboprop training aircraft

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3721146.html

Plans to reduce the US Air Force fighter fleet and create new fighters

bmpd
May 15th, 3:26

The American magazine "Air Force Magazine" published material John A. Tirpak "Air Force Wants to Cut 421 Old Fighters, Buy 304 New Ones" ( "US Air Force wants to write off 421 old fighter, having bought a new 304"), stating that According to the abstracts received by the magazine for the discussion of the US budget for the 2022 fiscal year, the US Air Force will ask the US Congress to withdraw 421 obsolete combat aircraft from service by 2026, replacing them with 304 new fighters. Savings generated from operating a smaller fleet of combat aircraft will be directed towards the acquisition of new aircraft systems such as the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter later this decade.

The 421 planes to be retired include a complete phase-out of the obsolete F-15C/D fleet of approximately 234 aircraft by the end of fiscal 2026. The fleet of F-16 fighters will be reduced by 124 aircraft, mostly of those called "pre-block", or the oldest modifications, resulting in a total of 812 aircraft by the end of 2026. The number of A-10 attack aircraft will be reduced from 281 to 218, which means a reduction of 63 aircraft, but with a more aggressive schedule of reductions to be completed in FY2023.

Under the Future Defense Plan (FYDP) for the coming years, which ends in FY2026, the United States Air Force will receive 84 new F-15EX and 220 F-35A fighters, resulting in a net reduction of 117 fighter aircraft over the five-year period. ... The reductions will be the largest since CAF Redux, or the reduction in the number of combat aircraft in the early 2010s, when the US Air Force reduced its numbers by about 250 combat aircraft.

For several years, the US Air Force has insisted on obtaining permission to abandon obsolete aircraft systems in order to pay for new ones that will be more relevant to future hostilities, especially in the Indo-Pacific theater. US Air Force officials in recent days have announced plans to begin phasing out fifth-generation F-22 fighters in 2030, which will be replaced by the so far classified NGAD family of aircraft systems, which is known to be at least one manned fighter and possibly several unmanned options. Like NGAD, the new MR-X fighter will also be designed using a new digital methodology to dramatically reduce design, development and commissioning times.

“Just keeping up with threats will require an additional $ 6 billion to $ 7 billion a year to modernize our current projected forces,” the US Air Force said in a statement. "Even if these forces are affordable, they do not have sufficient capacity to counter a promising threat from rivals." The document goes on to argue that no amount of technology can transform "our fourth generation fighters into fifth generation fighters, or fifth generation fighters into NGADs."

The document also points out that obsolete aircraft systems are becoming "significantly more expensive to maintain" and that the US Air Force operates one of the oldest combat aircraft fleets in the world. The document states that the average age of the US Air Force combat aircraft fleet is 28.6 years. For comparison, the average age of the US Navy fleet is 14.4 years; the average age of the US Army Aviation fleet is 15.3 years; The Royal Australian Air Force is 8.9 years old and the Royal Air Force of Great Britain is 16.5 years old.

US Air Force deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom, said this week that the US Air Force's operating costs are "skyrocketing" and are increasing at twice the rate of inflation due to the age of the aircraft. He said that 44 percent of the US Air Force fleet exceeded its planned service life. It was originally assumed that the F-16 fighters would only serve until about 2005.

The F-22 fleet of approximately 180 aircraft will remain intact for the duration of the FYDP defense plan, receiving ongoing funding for sensor upgrades and remaining fully operational until it is withdrawn from the US Air Force in 2030. However, according to the presented theses for the discussion of the budget, the F-22 "cannot be made competitive against the threats that will be two decades later."

The NGAD "family of systems" represents "our ability to fight and win in a highly competitive future," the document says. The new NGAD development methodology "at a speed that future threats cannot match" will allow the US Air Force to maintain its dominance.

Nonetheless, however, the US Air Force seems to agree that complete air supremacy in a large-scale conflict is no longer achievable. Rather, the NGAD aircraft aims to achieve "temporary windows of superiority" in "highly contested threats" with "additional capabilities" for the combined forces and allies of the United States. To achieve this, the US Air Force needs "a full spectrum of survivability, high speed, advanced weaponry, and extended range."

To accomplish the mission of a "global strike", the US Air Force adds to these characteristics "sufficient payload" and combat resilience, achieved through "the use of human-machine interaction and a combination of manned and unmanned systems."

The fleet of F-16 and A-10 aircraft will also continue to receive funding for upgrades and enhancements to keep them relevant until these types are fully decommissioned.

According to the document, the plan reflects the results of "an extensive game and analysis involving the most difficult problem (China) and the most difficult scenario (Taiwan) at the most difficult time (2035)." “It is clear that the US Air Force must restructure its forward-looking fighter force by changing investment priorities to ensure the capabilities, capabilities and affordability needed to counter the threat from competitors,” the US Air Force document says.

US Air Force Chief of Staff, General Charles K. Brown, Jr. said on May 12 that the US Air Force should reduce the number of fighter types in its fleet from seven fighter types to "four plus one", with "one" being the A-10 to cut costs. for maintenance due to too many supply chains.

According to the theses for the discussion of the draft budget, the A-10 attack aircraft "are very effective in current conflicts, but not viable in the long term." "Lack of survivability in the changing environment of global threats and its limited set of capabilities make it ineffective in the necessary role of available capabilities." The documents state that the A-10 cannot carry out the tasks of defending against an air enemy, suppressing enemy air defenses or providing defense of US territory. The United States Air Force has tried several times unsuccessfully to decommission the A-10, but enthusiasts have argued that it is an unrivaled vehicle for close air support.

However, the US Air Force plans to pursue close air support missions in other ways, US Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration and Requirements, Lt. Gen. Clinton S. Hinote, told Air Force Magazine on May 13. General Hinote did not elaborate on the new concept for close air support, but it is expected to include unmanned aerial vehicles.

Outside of the FYDP and potentially in the 2030s, the US Air Force expects some 600 post block F-16 fighters (C / D modifications starting with Block 40) to remain in service with some upgrades to provide the possibility of their use in hostilities both against the weak and against equal opponents. The transition to the promising MR-X fighter is expected "in the mid-2030s." This new aircraft will be digitally designed from scratch, with a “decision point” for launching the MR-X program is now expected “in six to eight years,” the document says. The MR-X "must be able to perform missions outside of high-tech warfare at an affordable cost." The F-35 could potentially fulfill this role,

The F-15EX is described in the document as an "oversized weapons truck" capable of carrying long-range weapons in the face of strong enemy opposition or providing air superiority in less contested airspace. Interestingly, while the US Air Force mentioned that the F-15EX could carry the AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) air-to-surface hypersonic missile, the abstracts indicate that it could also carry "particularly large "air-to-air" aviation weapons. Presumably referring to a long-range missile designed to counter China's PL-15 long-range air-to-air missile, but the document does not say

The US Air Force plans to purchase 11 F-15EX aircraft in FY2022, then 14 in FY2023 and 19 each year thereafter under the FYDP program. If this growth continues for a decade, the US Air Force will purchase its 144th F-15EX in fiscal 2030. Contract documents released last year show the US Air Force intends to purchase up to 200 F-15EX aircraft.

General Brown said at a defense symposium this week that his tactical aviation study, which was announced in February, is not intended to be material to Congress, but an internal assessment of the correct composition of a promising fighter fleet that will serve as the basis for a budget request for 2022. fiscal year, and will then be implemented in the FY2023 budget and in the Program Objective Memoranda target document.

The White House is expected to unveil its full draft budget for fiscal 2022 on May 27. Last month, the Biden administration released a brief draft budget that calls for $ 753 billion in national security programs, including $ 715 billion for the US Department of Defense.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4309342.html

US Air Force announced the withdrawal from service and decommissioning of more than 200 aircraft in 2022
Yesterday, 12: 49
31

The US Air Force intends to decommission and decommission more than 2022 aircraft in the next fiscal year 200. The corresponding request has already been sent to the US Congress. This is reported by the specialized American publication AirForcemagazine.

According to the magazine, the US Air Force intends to write off 201 aircraft and buy only 91. This difference is intended to free up cash for the development of new technologies against the backdrop of confrontation with "high-tech" adversaries Russia and China.

According to the head of the Pentagon Lloyd Austin, getting rid of obsolete aircraft and systems will save $ 1,4 billion, which will be redirected to "other needs."

In total, the US Air Force is preparing for decommissioning: 42 A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft, 48 F-15C/D fighters, 47 F-16C/D, 18 KC-135 Stratotanker tanker aircraft, 14 KC-10 tanker aircraft, 8 military transport C-130H Hercules, 4 combat control and target designation aircraft E-8 (JSTARS), 20 RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk drones. Whether these aircraft and UAVs are in active parts or in storage is not reported.

Instead of the decommissioned ones, it is planned to purchase in 2022: the fifth generation F-35A Lightning II fighters - 48 units, the HH-60W helicopter for special operations forces - 14, the KC-46A Pegasus tanker aircraft - 14, the latest F-15EX fighter - 12 and the aircraft SSO MC-130J Commando II - 3 units.

It is noted that the bulk of the decommissioned aircraft will be fighters / attack aircraft F-15, F-16 and A-10 - 137 units, while only 60 - 48 F-35 and 12 F-15EX will be purchased.

https://en.topwar.ru/183590-vvs-ssha-anonsirovali-vyvod-iz-boevogo-sostava-i-spisanie-bolee-200-samoletov-v-2022-godu.html

2021 numbers

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/2021-usaf-ussf-almanac-equipment/

Spending trillions but still most of their aircraft are between 40 and 60! years old.

Some 300 f-15, 550 f-16, 160 f-22 and 230 f-35 which is not a finished product.

That's a lot more than russia but clearly much less than what China may have.

China has 400+ j-10 which is a f-16 counterpart and 400+ j-11, 96 su-30 and 24 su-35 which are f-15 counterpart. Wiki says 150+ j-20 which is f-22 counterpart but I doubt it van face the f-22.

But also let's not forget that both Russia and China have deployed hundreds of ground based AD systems.

Russia is suffering however a huge number disadvantage. It has only 110 or so su-30 and 96 su-35, some 150 mig-31 and around 110 su-34 which isn't really for air to air missions. Mig-29 and su-27 are being quickly removed. They really need to speed up su-57 numbers and start buying thay checkmate in huge quantities. They can't keep up with twin engines fighters only. They need at least 400 checkmate.

My comment stands. Hundreds of billions a year and half of their 2.000 fighter jets is 30 to 40 years old.

The Su-34 is much better then the F-16 at long-range engagements and surpasses even most F-15 versions.

And it´s the west with the numerical disadvantage. The aircraft is their main weapon and 5.000 to 6.000 for the whole of NATO (of which only between 50 ands 60% are combat-ready) are not enough to engange the aircraft and ground based air defence systems of the RusASF + the ground based network of air defence systems of the army and to counduct all the other missions they are supposed to fullfill in wartime.

Hole wrote:My comment stands. Hundreds of billions a year and half of their 2.000 fighter jets is 30 to 40 years old.

The Su-34 is much better then the F-16 at long-range engagements and surpasses even most F-15 versions.

And it´s the west with the numerical disadvantage. The aircraft is their main weapon and 5.000 to 6.000 for the whole of NATO (of which only between 50 ands 60% are combat-ready) are not enough to engange the aircraft and ground based air defence systems of the RusASF + the ground based network of air defence systems of the army and to counduct all the other missions they are supposed to fullfill in wartime.

I agree but not totally.

Against NATO in a fair fight, Russia has no chance. They can take baltics if they need to or attack somthing like Poland but if it goes full out war with US vringing all their jets, russia will be submerged.

In terms of servicability, russian hardware isn't 100% ready too.

Su-34 sucks at air to air engagements. It has a really shitty radar and use the old r-27 missiles.

Prospects for the development of the US Air Force fighter fleet

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4368514.html

Su-34 sucks at air to air engagements. It has a really shitty radar and use the old r-27 missiles.

In the same sense that the F-15E sucks at air to air engagements, its radar gets upgrades and is actually much wider than most airborne radars.

It is optimised for air to ground but can certainly detect air targets and what makes you think it can't use all the modern AAMs the Su-35 will use?

Against NATO in a fair fight, Russia has no chance. They can take baltics if they need to or attack somthing like Poland but if it goes full out war with US vringing all their jets, russia will be submerged.

HATO airpower is designed for invasions in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia... it is very mobile but is based purely on aircraft which makes it rather vulnerable.

Russia would have every chance of defeating HATO because they don't need to take anything, when HATO attacks, Russia does not need to invade Europe... it needs to eliminate Europe as a threat... cruise missiles and ballistic weapons will quickly neutralise threats to Russian forces on their borders... any ground force concentrations can be rapidly eliminated... the IADS will create a no fly zone for HATO aircraft extending 400km into HATO airspace.

At the same time attacks can be launched against military targets in the EU, so your enormous force of air power will immediately split trying to deal with these attacking systems while the remaining half will be left to engage in naughty stuff over the Russian border... stuff they wont get away with for very long because of the density and quality of Russian air defences.

That is assuming HATO wants to turn up to the fight... I suspect the French would find a sensible reason to stay out of it, and other countries likely wont want to take on Russia in a conventional war either... especially if it is started by some fuckwit like Sakashvili, or the Ukraine, or a Baltic state clown.

And things are only getting worse... the UK can't support their own carriers without American and European ships supporting them...

What´s a "fair fight"? We talk about war, there is no fairness.

He still doesn´t get it. The russian army is designed to fight a war even without air support. NATO armies can´t even move inside their own barracks without air support.

My main point is the spending. Russia spends 10 Bill a year on his air force. The procurement process was halted for nearly ten years. In the 2000´s Russia had more important things to spend money on then her air force. Still Russia has 1.000 fighter jets/ground attack planes and so on, half of which are younger then 10 years. On the other hand the USAF never stopped buying aircraft, spends more and more money every year and still half of their fighter jets are around 40 years old. Most of the tankers and a lot of the transport aircraft are 40, 50 or even 60 years of age. Most of their AWACS and ELINT aircraft are 40 or even 60 years old.

Where does all the money go? (rhetorical question)

Isos wrote:

Hole wrote:My comment stands. Hundreds of billions a year and half of their 2.000 fighter jets is 30 to 40 years old.

The Su-34 is much better then the F-16 at long-range engagements and surpasses even most F-15 versions.

And it´s the west with the numerical disadvantage. The aircraft is their main weapon and 5.000 to 6.000 for the whole of NATO (of which only between 50 ands 60% are combat-ready) are not enough to engange the aircraft and ground based air defence systems of the RusASF + the ground based network of air defence systems of the army and to counduct all the other missions they are supposed to fullfill in wartime.

I agree but not totally.

Against NATO in a fair fight, Russia has no chance. They can take baltics if they need to or attack somthing like Poland but if it goes full out war with US vringing all their jets, russia will be submerged.

In terms of servicability, russian hardware isn't 100% ready too.

Su-34 sucks at air to air engagements. It has a really shitty radar and use the old r-27 missiles.

Not too sure about this, because Russia enjoys a huge edge in short/medium range ballistic missiles and can take out the 150-200 military airstrips between its borders and the Rhine on the first day of conflict, and quite a few of the KC tankers, so NATO would not be able to take advantage of its fighter numerical edge.

The other strategic aspect of any large-scale engagement between Russia and NATO is that China would be very likely to jump at the opportunity to take back Taiwan in that case, opening up a massive second front. The US would be in a position similar to Germany in WW2, who was only capable of taking out western allies OR the Soviets on its own, but not their combined attack. Similarly the US can't take out both Russia and China at the same time on their home soil and waters.

George1 wrote:US Air Force announced the withdrawal from service and decommissioning of more than 200 aircraft in 2022
Yesterday, 12: 49
31

The US Air Force intends to decommission and decommission more than 2022 aircraft in the next fiscal year 200. The corresponding request has already been sent to the US Congress. This is reported by the specialized American publication AirForcemagazine.

According to the magazine, the US Air Force intends to write off 201 aircraft and buy only 91. This difference is intended to free up cash for the development of new technologies against the backdrop of confrontation with "high-tech" adversaries Russia and China.

According to the head of the Pentagon Lloyd Austin, getting rid of obsolete aircraft and systems will save $ 1,4 billion, which will be redirected to "other needs."

In total, the US Air Force is preparing for decommissioning: 42 A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft, 48 F-15C/D fighters, 47 F-16C/D, 18 KC-135 Stratotanker tanker aircraft, 14 KC-10 tanker aircraft, 8 military transport C-130H Hercules, 4 combat control and target designation aircraft E-8 (JSTARS), 20 RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk drones. Whether these aircraft and UAVs are in active parts or in storage is not reported.

Instead of the decommissioned ones, it is planned to purchase in 2022: the fifth generation F-35A Lightning II fighters - 48 units, the HH-60W helicopter for special operations forces - 14, the KC-46A Pegasus tanker aircraft - 14, the latest F-15EX fighter - 12 and the aircraft SSO MC-130J Commando II - 3 units.

It is noted that the bulk of the decommissioned aircraft will be fighters / attack aircraft F-15, F-16 and A-10 - 137 units, while only 60 - 48 F-35 and 12 F-15EX will be purchased.

https://en.topwar.ru/183590-vvs-ssha-anonsirovali-vyvod-iz-boevogo-sostava-i-spisanie-bolee-200-samoletov-v-2022-godu.html

In the recent past, a lot of USAF F15s and F16s with plenty of mileage left in them have been arbitrarily decommissioned in order for that fleet to be transferred to Israel. This first occurred when rabbi Dov Zackhein was the Comptroller of the Pentagon back under GWB...

2023 USAF & USSF Almanac: Equipment

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/2023-usaf-ussf-almanac-equipment/