hell away.' The TAC types were wrong. We need bombers; we need them bad.
Without bombers, General Loh would tell you today, there is absolutely no way ACC can hope to accomplish its assigned missions. Though they seem large and ponderous to fighter pilots, the big birds represent a known and ready capability to deliver massive amounts of firepower over great distances, with rapid responsiveness. Current ACC plans have the bombers armed with a variety of precision munitions (JDAMS and JSOW), conventional bombs (Mk 82/83/42 and CBU-87/89/97), and standoff missiles (ALCM-C/CALCM and AGM-142 Have Nap), so they might provide the necessary firepower to prevail in a future conflict. And in time of international crisis, elements of the force of B-52Hs and the B-2 force may be chopped over to control of STRATCOM, to provide additional nuclear deterrence muscle. The Cold War may be over, but the need to present a credible nuclear deterrence force is still with us. Remember, settling our problems with Russia only leaves a couple of hundred potential enemies (countries, terrorist groups, etc.) to deal with out there in the world. Many of them are trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility of suffering nuclear annihilation from an overwhelming and undeniable U.S. deterrence force is one way to keep proliferation of such weapons under control.
As with the fighter force, the good news for the bomber community is that a new, highly capable airframe is on the way. With the B-2A, ACC has a penetrating bomber capable of flying a good payload into virtually any air- defense environment in the world. The bad news is that the USAF is only buying twenty of the production B-2s, with further production greatly in doubt. General Loh has stated his support for maintenance of the heavy bomber production capability, and obtained some $125 million in FY-1995 funding to keep the Northrop production line and its subcontractors alive while the question of further production is studied. ACC's long-term problem is to keep the bomber force viable in the face of pressure to cut ACC force levels.
This is where the long-standing disputes between the 'fighter mafia' and 'bomber barons' become most evident. The fighter supporters question both the ability of bombers to operate in a modern war and their relatively high O&M costs. The bomber supporters will tell you that fighters do not have the range or carrying capacity to haul the loads of precision munitions required in future conflicts. Who is right? In a manner of thinking, both of them. Generals Loh and Ralston, as well as the rest of the ACC leadership, have tended to bet on the bird-in-the- hand theory, which is to say that the bombers are here, they are paid for, and as such should be made use of. Nevertheless, there will inevitably be cuts in the bomber force. Though General Loh would prefer to maintain a force of 180 bomber airframes on duty, this number will probably have to be cut, mostly though a mix of B-52H and B-1B mothballing.
To sustain a force of one hundred available bombers requires a total of about 180 airframes to cover those in test, training, refit, and maintenance. Note that I say mothballed, and not retired or scrapped. ACC wants the bomber airframes that are taken out of service to be protected, so they can be 'bought back' should a crisis arise or attrition from combat casualties become critical. Moreover, the ACC leadership have done their best to buy back capabilities that were lost when the last of the B-52Gs were retired in 1993. During a recent visit to ACC headquarters at Langley AFB, General Loh was almost ecstatic when he heard that six B-52Hs of the 2nd Bombardment Wing at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, had been made capable of launching the AGM-142 Have Nap standoff missile, and that their AGM-84 Harpoon anti-shipping missile and mining capabilities would also soon be restored. Such is the state of affairs in the U.S. military that a senior military leader is excited over a restored capability in just six airframes of a forty-year-old bomber design. It is something to keep in mind.
Of equal concern to the ACC leadership is the problem of their limited fleet of electronic warfare (EW) aircraft. EW aircraft are what is known as 'force multipliers,' and no aerial campaign in the last two decades has succeeded without them. Unfortunately, the linchpin of the USAF EW fleet, the SAM hunting Wild Weasel version of the venerable F-4G Phantom II, is — well — ancient. With the airframes hitting their twenty-fifth year of continuous service, it is essential to find a replacement airframe to do the mission of suppressing enemy air defenses. However, since there is absolutely no money to even consider producing a dedicated replacement Wild Weasel aircraft, the two remaining squadrons of F4-Gs will have to soldier on, supplemented by the hundred Block 50/52 F-16Cs equipped with the new Texas Instruments AN/ASQ-213 HARM Targeting System (HTS) pods and support from other ACC EW surveillance aircraft.
The other ACC EW airframes are in somewhat better shape, though their numbers are much lower than the ACC leadership would like. The EF- 111A Raven (called the Spark 'Vark by their crews) fleet is in good shape. Unfortunately, they are scheduled to be retired in the next few years. The EC- 130H Compass Call birds are also quite capable, though their lack of numbers is somewhat troubling.
Certainly the most diverse part of the ACC fleet is the aircraft that fall in the general category of support. At the top of the list is the fleet of E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft. Few communities in the USAF have more temporary duty (TDY) assignment days than the 552nd Wing at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. Like the other force multipliers, the E-3 community is limited by their relatively small number of airframes. In addition, they suffer because of their 1960s computer technology and less-than-efficient turbojet engines. The good news is that the AWACS Radar System Improvement Program (RSIP) should resolve the worst of the Sentry's problems, and the USAF is studying the retrofitting of new engines as well. In the long term, the next generation of surveillance aircraft will have to wait for some time, probably well into the 21st century.
The problem of numbers is also of concern to the EC-135 Looking Glass and EC-130 Airborne Command and Control Center (ABCCC) communities. These airborne command posts provide command and control for a variety of USAF operations. Both are invaluable national assets, and are beginning to get a bit long in the tooth. Watch for a replacement or supplement for these airframes in the next few years. Happier thoughts surround those in the OA-10 community, whose performance as forward air controllers during the recent Persian Gulf was nothing short of outstanding. Though short on all-weather/day-and-night systems, their crews and support personnel have taken their Warthog attitude of operations and made lemonade from what some folks might consider lemons. Right now they are starting to consider using night vision goggles to get more out of their already busy birds. Finally, in one of the ironies of the 1992 mergers, ACC took over beddown and control of the fleet of E-4s. Once known as the 'Doomsday Planes,' these modified 747s still remain on alert to provide a secure, safe haven for the national command authorities in the event of a crisis or national emergency.
So what will be the next addition to the American fleet of support aircraft? Probably the new E-8 Joint Surveillance Tactical Reconnaissance Systems (JSTARS) aircraft, which will become available in the late 1990s. The E-8 (another modified 707 airframe) will provide information on ground forces the way the E-3 AWACS keeps an eye on airspace. While extremely expensive, the E-8 will undoubtedly become one of the crown jewels of the USAF fleet.
Nowhere in ACC is there a greater shortfall of capability, or more frustration, than in the airborne reconnaissance community. At the top of the problem list is the fleet of RF-4C Phantom II photo reconnaissance aircraft. These birds are antiquated and obsolete. They suffer from structural fatigue problems, short range (due to their thirsty J-79 turbojet engines), lack of modern radar warning receivers (RWRs), electronic countermeasures (ECM) gear, and outdated sensors. Only the loving care of their operators in units of the Nevada and Alabama ANG is keeping the RF-4C as a viable system. There had been plans to replace the RF-4C with a reconnaissance version of the F-16, carrying a podded version of the Advanced Tactical Reconnaissance System (ATARS). But when the system ran into technical problems, the USAF canceled the program. This caused much shock and displeasure for the other planned ATARS users, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. Following this programmatic fiasco, as well as complaints with the overall direction of airborne reconnaissance, the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) was created in 1993 to coordinate all airborne reconnaissance systems for all services. For now, though, the Air Force's contribution to the tactical photo reconnaissance mission is going to be limited to satellite assets from the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and the aging fleet of RF-4Cs.
