>Planned U.S.

>Planned U.S. Air Force divestments and procurements for FY2025
Since we're retiring so many F-22s, why don't we send them to Ukraine?: https://twitter.com/RangeSidewinder/status/1783920604904845331?t=JI19t75rWK0LvxEd6MkkAw&s=19

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They're just retiring the earliest F-22s, ones that aren't combat coded anyway. You forgot to post the procurement also

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly this sounds great for budgetary reasons. They're getting rid of
      >oldest F-22s
      >F-15Es, likely oldest
      >F-15C/Ds, which can't operate in a peer war anyway
      >likely oldest F-16s
      >A-10s (thank fricking god)
      >an Osprey lmao
      >Pave Hawks (helicopter anons chime in, is this good?)
      >Jayhawks (old jet trainers)
      >old C-130s (note H, not J, we're talking 1970s-1980s era aircraft)
      >Stratotankers (O L D)

      And replacing them with
      >new F-15EXs
      >F-35As
      >new jet trainers
      >new tankers
      It honestly doesn't sound like they've lost much capability.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the single osprey was weird but I don't know if it was damaged or written off or something like that. It sounds to me like the NGAD is coming along well, I really don't think they'd be dropped raptors even if they are the oldest least capable ones if the replacement wasn't moving along.

        It's nice getting new 35s after the covid delay. Hopefully the figure out TR-3 and block 4.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There was an osprey crash landed last year so it's probably that

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The pave hawks are probable old models too, the AF recently announced a new upgrade suite for the platform too, as well as a new model of general use helicopter to replace the fricking ancient hueys still kicking around

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >F-22s for F-35s
      >A good thing

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >cheaper
        >lower airframe hours
        >better networking
        >ability to use a range of a/g weapons
        Yeah

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what part of non combat coded did you not understand lol

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, they're essentially F-22 trainers that are never, and will never be brought to combat standard. They have the most hours on their airframes, and take up tons of maintance hours to keep them.

        So yes, divesting the oldest F-22s for more F-35s now and NGADs in the future, is a good thing.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lol we'll have a eurotrash sized air force shortly
      it's over

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we'll
        post hand

        I know the new tankers are better but reducing the number by 1 seems like a small capability drop.

        The KC-46 is larger and carriers more fuel than the 135. That said boeing is boeing so your point might still stand.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So when are we getting F-22Cs?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        At best F-22s will be kept for adversarial 5th gen training against NGAD/F/A-XX and their CCAs.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      all those boeing products

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >no new F-22 and B-52
      It's over.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Warthog
    Good riddance

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know the new tankers are better but reducing the number by 1 seems like a small capability drop.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fricking vatnik, what blew up?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not necessarily if the new ones have higher availability, lower cost, better maintenance, etc.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/metrea-announces-first-ever-commercial-aerial-refueling-of-us-air-force-aircraft-301876120.html

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Forget the F-22's send the A-10's

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >A-10s
      Nobody wants them, and you need to go back

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        DRONIFY THEM!

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A-10s would make terrible UAVs without someone in wienerpit to nut every time they BRRRRRRRRT. It just wouldn't be the same.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            just use them as cruise missiles

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Maintainance costs just ain't worth it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          God it looks so much fricking better without the bubble
          I wish the really sexy bits of it - the tapered butt, the blended waist, the alluring thin-fat-thin shape of the fuselage, so much like a dick - weren't all hidden by the fat frick wings and psuedo-spats

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm worried. Didn't the US have 25k aircraft in the 1950s or 60s? Now it's down to 5000

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      most concelning, we must get F-4 ploduction back up and lunning light away.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here's force composition reports from 1950-2013. Do some historical analysis.
      https://www.afhistory.af.mil/USAF-STATISTICS/

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why though? none of our possible enemies can hang with the numbers we have now. do we need to keep the USAF in a state to fight off a martian tripod invasion?

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Suddenly Ukraine will have F-15s

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This color scheme suggests that all of that stuff was shot down, use something different

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Since we're retiring so many F-22s, why don't we send them to Ukraine?
    military secrets etc. There is no reason to not send f-15 and f-16 though and since we are retiring them anyway, they could be sent for "free" without taking from 60 billion budget.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Literally just send it all to Ukraine and the war is over. Wtf is America doing?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Might be too late by that point, seems like west not taking it seriously for past 2 years has led to russian breakthrough in donbabwe front.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >300k casualties for 5 km of progress

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          6 km in last 2 weeks I don't think russians have lost that much in that period. Besides with elections done Putin no longer has to worry about opinions of families of cubified mobiks. What are they going to do anyway? Protest? He will just send them to die in ukraine like previous peace protesters.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You post that fricking bullshit break through anymore Its just gonna to get you banned

            We don't to fricking see the same fricking map dozens of times a day posted for 2 fricking weeks bro. It's not what you are saying that's annoying it's your fricking moron redundancy. At least the turtle tank is amusing. I get it you are trolling but it's gone autistic and it's spamming now

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I made this map while i was posting it by overlaying 2 layers I printscreened i could not post same map earlier too either because I used today data.
              >We don't to fricking see the same fricking map dozens of times a day posted for 2 fricking weeks
              If you keep seing maps its because frontline is moving and in this case you get both people worried about worried about breakthrough and vatniks bragging about them because after 2+ years of they managed to get frontline move there because half assed help fricked up things.
              Imagine if people didn't b***h about muh escaltion so much(as if war of conquest wasn't escalation) and Ukraine had F-16 and atacms in summer offensive. And now pretending everything is fine is toxic because its current frontline issues is what actually got cash moving on again and some european countries to stop half assing thing.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Da cumrag, russian bear is stronk as evidenced by 2 year smo

          He's right, this war could have been won in the first year if US politicians had any balls at all. If you want to find Russian cumrags go look in DC

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ya but if we did that NK and Iran wouldn't have gotten involved to lower their respective stockpiles. Now moving into Year 3 of the war China seems to be getting move involved.
            Imagine WW2 if it had been stopped in Poland with the entirety of the Axis unable to capture Warsaw.
            Sure it sucks for the locals but..... that's only an issue if there are a lot of locals left after we make sure they win just barely enough that there aren't enough left to complain about the lack of help in their 1v3 war against some of the largest armies/weapon stockpiles on the planet.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >the west being limp wristed cucks is 4d chess, to uhhh... lower the shell stockpile of north korea
              advanced, vatnik-tier cope

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Lower the stockpiles
              You mean increase production, like everyone else. Also now China, Iran and NK are more bold and united then ever, because they realize the US will half ass any war they fight. If Russia was crushed in a year, China, NK and Iran would have sat the frick down. But boomers cant comprehend paying for something at its intrinsic value and have to lowball wars like they lowball everything else.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >increase production
                Maybe for China but do NK or Iran have any actual ability to increase production? Now Arguably a small increase in Chinese production would likely be able to match total NK or Iranian but what we've seen from Iran and NK is pretty abysmal in terms of quality. China has far more resources to throw at such projects but far less experience since they haven't been in an effective war economy for the last half century like the other 2.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >do NK or Iran have any actual ability to increase production?
                uhhh obviously?
                when you sell shit for money you can reinvest said money into building more shit
                I'm fairly sure they're not giving materiel to russia for free

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >when you sell shit for money
                Russia has no money.
                rumors are saying Russia promised Su-35s in return to Iran.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Most of Saddam's tank force during desert storm was made up of Chinese made Type 69-II, they also supplied H-6 bombers with the Silkworm Anti-ship missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi%27an_H-6
                >Iraqi Air Force — Near the conclusion of the Iran–Iraq War, the Iraqi Air Force received four H-6D bombers and fifty C-601 "Silkworm" anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) in 1987. The first ship to be hit by a Silkworm missile was the Iranian freighter Entekhab on 5 February 1988. The Iraqi Air Force scored hits on a further fourteen tankers and bulk carriers using the H-6Ds and Silkworms.[55] One Iraqi H-6D was shot down by an Iranian F-14 Tomcat jet during the war, the remaining three H-6Ds were destroyed by the United States bombing of Al Taqaddum Air Base in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.[1][55]
                This is why Desert Storm had a larger impact on the Chinese than the Soviets/Russians, since they saw "themselves" getting defeated.

      • 4 weeks ago
        John smith of idaho oblast

        Da cumrag, russian bear is stronk as evidenced by 2 year smo

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What about drones?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The 26th Secretary of the US Air Force listed CCAs among his top seven priorities for the fiscal year (FY) 2024 budget request to its Chief of staff:[9] Collaborative combat aircraft are entering the FY2024 presidential budget request;[57] Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) projects are estimated to be $500 million for perhaps "100 roles" in USAF missions in FY2024.[12] The US Air Force plans to spend more than $6 billion on its CCA programs over the next five years (2023 to 2028).[3]

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can I have one F15 please?

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For me, it‘s the Boeing F-15EX Eagle II

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is it possible those F22s will be converted into target drones for training or are they going to be completely let go?

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    are these to scale?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      unlikely, they're probably just rough scale.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *