F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

[talkitron]

Since there's no fighter threat to the homeland and the likelihood of successfully intercepting the Russian
bombers before they launch their LACMs is negligible that leaves cruise missile defense as the main role.

Cool, redacted document you posted! The document does mention that the F-15C is for homeland defense. However, there is nothing about cruise missile defense in the parts that are not redacted. Maybe the Russian cruise missiles are the primary role; there is no evidence about that here.

US homeland defense is a murky concept. Clearly we do not have deployed surface to air missile batteries protecting the homeland, like some competitor countries do. I doubt the Air National Guard fighter squadrons do a good job of covering the entire continental US. So we have more or less a half-ass homeland defense system. I suppose the Air National Guard is a reserve for when an overseas war does not go well and we still need to fight.

[Corsair1963]

The argument against is that you don't really need EPAWSS for cruise missile defense as most land-attack cruise
missiles don't emit.

Where did you see the claim that F-15C upgrades are being driven by cruise missile defense? Interesting possibility though.

When EPAWSS was cut for the F-15C the argument was that the F-15C was mainly going to be use in the homeland
defense role and EPAWSS in general would not be necessary/useful for that role.

Since there's no fighter threat to the homeland and the likelihood of successfully intercepting the Russian
bombers before they launch their LACMs is negligible that leaves cruise missile defense as the main role.

The small purchase of Legion Pods is consistent with that view.

The USAF cut the EPAWSS from the F-15C upgrade. As they decided to replace the aircraft instead of upgrading them. (unlike F-15E)


As for Air Defense Missions you have to prepare for numerous threats. Some not even seen today....Just one more reason the F-15EX is a "poor choice".


IMHO

[Corsair1963]

Since there's no fighter threat to the homeland and the likelihood of successfully intercepting the Russian
bombers before they launch their LACMs is negligible that leaves cruise missile defense as the main role.

Cool, redacted document you posted! The document does mention that the F-15C is for homeland defense. However, there is nothing about cruise missile defense in the parts that are not redacted. Maybe the Russian cruise missiles are the primary role; there is no evidence about that here.

US homeland defense is a murky concept. Clearly we do not have deployed surface to air missile batteries protecting the homeland, like some competitor countries do. I doubt the Air National Guard fighter squadrons do a good job of covering the entire continental US. So we have more or less a half-ass homeland defense system. I suppose the Air National Guard is a reserve for when an overseas war does not go well and we still need to fight.

ANG Units forward deploy "all" the time and surely would during a crisis or conflict. Yet, according to some I guess second best is ok??? (think about it)

[Corsair1963]

What we should do in my opinion. Is to replace the USAF F-15C's at Lakenheath (UK) and Kadena (Okinawa, Japan) with the F-35A's. With the remainder of the ANG F-15C's being replaced with additional upgraded F-16C's! These are plentiful and a extensive upgrade program. Is currently on going.....

[marauder2048]

Cool, redacted document you posted! The document does mention that the F-15C is for homeland defense. However, there is nothing about cruise missile defense in the parts that are not redacted. Maybe the Russian cruise missiles are the primary role; there is no evidence about that here.

US homeland defense is a murky concept. Clearly we do not have deployed surface to air missile batteries protecting the homeland, like some competitor countries do. I doubt the Air National Guard fighter squadrons do a good job of covering the entire continental US. So we have more or less a half-ass homeland defense system. I suppose the Air National Guard is a reserve for when an overseas war does not go well and we still need to fight.

The US has been circumspect about systems and platforms for cruise missile defense; you can find very little
on the Army's recently deployed ALPS passive sensor that's explicitly intended for cruise missile defense.

But the Russian LACM threat to the US has been highlighted in all of the testimony NORAD has given to Congress
over the last few years and was called out explicitly in the Missile Defense Review and MDA setup
the CMD-H program. And it's been a real driver for the AESA'ing of the F-16s.

And more to the point, the F-15 is the CMD fighter that all of the recently published AF campaign modeling has used.

[talkitron]

The US has been circumspect about systems and platforms for cruise missile defense; you can find very little
on the Army's recently deployed ALPS passive sensor that's explicitly intended for cruise missile defense.

But the Russian LACM threat to the US has been highlighted in all of the testimony NORAD has given to Congress
over the last few years and was called out explicitly in the Missile Defense Review and MDA setup
the CMD-H program. And it's been a real driver for the AESA'ing of the F-16s.

And more to the point, the F-15 is the CMD fighter that all of the recently published AF campaign modeling has used.

Interesting info; all new to me. I searched for "cruise missile defense" and came up with this article, which suggests that we have extremely poor cruise missile defense, even around Washington, DC.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/norad-chief-says-troubled-jlens-blimps-needed-to-detect-1764093184

How does a "passive sensor" like ALPS help detect an incoming cruise missile? Is it because the cruise missile is chattering back to the platform that fired it? Of course, I found absolutely no concrete info on what ALPS looks like. It is a ground-level system or a balloon?

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/pentagon-confirms-deploying-new-passive-sensor-against-cruise-missiles-aircraft-drones.html

[sferrin]

The US has been circumspect about systems and platforms for cruise missile defense; you can find very little
on the Army's recently deployed ALPS passive sensor that's explicitly intended for cruise missile defense.

But the Russian LACM threat to the US has been highlighted in all of the testimony NORAD has given to Congress
over the last few years and was called out explicitly in the Missile Defense Review and MDA setup
the CMD-H program. And it's been a real driver for the AESA'ing of the F-16s.

And more to the point, the F-15 is the CMD fighter that all of the recently published AF campaign modeling has used.

Interesting info; all new to me. I searched for "cruise missile defense" and came up with this article, which suggests that we have extremely poor cruise missile defense, even around Washington, DC.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/norad-chief-says-troubled-jlens-blimps-needed-to-detect-1764093184

How does a "passive sensor" like ALPS help detect an incoming cruise missile? Is it because the cruise missile is chattering back to the platform that fired it? Of course, I found absolutely no concrete info on what ALPS looks like. It is a ground-level system or a balloon?

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/pentagon-confirms-deploying-new-passive-sensor-against-cruise-missiles-aircraft-drones.html

I would say more like NO cruise missile defense. If an Oscar II pulled up off the East coast with a load of Shipwrecks modified for nuclear land-attack (trivial) it could lay waste to DC, Langley, Norfolk, the Pentagon, Newport News, Baltimore, Philly, and NY in a matter of minutes. WAY faster than ICBMs over the pole. And not one piece of hardware in position to do a damn thing about it. Then there's talk of swapping out the P-700s for 72 P-800s (Oniks/Brahmos) which could easily have nuclear land-attack versions. 72 nukes in maybe 5 minutes.

[talkitron]

I would say more like NO cruise missile defense. If an Oscar II pulled up off the East coast with a load of Shipwrecks modified for nuclear land-attack (trivial) it could lay waste to DC, Langley, Norfolk, the Pentagon, Newport News, Baltimore, Philly, and NY in a matter of minutes. WAY faster than ICBMs over the pole. And not one piece of hardware in position to do a damn thing about it. Then there's talk of swapping out the P-700s for 72 P-800s (Oniks/Brahmos) which could easily have nuclear land-attack versions. 72 nukes in maybe 5 minutes.

Depressing. I guess at this stage we can only deter with ICBMs. Do we need mobile land based ICBMs to deter first strikes?

[marauder2048]

How does a "passive sensor" like ALPS help detect an incoming cruise missile? Is it because the cruise missile is chattering back to the platform that fired it? Of course, I found absolutely no concrete info on what ALPS looks like. It is a ground-level system or a balloon?

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/pentagon-confirms-deploying-new-passive-sensor-against-cruise-missiles-aircraft-drones.html

For CONUS, the preference has been fighters rather than fixed-batteries due to the civilian air traffic in most
locations; not all civilian air has IFFs and ground-based IRSTs have weather limitations.

A previous proposal had an imaging-infrared SAM + man-in-the-loop datalink that would enable the operator to fly the missile out to a potential target, look at imagery from the seeker and then abort as needed.

Part of the argument for fighter-based IRST is passive identification of threats since a LACM isn't going have a thermal
signature like anything else and the fighters can get around the weather.

ALPS is likely passive radar. To grossly oversimplify, the LACM threat tends to be lowish altitude
which puts it within the range tower antennae used for LTE or Digital TV; those antennas
tend to be pointed downwards towards houses; ALPS samples the signals from the towers directly
and then looks for multipath reflections of the sampled signal.

[talkitron]

ALPS is likely passive radar. To grossly oversimplify, the LACM threat tends to be lowish altitude
which puts it within the range tower antennae used for LTE or Digital TV; those antennas
tend to be pointed downwards towards houses; ALPS samples the signals from the towers directly
and then looks for multipath reflections of the sampled signal.

Thanks for the layman explanation of passive radar. That is pretty cool. I suppose it doesn't work when the enemy kills the civilian electrical grid?

[marauder2048]

ALPS is likely passive radar. To grossly oversimplify, the LACM threat tends to be lowish altitude
which puts it within the range tower antennae used for LTE or Digital TV; those antennas
tend to be pointed downwards towards houses; ALPS samples the signals from the towers directly
and then looks for multipath reflections of the sampled signal.

Thanks for the layman explanation of passive radar. That is pretty cool. I suppose it doesn't work when the enemy kills the civilian electrical grid?

If you notice, your cellphone will still have a signal even during a widespread power outage.

An increasing number of these towers have natural gas or diesel/gas powered backup generators.
Or have solar panels to charge batteries during the day.

[aaam]

So basically this requires a centerline tank? Do wingtanks bounce too much?

Not so much bounce too much. Since the pod is probably non-jettisonable, similar to that on the Super Bug. Mounted on a wing station, you could end up with a troublesome asymmetric loading if the pilot suddenly decided to clean up. More importantly, on the centerline station, the IRST would have a much better field of view.

[aaam]

Depressing. I guess at this stage we can only deter with ICBMs. Do we need mobile land based ICBMs to deter first strikes?

That was originally one of the main reasons MX/Peacekeeper was developed, but we never pursued the concept.

[madrat]

Depressing. I guess at this stage we can only deter with ICBMs. Do we need mobile land based ICBMs to deter first strikes?

That was originally one of the main reasons MX/Peacekeeper was developed, but we never pursued the concept.

I think you're actually meaning more the Midgetman, not the MX-1 Peacekeeper. MX-1 was theoretically possible for rail the disperse concept, but the infrastructure costs made it a no-go. MX-1 on railways was limited to intermodal level of track quality, which was too limited.. Midgetman was roads and could use much lighter tracks that pre-existed.

[aaam]

Depressing. I guess at this stage we can only deter with ICBMs. Do we need mobile land based ICBMs to deter first strikes?

That was originally one of the main reasons MX/Peacekeeper was developed, but we never pursued the concept.

I think you're actually meaning more the Midgetman, not the MX-1 Peacekeeper. MX-1 was theoretically possible for rail the disperse concept, but the infrastructure costs made it a no-go. MX-1 on railways was limited to intermodal level of track quality, which was too limited.. Midgetman was roads and could use much lighter tracks that pre-existed.

You're right about Midgetman, but IIRC multiple siting options, including mobile, were one of the design considerations involved in the initial design of the MX program. I do remember that some Naval Reserve officers did a study showing you could use modified LCACs (ashore) could serve as a launch platform but they ran into N. I. H. opposition from both Air Force and Navy.