F-15X or F-15SE, F-35, F-22 as air fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5402
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Jun 2019, 07:28

madrat wrote:I'm not interested in handouts to Boeing. What makes their design any more valid that previous generations of discontinued production lines? Lockheed Martin has no fewer than three families of product solutions that I'd build before F-15X: F-22, F-35, and F-16. I can consciously justify F-16 with CFT and an enlarged spine for maximum internal space much easier than an F-15.




Honestly, this just shows what a "scam" the F-15EX is....As the USAF is in the process of upgrading it's remaining F-16 Fleet to the V Standard with a SLEP to boot. These aircraft are available "today" (surplus) and would just be inserted into existing production line.


They could be had more quickly and far more cheaply than the F-15EX's. While, being more that adequate for the task... :doh:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5402
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Jun 2019, 07:49

Fox1 wrote:I'm just happy to finally see fighter aircraft being purchased in quantity again. I'm not going to squabble too much over how many from each manufacturer's production line is chosen. We have a need and the room for both aircraft. And much of that present need is a direct result of not purchasing enough combat aircraft over the past 20 years. So yeah, I'm just happy to finally see a "buy" attitude coming from Washington, which is refreshing after years and years of neglect. It is just terribly sad that attitude wasn't around back in 2009/2010. It sure would have been nice to have had another hundred or so Raptors in the inventory today. Ceasing production of that aircraft at 187 was one of the stupidest decisions I've seen in my lifetime. Obama and Gates sure were some amazing visionaries, huh?



I hate to break it to you. Yet, even the US doesn't have an endless Defense Budget. As a matter of fact we are in "Trillions" of dollars of debt. Also, while the Republicans are happy to spend $750 Billion on the US Military next year. The Democrats would like to spend $733 Billion or even less. Let's not forget they have the MAJORITY in the US House and fair odds of beating Trump in the next election. Hell, they even have a shot at the US Senate. This would give them 2-3 branches of Government. Hell, if that happens the $733 Billion would look real real good!
:shock: :shock: :shock:

In short we "can't afford both". Which, is why we need to increase F-35 Production today and skip the far less capable F-15EX. As we may have less funds in the future. (odds are good)

As for creasing F-22 Production. That likely was the best outcome for the US Military and Western Alliance in the long term. Because if the US funded more F-22's. That very likely would have cut into the F-35 Program. Which, could have pushed up the price of the latter. Making the program unaffordable or at least far more expensive. (sound familiar)

In short canceling the F-22 made the F-35 "viable". Which, will allow us to produce it today in large numbers for us and our allies.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 19:44

madrat wrote:I'm not interested in handouts to Boeing. What makes their design any more valid that previous generations of discontinued production lines? Lockheed Martin has no fewer than three families of product solutions that I'd build before F-15X: F-22, F-35, and F-16. I can consciously justify F-16 with CFT and an enlarged spine for maximum internal space much easier than an F-15.


If anything I'd rather keep NG in the fighter business. They built a competitive design in the ATF competition. Boeing did not in the JSF. Boeing which supposedly excels at large aircraft manufacturing can barely mange with the KC-46A.

What was the last Boeing - in house - combat aircraft design which was truly groundbreaking? The B-52? None in terms of stealth. LM has produced the F-22, F-35, and the F-117.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 19:47

SpudmanWP wrote:Unrefueled range, but that is one of the least important attributes given the sheer amount of IFR the US has at it's disposal.


And how does it get that range? External fuel tanks and CFTs. Both have a negative impact on performance. The CFTs also has a negative impact on the F-15s ability maneuver.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1044
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 10:15

blain wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Unrefueled range, but that is one of the least important attributes given the sheer amount of IFR the US has at it's disposal.


And how does it get that range? External fuel tanks and CFTs. Both have a negative impact on performance. The CFTs also has a negative impact on the F-15s ability maneuver.



With increasing SA and BVR identification and kills, the requirement for pulling "G"'s, is becoming less and less and less important. "G's' are for the airshow circuit. => Let the Russians go that route. => They are good at it.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2037
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 14:18

I still think the reason why the F-15X is being bought is the same reason why the B-52 is still around.
The B-1 and B-2 can do everything the BUFF can and do it better. But you don't always need a B-1 or 2 specially when the enemy has nothing more than small arms and mortars.

Same way the enemy isn't always a S-35 or Su-57, most of the time its just a Su-22 or 24. You'd want to save up on your precious F-22 and F-35 flight hours for the real hard battles not for intercepting the routine Bear over Alaska.

Boeing claims that the F-15X will cost less to buy, fly and maintain than the F-35A. Now I know a lot of people here will dispute that, but the USAF brass aren't idiots, they won't buy into this unless Boeing presents some hard numbers. Apparently Beoing offered it in a locked price contract IIRC
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2037
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 14:28

vilters wrote:
With increasing SA and BVR identification and kills, the requirement for pulling "G"'s, is becoming less and less and less important. "G's' are for the airshow circuit. => Let the Russians go that route. => They are good at it.


I wouldn't go this far. I still prefer F-35 test pilot Tom Morganfeld's words.

HOBS and HMD may diminish the relevance of maneuverability to a degree, but maneuverability will always be important on a fighter


And I may add, the Russians have always been second best in the maneuverability game. The US has always had better dog fighters in every era of history including today.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3195
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 15:06

zero-one wrote:
vilters wrote:
With increasing SA and BVR identification and kills, the requirement for pulling "G"'s, is becoming less and less and less important. "G's' are for the airshow circuit. => Let the Russians go that route. => They are good at it.


I wouldn't go this far. I still prefer F-35 test pilot Tom Morganfeld's words.

HOBS and HMD may diminish the relevance of maneuverability to a degree, but maneuverability will always be important on a fighter


And I may add, the Russians have always been second best in the maneuverability game. The US has always had better dog fighters in every era of history including today.


I'm not so sure about the latter statement...

Their Mig-35's, SU-27SM2's and 3's, SU-30's, SU-35's and soon to be SU-57 are fearsome in close. Let's not under-estimate the enemy. They all have very high thrust to weight ratios, most have thrust vectoring, high operational ceilings and excellent legs, allowing them more time for afterburner in close.

We largely field F-16's, which are excellent dogfight platforms, but not so much after they get loaded up with external stores, sensors, jamming pods etc. The latter two are incorporated into the airframes of most Russian jets, and the US hangs more of those under the wings. Fuel tanks in particular due to generally shorter range than their Russian counterparts. The same is true of our F-15's and especially legacy Hornets and Super-Hornets.

They're all built to dogfight - and win. Most of our aircraft are set up to excel at the BVR game, and rightfully so. But let's give credit where credit is due: Russian jets are (on average), more capable WVR platforms. Assuming equal pilot skills (and they have some excellent ones), they excel close in. The F-35 will go a long way toward improving our position, but it's too early in its fielding/not yet fully mature.

And as it stands, the Chinese are a very close second and will exceed Russian capabilities within a decade. Large numbers of J-15's, J-16's, J-10B's/C's and F/C-31's present a VERY nasty problem. Particularly if the F/C-31 is capable and built in numbers for the PLAAF.

Let me put it this way: If I'm going to dogfight an enemy exclusively, I'd want what the Russians have fielded (today). 10 years from now, that dynamic may change. But as the old saying goes, you go to war today with what you have - not what you wish you had.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2037
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 16:22

well thats why I used Era instead of generation.

Lot of people don't like to compare the F-22/35 with the Su-35 or Mig-29 SMT because they are not in the same generation.
But in war an F-22 wouldn't care if you're a 5th gen, 4+ gen or a 3rd gen. If you're hostile, then you're a target.

So comparing fighters by Era is a more realistic way of comparing fighters as it will be the kinds of fighters that will meet if War breaks out.

Lets say World War 3 broke out in the 70s.
US F-4s, some F-14s F-15s and F-16 would meet against Soviet Mig-21s, 23s and Su-15s
In a dogfight, I'd say the American 70s era fighters have a massive advantage.

World war 3 in the 80s:
F-15s, F-16, F/A-18s
against
Mig-21s, 23, Su-15s and some Mig-29s.
Still a massive advantage for the US

90s:
Teen series
against
Flanker/Fulcrum combo

This is the only era where I think the Russians would have some advantages in a dogfight

2000s to present day
5th gens vs Upgraded Flanker and Fulcrums with external stores

All the advantage will be with the 5th gens even in a gun fight
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 680
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 18:03

Corsair1963 wrote:As for creasing F-22 Production. That likely was the best outcome for the US Military and Western Alliance in the long term. Because if the US funded more F-22's. That very likely would have cut into the F-35 Program. Which, could have pushed up the price of the latter. Making the program unaffordable or at least far more expensive. (sound familiar)

In short canceling the F-22 made the F-35 "viable". Which, will allow us to produce it today in large numbers for us and our allies.


No, F-22 production was stopped at the worst time, when production is getting streamlined. Increase F-22 production also means no need to upgrade F-15C and retire it early which saves money by simplifying logistics. How does cutting F-22 make F-35 viable? F-35 is still needed even if we got 381 F-22s because of strike and other capabilities.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8293
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 18:28

President Trump said Tuesday that acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan is withdrawing as his nominee to take over the Defense Department, saying he has named Secretary of the Army Mark Esper as his new acting secretary of defense.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... for-secdef

Next up, the DoD updates us on the F-15EX.. says they were "just kidding".
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2530
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 19:29

“...maneuverability will always be important on a fighter.”

Agree. So would all fighter guys. They would also tell you that not all maneuverability is necessarily relevant.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1044
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 19:30

zero-one wrote:well thats why I used Era instead of generation.

All the advantage will be with the 5th gens even in a gun fight


To start a Gun Fight? You need a gun. LOL.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8293
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 20:00

Moot point since a vast majority of 5th gen airframes have guns installed with the rest having them as an option.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 20:32

vilters wrote:
blain wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Unrefueled range, but that is one of the least important attributes given the sheer amount of IFR the US has at it's disposal.


And how does it get that range? External fuel tanks and CFTs. Both have a negative impact on performance. The CFTs also has a negative impact on the F-15s ability maneuver.



With increasing SA and BVR identification and kills, the requirement for pulling "G"'s, is becoming less and less and less important. "G's' are for the airshow circuit. => Let the Russians go that route. => They are good at it.


You still need a balance. Mostly, I am addressing the value of the EX. Basically you have a long range interceptor. Where did that requirement come from?
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests