View Full Version : A Flock of F-15X Eagles
Finally some common sense from DOD, blame Trump. Now if they really want to get serious the AF (or Army) should acquire a ton of light air support aircraft, start a Sargent or Warrant pilot rank and a flying only career path.
"America should not too soon abandon tried and true aircraft platforms. The F-15 Eagle still has many years to soar."
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/a_flock_of_f15x_eagles.html
"Warzone’s report contrasts that an “all stealth force sounds gd, but in reality, it is fiscally unsustainable and not beneficial, and even a hindrance,” for many USAF missions. In particular, the Air Force, which had 134 fighter squadrons in 1991 during the Gulf War, wants to expand a current strength of 55 fighter squadrons to 60. USAF’s Air Combat Command General James “Mike” Holmes has therefore emphasized the cost-saving need for an appropriate procurement mix of fourth- and fifth-generation fighters."
"The F-15X thus validates the analysis of Dan Grazier, the Jack Shanahan Military Fellow at the Project on Government Oversight. “Whenever the military possesses a proven basic design like the F-15, the Pentagon should focus its efforts on maintaining and improving it until the state of technology changes to the point where the basic design is no longer viable,” he has noted. The United States Navy has followed this advice with recent purchases of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to complement the navy’s F-35 inventory."
With the F22 and F35 debacles, a new F15 would be a fresh start. It’s never been shot down! The IAF decimated the Syrian AF with it in combat. No brainer IMO.
The F-15SAs that Saudi Arabia ordered in 2015 are the most advanced ones currently. And there are stealth upgrades to the F-15. I was stationed in SA 2013-15 and worked with F-15 Eagle pilots.
Also, the F-15E pilots and wizzos told me they didn't know how any avionics could replace a wizzo for ground attack missions(F-35). They said the pilot is trying so hard no to fly the plane into the ground while the wizzo is selecting targets and munitions, they just see a pilot that will be overloaded or inefficient.
The Air Force 2-star that was my commander when stationed there, and the US Ambassador to SA were both former F-15C pilots. They have one great point about the whole A-10 vs. F-15E vs. F-35 argument. And that is this: How many different platforms does the AF need to drop the same munitions? As far as the gun in the A-10 goes, the F-15E has used it's gun in close quarter combat.
This book perfectly illustrates the arguments of cost vs. equipment while trying to predict the future.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Allies-Won-Richard-Overy/dp/039331619X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=how+the+allies+won&qid=1555941937&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Are the Saudi F-15 nuclear capable? I didn’t think the Israelis or the Saudi’s had nuclear capability.
Are the Saudi F-15 nuclear capable? I didn’t think the Israelis or the Saudi’s had nuclear capability.
I would assume our's are specific for our bombs and missiles so I doubt any export plane would have our nuke capabilities.
BoringGuy45
04-22-19, 11:07
With the F22 and F35 debacles, a new F15 would be a fresh start. It’s never been shot down! The IAF decimated the Syrian AF with it in combat. No brainer IMO.
Other than the cost, what about the F22 is a debacle? From what I've heard, it's a damn good plane.
The F-35, on the other hand, I can't for the life of me figure out why they can't get the damn thing to work, or why half the shit on it is designed the way it is.
The F-15 was, undoubtedly, the best fighter of the Cold War era jets, and is still probably in the top 3 fighters today. I'd say forget the F-35, save some money, and continue to upgrade the F-15. And while they're at it, keep upgrading the Super Hornet, which is one of the only planes in the sky that rivals the Eagle.
Other than the cost, what about the F22 is a debacle? From what I've heard, it's a damn good plane.
The problem with the F-22 is they didn't make enough of them, plus the computers are 90's tech.
"Concerning air superiority, analysts have noted that the “F-15 is designed for this mission.” The F-15 has 50 percent greater maximum speed than the F-35 (Mach 2.5 compared to 1.6) and can fly 10,000 feet higher. Among American planes, only the stealthy F-22 beats F-15s at dogfighting, but USAF has too few of these fighters with 186 units.
At the urging of President Barack Obama, who had threatened to use his veto, Congress made the controversial decision to cancel the F-22 program in 2009, even though USAF had called for a minimum of 381 F-22s. Analysts have decried that the F-22 is “simply the best air superiority fighter the United States has ever produced and it was a foolish, shortsighted decision to end its production run prematurely.”
"Several factors preclude resumption of the F-22 program, whose origins date to the Cold War in the 1980s when USAF initially sought 750 F-22s, including the simple fact that tools and instructions for F-22 production have gone missing. The F-22’s “technology is old -- stealth, propulsion, avionics and airframe design have come a long way since the F-22 was designed,” the National Interest has noted. F-22 “computer architecture dates back to the early 1990s” and the “jet’s antique processors and other components haven’t been made in decades.” Most F-22 “systems would be hopelessly obsolete” by the end of a projected service life in 2035."
why we sell any other country are tech still bugs me :)
MorphCross
04-22-19, 18:08
why we sell any other country are tech still bugs me :)
To keep them from buying from Russia or China?
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-22-19, 19:30
why we sell any other country are tech still bugs me :)
And it spreads the development costs over more airframes, keeps production lines open, and makes upgrade programs more economical.
https://thediplomat.com/2019/04/why-is-china-developing-a-new-j-11-variant/
Looks like the Chinese have the same idea....
Diamondback
04-22-19, 20:05
The problem with the F-22 is they didn't make enough of them, plus the computers are 90's tech.
"Concerning air superiority, analysts have noted that the “F-15 is designed for this mission.” The F-15 has 50 percent greater maximum speed than the F-35 (Mach 2.5 compared to 1.6) and can fly 10,000 feet higher. Among American planes, only the stealthy F-22 beats F-15s at dogfighting, but USAF has too few of these fighters with 186 units.
At the urging of President Barack Obama, who had threatened to use his veto, Congress made the controversial decision to cancel the F-22 program in 2009, even though USAF had called for a minimum of 381 F-22s. Analysts have decried that the F-22 is “simply the best air superiority fighter the United States has ever produced and it was a foolish, shortsighted decision to end its production run prematurely.”
"Several factors preclude resumption of the F-22 program, whose origins date to the Cold War in the 1980s when USAF initially sought 750 F-22s, including the simple fact that tools and instructions for F-22 production have gone missing. The F-22’s “technology is old -- stealth, propulsion, avionics and airframe design have come a long way since the F-22 was designed,” the National Interest has noted. F-22 “computer architecture dates back to the early 1990s” and the “jet’s antique processors and other components haven’t been made in decades.” Most F-22 “systems would be hopelessly obsolete” by the end of a projected service life in 2035."
Worth noting that the F-22's systems are still among the densest power-per-cubic-inch rigs in the history of computing... two breadboxes per plane that were DESIGNED to take upgrades or even be replaced as modules, each ship-set equaling the combined power of three Cray supercomputers. I have no doubt that an F-22 with F-35 electronics grafted in would rule the skies for generations... the problem is they'd be so expensive as to be "silver bullets."
Our big 4 are failing miserably at everything except squandering massive amounts of tax payer money.
The knee high Navy excluded.
Diamondback
04-22-19, 20:36
Our big 4 are failing miserably at everything except squandering massive amounts of tax payer money.
The knee high Navy excluded.
I tell ya, gimme fifty mil and a B-1 and I will show you some Next Level Shit, man... :)
BoringGuy45
04-22-19, 21:59
Our big 4 are failing miserably at everything except squandering massive amounts of tax payer money.
The knee high Navy excluded.
Military R&D has two approaches to everything:
1) Ignore a very obvious need to upgrade a technology until our soldiers get their asses handed to them by an enemy using said technology.
2) Spend billions to replace a technology that is already cutting edge and unmatched even by our allies.
Low(er) cost, incremental upgrades to keep proven technology up to date? What a preposterous idea!
sundance435
04-23-19, 12:44
Other than the cost, what about the F22 is a debacle? From what I've heard, it's a damn good plane.
The F-35, on the other hand, I can't for the life of me figure out why they can't get the damn thing to work, or why half the shit on it is designed the way it is.
The F-15 was, undoubtedly, the best fighter of the Cold War era jets, and is still probably in the top 3 fighters today. I'd say forget the F-35, save some money, and continue to upgrade the F-15. And while they're at it, keep upgrading the Super Hornet, which is one of the only planes in the sky that rivals the Eagle.
The rush to move to serial production of the F-35 circa '09 is probably the biggest source of its current problems. They've squandered several years trying to remedy that. It's now demonstrating just how capable of a platform it is, but that could've been the case years ago if earlier decisions were different. As for F-15 being "top 3", that's open to debate in any of its roles. There are Russian (and by extension, some Chinese) fighters that are at least as capable in the air-to-air and air-to-ground (15E) roles. The Su-30 and 35 are pretty impressive planes. Still, buying the F-15X just makes sense when you look at the huge fighter gap over the next decade, partly due to the decision to curtail F-22 production. AF will always need a high-low mix, not just for air-to-ground, but for air superiority. Why fly F-22s and 35s for jobs can be done effectively, without increased risk, by an F-15? The F-22 is quite a quandary - it's almost too valuable to be putting regular flight hours on the airframes. Maybe it's only a small percentage, but undoubtedly the F-15X could fill in on some missions.
Are the Saudi F-15 nuclear capable? I didn’t think the Israelis or the Saudi’s had nuclear capability.
Israel, undeniably, is nuclear capable. There are stories of them readying planes with nukes during nadir of the Yom Kippur War. Their very first nuclear capability was air-launched. Whether they have SRBM or IRBM capabilities and to what extent is less known.
The problem with the F-22 is they didn't make enough of them, plus the computers are 90's tech.
"Concerning air superiority, analysts have noted that the “F-15 is designed for this mission.” The F-15 has 50 percent greater maximum speed than the F-35 (Mach 2.5 compared to 1.6) and can fly 10,000 feet higher. Among American planes, only the stealthy F-22 beats F-15s at dogfighting, but USAF has too few of these fighters with 186 units.
At the urging of President Barack Obama, who had threatened to use his veto, Congress made the controversial decision to cancel the F-22 program in 2009, even though USAF had called for a minimum of 381 F-22s. Analysts have decried that the F-22 is “simply the best air superiority fighter the United States has ever produced and it was a foolish, shortsighted decision to end its production run prematurely.”
"Several factors preclude resumption of the F-22 program, whose origins date to the Cold War in the 1980s when USAF initially sought 750 F-22s, including the simple fact that tools and instructions for F-22 production have gone missing. The F-22’s “technology is old -- stealth, propulsion, avionics and airframe design have come a long way since the F-22 was designed,” the National Interest has noted. F-22 “computer architecture dates back to the early 1990s” and the “jet’s antique processors and other components haven’t been made in decades.” Most F-22 “systems would be hopelessly obsolete” by the end of a projected service life in 2035."
Speed and altitude matter far less, at least in terms of fighter attributes, than they did in the 70's and 80's when you consider modern SAM technology - hence the importance of stealth. I don't think anyone would argue today that the decision to end F-22 production was/is a disaster. The Japanese have made no secret of the fact that they are still interested in the Raptor, but I don't think anyone here has taken them seriously, at least as far as a joint US-Japan effort to restart. Supposedly the tooling is mothballed somewhere, so I'm not sure where the "missing tools" thing comes from. I'm sure it's not a turn-key affair, but it's documented as possible to restart production - the price to do so is up for debate. My guess is that Lockheed feels there's more profit to be made from pushing the F-35 rather than devoting resources to a limited run of new Raptors. Personally, I don't think it makes any sense to restart production of a 90's-era fighter, even if it is still the best in the world and will be into the foreseeable future. Big-ticket defense items are a disaster, but it probably makes more sense to start designing the next-gen fighter rather than throwing money at building a few more F-22s.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-23-19, 13:11
I love the F15. You gotta love a plane that was built with no compromises to be the baddest Mo-Fo on the block- for 40 years running and still in the DeNiro/Sam from Ronin level of capability. Imagine if we still used P51s in 1980s? Stealth has a shelf life, the F22 would be out of date by the time you got it running back up, even in a Sushi version. F35 is camel- designed by a committee of blind men from a spec sheet. If the net centric whiz-bang stuff works out, it will be awesome, otherwise it seems like a A7 Corsair with an afterburner.
If you want bang for your buck, why not keep buying F16s? I'm guessing that they are too close to the F35, so the AF brass doesn't want that comparo going. Wicked lethal, upgradable, agile and relatively cheap. We'll probably be making them for another decade or so?
I think it was when I was reading about John Boyd that it was said the ideal fighter plane should be small, fast and maneuverable. But many times Congress and USAF brass can’t let alone and a fast, cheap, nimble fighter turns into a lumbering fighter/attack/bomber airframe that cost tens times as much and is either specialized for a role that never happens or is not the best for anything. The F16 if I understand correctly somehow slipped through when the money hogs weren’t looking and became one of the finest fighters. I think the piling on is what happened to the F35. When first announced I understood it was supposed to be a fast nimble fighter that would be cheap enough to produce and deploy in the several hundreds or thousands. But then more and more was added to it and now it is mediocre and very costly.
I do agree that since in all of our not-Russia and not-China wars air superiority is hardly a question even with non-stealth aircraft. Therefore we should have a fleet of durable, easily upgraded and replaced non-stealth fighter/attack aircraft and ground support. These would be the day to day work horses used 90% of the time and would be affordable to operate and replace as needed. I think the F16/F18 fulfill this role well. I think the F35 was a mistake in being intended for this role but adding so much it was delayed and super expensive for the relative role.
Then we should have a single no-holds barred air superiority stealth aircraft like the F22 but now it should be modern and a commitment to keep it forever in production and evolving. This would be used strictly in opening a theatre and establishing superiority and in the back pocket against a Russia/China direct conflict. Seldom used but totally bad ass air to air and against SAM sites and in great enough numbers and well honed training to make R/C think twice.
sundance435
04-24-19, 08:03
When first announced I understood it was supposed to be a fast nimble fighter that would be cheap enough to produce and deploy in the several hundreds or thousands. But then more and more was added to it and now it is mediocre and very costly.
I do agree that since in all of our not-Russia and not-China wars air superiority is hardly a question even with non-stealth aircraft. Therefore we should have a fleet of durable, easily upgraded and replaced non-stealth fighter/attack aircraft and ground support. These would be the day to day work horses used 90% of the time and would be affordable to operate and replace as needed. I think the F16/F18 fulfill this role well. I think the F35 was a mistake in being intended for this role but adding so much it was delayed and super expensive for the relative role.
Then we should have a single no-holds barred air superiority stealth aircraft like the F22 but now it should be modern and a commitment to keep it forever in production and evolving. This would be used strictly in opening a theatre and establishing superiority and in the back pocket against a Russia/China direct conflict. Seldom used but totally bad ass air to air and against SAM sites and in great enough numbers and well honed training to make R/C think twice.
It's always been known as the "Joint Strike Fighter". It was never, from day 1, intended to be a true air-superiority fighter, just like the F-16. That was supposed to be the F-22 in numbers greater than 187. There is a huge need for the capabilities the F-35 offers and being an air-superiority, dog fighting plane is not near the top. This thing was never meant to get close to enemy fighters. It is meant to get within 40-50 miles to use our superior AAMs. Did they try to get the F-35 to do too much in the end? Maybe, but we'll see. The F-35 is meant to "open the theater", as you say, by destroying SAM and radar sites, as well as being able to take out enemy fighters from a distance, if needed. It's not a mediocre aircraft by any stretch.
I agree with the AF, to an extent, that fielding multiple platforms is no longer practical. The F-16 will have to go. The 35 can do everything it can, mostly better. We need to get down to 3 platforms for everything, excluding strategic bombing. The only area I'm on the fence about is the A-10 and CAS. Ideally, though, a CAS aircraft has a WO in the cockpit. That's vital to protecting our guys from friendly fire and killing more of theirs - the other solution (maybe not ideal) is to have something as integrated as the F-35. Something like the A-10 with a little more speed and a WO would be perfect. As it is, the F-15E can be pretty effective in that role, if you're getting rid of the F-16, but we don't have enough of those to take that over, either.
Other than costs the biggest problem I see with stealth is the need to carry ordnance internally, I am a fan of the missile truck concept, put your stealth out front to acquire target data and have another aircraft lob AAM's at them from 50 miles away. One big improvement of the F-15X is the ability to carry 22 AAM's.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-24-19, 08:34
Other than costs the biggest problem I see with stealth is the need to carry ordnance internally, I am a fan of the missile truck concept, put your stealth out front to acquire target data and have another aircraft lob AAM's at them from 50 miles away. One big improvement of the F-15X is the ability to carry 22 AAM's.
quantity has a quality all of its own....
F35 got jacked by the VTOL requirement. If it were just the Marines, I would have told them to have fun with Harriers, but I guess it does open up carrier ops for countries like Japan.
Gone are the glory days of the 60s and 70s when we had 20 different aircraft types between the Navy and Air Force.
The Harrier was unsustainable, like the F-18 is now. Pilots complained that they could never spend enough time in the air because they were down too often for maintenance.
I do agree that since in all of our not-Russia and not-China wars air superiority is hardly a question even with non-stealth aircraft. Therefore we should have a fleet of durable, easily upgraded and replaced non-stealth fighter/attack aircraft and ground support. These would be the day to day work horses used 90% of the time and would be affordable to operate and replace as needed. I think the F16/F18 fulfill this role well. I think the F35 was a mistake in being intended for this role but adding so much it was delayed and super expensive for the relative role.
Our next war where air superiority will be a factor will likely be with China or Russia. As usual, we're too busy fighting today's war to worry about tomorrow's.
sundance435
04-25-19, 08:35
quantity has a quality all of its own....
F35 got jacked by the VTOL requirement. If it were just the Marines, I would have told them to have fun with Harriers, but I guess it does open up carrier ops for countries like Japan.
The F-35B WAS jacked after they discovered it was 3000lbs overweight (add this and this and this to the original design), but that doesn't have anything to do with the A and C versions. The airframe and internals of the F-35B are fairly different from the A and C. It seems they've worked out the bugs on the B, or are well on their way to doing it.
Gone are the glory days of the 60s and 70s when we had 20 different aircraft types between the Navy and Air Force.
The Harrier was unsustainable, like the F-18 is now. Pilots complained that they could never spend enough time in the air because they were down too often for maintenance.
I agree. But we don't really need a bunch of different types anymore, either. Plus, it's unsustainable to have a bunch of one-role aircraft. The defense budget will be the highest it's ever been, in inflation-adjusted dollars, and aircraft across all services still have horrible availability rates. My lay-opinion is that the only one-role aircraft there's any room for, when considering near-peer conflicts, is a true air-superiority fighter that can go into a contested environment from the outset in support of F-35s and E/A-18Gs. Right now, that's the F-22, of which we have 185, which isn't nearly enough for that mission. Hopefully we get a good Gen 6 aircraft in that role around 2030. Until then, and even after, the F-15X makes sense.
Harrier is scheduled to be done in the next 3 or so years, depending on progress with the F-35B (which has now done a full deployment on an amphib). You say the F/A-18 (assuming Super Hornet) are unsustainable, but it's one of the most all-around capable aircraft we have. The thing can intercept, do air-to-ground, air superiority, jam, etc., and do it all very well. If anything, the 18 could replace 2-3 platforms that we currently use outside of the navy and Corps. There's really nothing else like the F/A-18 E and F out there. Nothing the navy has fielded, maybe with the exception of the F-4, has done so many roles so well.
The F-35B WAS jacked after they discovered it was 3000lbs overweight (add this and this and this to the original design), but that doesn't have anything to do with the A and C versions. The airframe and internals of the F-35B are fairly different from the A and C. It seems they've worked out the bugs on the B, or are well on their way to doing it.
I agree. But we don't really need a bunch of different types anymore, either. Plus, it's unsustainable to have a bunch of one-role aircraft. The defense budget will be the highest it's ever been, in inflation-adjusted dollars, and aircraft across all services still have horrible availability rates. My lay-opinion is that the only one-role aircraft there's any room for, when considering near-peer conflicts, is a true air-superiority fighter that can go into a contested environment from the outset in support of F-35s and E/A-18Gs. Right now, that's the F-22, of which we have 185, which isn't nearly enough for that mission. Hopefully we get a good Gen 6 aircraft in that role around 2030. Until then, and even after, the F-15X makes sense.
Harrier is scheduled to be done in the next 3 or so years, depending on progress with the F-35B (which has now done a full deployment on an amphib). You say the F/A-18 (assuming Super Hornet) are unsustainable, but it's one of the most all-around capable aircraft we have. The thing can intercept, do air-to-ground, air superiority, jam, etc., and do it all very well. If anything, the 18 could replace 2-3 platforms that we currently use outside of the navy and Corps. There's really nothing else like the F/A-18 E and F out there. Nothing the navy has fielded, maybe with the exception of the F-4, has done so many roles so well.
Agree, with all. As much as I loved the heyday of aviation with all of the different types, it was not sustainable, nor was it cost productive or efficient. But it was cool.
I was talking about the original series F-18s, but I guess most of those are already gone. The last time I was at Cherry Point they still had some of the originals floating around and they were fixing them up with Band-Aids and duct tape it seemed. I think the squadrons that still have F-18s are now on the E/F variant.
I was sad to see the EA-6B retire, but the Growler can do the same thing and cheaper.
sundance435
04-25-19, 15:20
Agree, with all. As much as I loved the heyday of aviation with all of the different types, it was not sustainable, nor was it cost productive or efficient. But it was cool.
I was talking about the original series F-18s, but I guess most of those are already gone. The last time I was at Cherry Point they still had some of the originals floating around and they were fixing them up with Band-Aids and duct tape it seemed. I think the squadrons that still have F-18s are now on the E/F variant.
That's what the Corps is doing with them right now. Unfortunately, the plan is for the Corps to get some of the "low miles" regular Hornets from the navy (if those even exist) as new and upgraded Super Hornets and F-35Cs come on line, since their legacy Hornets have the worst availability numbers right now across all branches, IIRC. It doesn't look like they're ever going to get the E and F.
If the air force wants to get rid of the A-10 so badly, they'd be a good fit with the Corps. Forget the legacy Hornets, F-35Bs and A-10s would be a deadly combo.
That's what the Corps is doing with them right now. Unfortunately, the plan is for the Corps to get some of the "low miles" regular Hornets from the navy (if those even exist) as new and upgraded Super Hornets and F-35Cs come on line, since their legacy Hornets have the worst availability numbers right now across all branches, IIRC. It doesn't look like they're ever going to get the E and F.
If the air force wants to get rid of the A-10 so badly, they'd be a good fit with the Corps. Forget the legacy Hornets, F-35Bs and A-10s would be a deadly combo.
Yep, to all. The Corps would for well with the A-10. It is one of the infantryman's favorite weapons in Afghanistan, that's for sure. I know they've also been thinking about resurrecting the OV-10 Bronco.
The USAF would like an eventual total of 80 F-15EX's. Whether Congress will go along is another matter.
https://i.imgur.com/GhgiIE2.png
Diamondback
04-26-19, 22:55
The USAF would like an eventual total of 80 F-15EX's. Whether Congress will go along is another matter.
https://i.imgur.com/GhgiIE2.png
Especially a purse-string-controlling House made up of America-haters like Lardass Pedo Nadler...
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-27-19, 15:51
Funny I thought it would be former McD congressional districts pushing for it, I thought the airforce was all in for F35s.
On the CAS role, I think it would be sweat to have one airframe, maybe something like the OV-10 that can be either manned or unmanned. Put in a lower capability version of the datalinks and swarm those airframes over the battle field. They BGs can't tell which ones are manned, which are sensor platforms, which are missile/small-diameter bomb trucks.
Diamondback
04-27-19, 20:35
Funny I thought it would be former McD congressional districts pushing for it, I thought the airforce was all in for F35s.
On the CAS role, I think it would be sweat to have one airframe, maybe something like the OV-10 that can be either manned or unmanned. Put in a lower capability version of the datalinks and swarm those airframes over the battle field. They BGs can't tell which ones are manned, which are sensor platforms, which are missile/small-diameter bomb trucks.
Not to mention Bronco 2.0's potential as a Homeland Security/Border Patrol platform, especially using its STOL capability on frontage-roads to deploy quick-reaction teams--I'm working on a White Paper advocating a massive expansion of the BP air-arm including Chinooks or CH-53s refitted as airmobile command-posts/forward triage centers and for deploying heavier response teams to reinforce QRF's already on the ground, and Broncos and Ospreys loaded with Hellfires and small guided rockets like CRV7 or DAGR to provide backup against vehicle-borne incursions.
Grand58742
04-28-19, 10:05
There's really nothing else like the F/A-18 E and F out there.
Other than the F-15E? While there isn't a dedicated version of the F-15 for SEAD, it's only because the USAF decided to go with the -16 platform for that mission in a multi-role configuration. Other than that, it can do everything the F/A-18E/F can do seamlessly. It's normal mission is long range interdiction, but it can still perform air superiority if needed.
I agree in principle you don't need a whole hoop of different single mission aircraft. However, sometimes you really need that one platform that does one job great instead of a platform that does a lot of things okay. The A-10 is a specific example of that. It truly is great at the job of CAS and unrivaled so much they just can't replace it with an existing or planned platform. The F-35 just will never match that capability no matter how hard they try. Like another poster said, the F-35 is like the old saying "an elephant is a mouse designed to government specifications." Or in this case, a bunch of different military agencies trying to shoehorn their specifications into the same platform without even considering maybe it was too much. The supposed total weapons capacity is 18,000 pounds, but that requires the addition of the wing pylons. Which in turn destroys the stealth value of the aircraft. So, they limit it to internal weapons only which severely limits its payload capacity. By as much as over 12,000 lbs. That's a lot of ordnance not being carried which, in turn, means you have to use more of these highly expensive aircraft that are also expensive to maintain. Anyway...
The problem with the military (USAF very specifically) is they miss out on the high tech/low tech approach to aerial warfare. You do need high tech to win control of the skies, but you need (relatively) lower (and cheaper) tech for the brushfire wars we've been fighting or after we've gained air supremacy. It's great a B-1B can now perform CAS for troops in contact, but danged if it isn't an expensive monster to operate. So, the military is leveraging trying to purchase just enough of the high tech platform by trying hard to justify it as the end all, be all of combat aircraft. All while retiring older, viable platforms to save money because the high tech platform went into the normal government situation of high cost overruns and lowered expectations of performance. In order to afford the minimum, they have to retire legacy systems that are still viable, but have to be retired in order to afford the "new hotness." This is also why you'll never see (in my opinion) the USAF get on board with the OA-X program even though that aircraft would be way cheaper and likely more effective than tossing out an F-35 on a CAS mission. Such a platform, in the right hands, would show the government, specifically Congress, yes, the job can be done cheaper and just as efficiently as the F-35. And by the way, we can purchase an entire squadron for less than the price of three F-35s at a way cheaper per hour operation cost.
Our big 4 are failing miserably at everything except squandering massive amounts of tax payer money.
The knee high Navy excluded.
Well once they figure out the uniform and camo situation I'm sure they'll turn it around... ;)
www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/04/19/trump-new-army-greens-uniforms-were-very-expensive/
sundance435
05-02-19, 15:49
The problem with the military (USAF very specifically) is they miss out on the high tech/low tech approach to aerial warfare. You do need high tech to win control of the skies, but you need (relatively) lower (and cheaper) tech for the brushfire wars we've been fighting or after we've gained air supremacy. It's great a B-1B can now perform CAS for troops in contact, but danged if it isn't an expensive monster to operate. So, the military is leveraging trying to purchase just enough of the high tech platform by trying hard to justify it as the end all, be all of combat aircraft. All while retiring older, viable platforms to save money because the high tech platform went into the normal government situation of high cost overruns and lowered expectations of performance. In order to afford the minimum, they have to retire legacy systems that are still viable, but have to be retired in order to afford the "new hotness." This is also why you'll never see (in my opinion) the USAF get on board with the OA-X program even though that aircraft would be way cheaper and likely more effective than tossing out an F-35 on a CAS mission. Such a platform, in the right hands, would show the government, specifically Congress, yes, the job can be done cheaper and just as efficiently as the F-35. And by the way, we can purchase an entire squadron for less than the price of three F-35s at a way cheaper per hour operation cost.
Totally agree with the hi-lo mix and also the OA-X program. There should be a USAF 3-star in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee being told to resign for what they're doing with OA-X. It's a perfect example of everything wrong with DoD and the unaccountability of the 3 service branches (excluding the poor Corps on this one) to a higher authority. In my eyes, the DoD is like a holding company that exerts no top-level control over the subsidiaries collectively.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-02-19, 19:38
We will spend more getting that lost Japanese F35 off the bottom of the Pacific ocean before the Russians or Chinese get it than the whole OA-X project. What happens when a F35 goes down in Syria and all the goodies get spilled?
sundance435
05-03-19, 09:19
We will spend more getting that lost Japanese F35 off the bottom of the Pacific ocean before the Russians or Chinese get it than the whole OA-X project. What happens when a F35 goes down in Syria and all the goodies get spilled?
My point with OA-X is that there's clearly a need for it if the AF continues to insist on killing the A-10. But, AF only likes fast and/or expensive stuff and OA-X is beneath them, even though CAS has everything to do with supporting other services. The only entity that can make them take OA-X seriously is the Pentagon and no on there seems to have done that yet. Army and Marines have next to no say in whether the AF actually procures them. Are there legit reasons for not giving CAS back to the army and/or Corps?
Grand58742
05-03-19, 10:38
My point with OA-X is that there's clearly a need for it if the AF continues to insist on killing the A-10. But, AF only likes fast and/or expensive stuff and OA-X is beneath them, even though CAS has everything to do with supporting other services. The only entity that can make them take OA-X seriously is the Pentagon and no on there seems to have done that yet. Army and Marines have next to no say in whether the AF actually procures them. Are there legit reasons for not giving CAS back to the army and/or Corps?
I think the OA-X program will eventually get off the ground...eventually and when Congress finally gets involved. I think the members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees need to see what they are buying, see the price tag and then ask the pointed questions as to "why" it's not being procured.
I think the problem stems from it being a foreign designed aircraft and American exceptionalism taking over. Furthermore, it's likely not being built in a bunch of Congressional Districts/States so there is no block to push for it in Congress.
I think that people will inevitably compare the OA-X to the A-10, which is more expensive to operate (and a much older airframe) but has significantly greater firepower/payload, damage resistance, and loiter time.
Grand58742
05-03-19, 11:11
I'm of the mind eventually the USAF will be mandated by Congress to replace the A-10 with a purpose designed aircraft to fulfill that role. Not a Jack of all trades like the F-35, but a specific platform designed around that monster GAU-8 with the same features.
No stealth, no afterburner, no crazy gizmos. Just straight badass plane that strikes fear into those that come across it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-03-19, 13:47
I think that people will inevitably compare the OA-X to the A-10, which is more expensive to operate (and a much older airframe) but has significantly greater firepower/payload, damage resistance, and loiter time.
To me the OA-X isn't even close to a replacement for the A10. More like a plane for countries where it is cheaper to have pilots than drones. More armour, more gun - and it seems the A10 did fine with a single pilot. Ditch the second pilot and add an engine. Seems like you really need two engines to play that game. I don't know what gun you actually need. When anti-armour isn't your main mission- but that much thump is nice.
vicious_cb
05-04-19, 04:37
The A-10 is only useful for beating on 3rd world armies and jihadi insurgents. Its pretty much useless against near peer forces, even if you gain air superiority you have to deal with things like this:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BCJ3CZmqd4s/WT1dDAZepZI/AAAAAAAAPxs/u5ygokiLhDo9KbGDxu7IkLt4pclolj_GgCLcB/s320/3.jpg
If its big guns and loiter time to beat on insurgents then invest into more Specter gunships. If you want Jdam dropping flying artillery then anything with a targeting pod will do. The A-10 isnt the end all be all CAS airframe.
The A-10 was designed specifically for the threats you show. It's pretty amazing the amount of damage they can take and still make it home.
http://2951clss-gulfwar.com/piwigo/
The A-10's primary mission (as envisaged) was to attack the hordes of Soviet tanks streaming through the Fulda Gap during a future WWIII. Using AGM-65 Mavericks, the GAU-8 gun, and various bombs. There probably would have been horrendous losses from enemy AAA and missiles, but I guess that was a given. The Depleted Uranium PGU-14 30mm round was designed for that mission, although nowadays it's an environmental hazard and (I think) has been withdrawn from use.
There probably would have been horrendous losses from enemy AAA and missiles, but I guess that was a given.
We seem to have forgotten that quantity is it's own quality.
A-10 Unit cost $18.8 million (equivalent to $45.3 million today) just under $6,000 per hour operational cost
Super Tuscano (A-29) initial cost $9–18 million $430–500/hour
For CAS in permissive environments the A-29 would work. For non=permissive environments, well, you can buy five A-29's for one A-10 (assuming 9 million price based on economies of scale).
F-16D unit cost $18.8 million ($28.95m in 2018 dollars) around $8,000 per hour
AV-8B unit cost $24 to $30 million ($38.4m to $48m 2018 dollars) around $13,700 per hour operating cost
FA-18C/D unit cost $29m ($36.1m 2018 dollars) around $12,500 per hour
F-22A hourly cost of $33,538
F-35A hourly cost $28,455
Operational costs, of course, are significantly lower in the A-29.
My take, fighter pilots make movies, CAS pilots make history(paraphrased). I'd fly the A-29 if they let me run around base in a flight suit and sunglasses.
The A-37 was arguably the best CAS jet aircraft used in Nam, pilots were bomber and transport pilots/co-pilots run thru a quickie transition course. Super easy to maintain with very low hourly operating costs and 90 minute turnaround between sorties, and the AF couldn't wait to dump them after the war. Letting fighter pilots have any say at all in CAS aircraft selection is beyond stupid, the mission should be taken away from the AF and given to the Army and Marines.
We seem to have forgotten that quantity is it's own quality.
A-10 Unit cost $18.8 million (equivalent to $45.3 million today) just under $6,000 per hour operational cost
Super Tuscano (A-29) initial cost $9–18 million $430–500/hour
For CAS in permissive environments the A-29 would work. For non=permissive environments, well, you can buy five A-29's for one A-10 (assuming 9 million price based on economies of scale).
F-16D unit cost $18.8 million ($28.95m in 2018 dollars) around $8,000 per hour
AV-8B unit cost $24 to $30 million ($38.4m to $48m 2018 dollars) around $13,700 per hour operating cost
FA-18C/D unit cost $29m ($36.1m 2018 dollars) around $12,500 per hour
F-22A hourly cost of $33,538
F-35A hourly cost $28,455
Operational costs, of course, are significantly lower in the A-29.
My take, fighter pilots make movies, CAS pilots make history(paraphrased). I'd fly the A-29 if they let me run around base in a flight suit and sunglasses.
Of those what’s the annual total hours for maintenance?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What about the Apache and other helicopters for CAS? Is a jet required for CAS due to elevation or range or other concerns, or could funneling all CAS funds into Army rotary wing be a solution?
It seems the Army knows best it’s CAS needs and should have control of that budget and assets and personnel. And the selection of more rotary wing aircraft or continue A-10 or start work on a replacement.
What about the Apache and other helicopters for CAS? Is a jet required for CAS due to elevation or range or other concerns, or could funneling all CAS funds into Army rotary wing be a solution?
It seems the Army knows best it’s CAS needs and should have control of that budget and assets and personnel. And the selection of more rotary wing aircraft or continue A-10 or start work on a replacement.
I'm not a pilot, I like to read and first became aware of the political infighting regarding Army Avioation while read the Brotherhood of War novels years ago.
Service ceiling on the rotary wings top out at 21,000 for the Apache, 12,000 for the SuperCobra and the Cobra and 19,000 for the UH60. The Super Tuscano's ceiling is 35,000 and the A-10's is 45,00. (according to Wiki)
I'm sure payload, range and loiter time are also concerns. Additionally this issue has always been a political football.
(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966)
These excerpts are from Wiki articles on the A-10 and the AH-56 Cheyenne. They don't capture the full flavor of the in-battling, but they do address it:
Post-World War II development of conventionally armed attack aircraft in the United States had stagnated. Design efforts for tactical aircraft focused on the delivery of nuclear weapons using high-speed designs like the F-101 Voodoo and F-105 Thunderchief.[7] Designs concentrating on conventional weapons had been largely ignored, leaving their entry into the Vietnam War led by the Korean War-era Douglas A-1 Skyraider. While a capable aircraft for its era, with a relatively large payload and long loiter times, the propeller-driven design was also relatively slow and vulnerable to ground fire. The U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps lost 266 A-1s in action in Vietnam, largely from small arms fire….
On 7 June 1961, Secretary of Defense McNamara ordered the USAF to develop two tactical aircraft, one for the long-range strike and interdictor role, and the other focusing on the fighter-bomber mission. The former became the Tactical Fighter Experimental, or TFX, which emerged as the F-111, while the second was filled by a version of the U.S. Navy's F-4 Phantom II. While the Phantom went on to be one of the most successful fighter designs of the 1960s, and proved to be a capable fighter-bomber, its lack of loiter time was a major problem, and to a lesser extent, its poor low-speed performance. It was also expensive to buy and operate, with a flyaway cost of $2 million in FY1965 ($15.9 million today), and operational costs over $900 per hour ($7,000 per hour today).
After a broad review of its tactical force structure, the U.S. Air Force decided to adopt a low-cost aircraft to supplement the F-4 and F-111. It first focused on the Northrop F-5, which had air-to-air capability.[9] A 1965 cost-effectiveness study shifted the focus from the F-5 to the less expensive LTV A-7D, and a contract was awarded.
During this period, the United States Army had been introducing the UH-1 Iroquois into service. First used in its intended role as a transport, it was soon modified in the field to carry more machine guns in what became known as the helicopter gunship role. This proved effective against the lightly armed enemy, and new gun and rocket pods were added. Soon the AH-1 Cobra was introduced.
The AH1 Cobra was an attack helicopter armed with long-range BGM-71 TOW missiles able to destroy tanks from outside the range of defensive fire. The helicopter was effective, and prompted the U.S. military to change its defensive strategy in Europe by blunting any Warsaw Pact advance with anti-tank helicopters instead of the tactical nuclear weapons that had been the basis for NATO's battle plans since the 1950s.
In the late 1960s the U.S. Army was designing the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne, a much more capable attack aircraft with greater speed. These developments worried the USAF, which saw the anti-tank helicopter overtaking its nuclear-armed tactical aircraft as the primary anti-armor force in Europe. A 1966 Air Force study of existing close air support (CAS) capabilities revealed gaps in the escort and fire suppression roles, which the Cheyenne could fill. The study concluded that the service should acquire a simple, inexpensive, dedicated CAS aircraft at least as capable as the A-1, and that it should develop doctrine, tactics, and procedures for such aircraft to accomplish the missions for which the attack helicopters were provided.
On 8 September 1966, General John P. McConnell, Chief of Staff of the USAF, ordered that a specialized CAS aircraft be designed, developed, and obtained. Discussions with Skyraider pilots operating in Vietnam and analysis of aircraft used in the role indicated the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability;[11] possessing the best elements of the Ilyushin Il-2, Henschel Hs 129, and Skyraider.
In 1971, political friction increased between the Army and the Air Force over the close air support (CAS) mission. The Air Force asserted that the Cheyenne would infringe on the Air Force's CAS mission in support of the Army, which had been mandated with the Key West Agreement of 1948.
The Department of Defense (DOD) conducted a study that concluded that the Air Force's A-X program, the Marine Corps' Harrier, and the Cheyenne were significantly different that they did not constitute a duplication of capabilities. On 22 October 1971, the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on Tactical Air Power conducted hearings to evaluate the CAS mission and the pending programs. The most damaging testimony for the Army's program came from the commander of the Air Force's Tactical Air Command, General William W. Momyer, who cited helicopter casualty statistics of Operation Lam Son 719.
(During Lam Son 719 American helicopters had flown more than 160,000 sorties and 19 U.S. Army aviators had been killed, 59 were wounded, and 11 were missing at its conclusion. South Vietnamese helicopters had flown an additional 5,500 missions. U.S. Air Force tactical aircraft had flown more than 8,000 sorties during the incursion and had dropped 20,000 tons of bombs and napalm. B-52 bombers had flown another 1,358 sorties and dropped 32,000 tons of ordnance. Seven U.S. fixed-wing aircraft were shot down over southern Laos: six from the Air Force (two dead/two missing) and one from the Navy (one aviator killed).)
In April 1972, the Senate published its report on CAS. The report recommended funding of the Air Force's A-X program, which would become the A-10 Thunderbolt II, and limited procurement of the Harrier for the Marine Corps. The report never referred to the Cheyenne by name and only offered a lukewarm recommendation for the Army to continue procurement of attack helicopters, so long as their survivability could be improved.
The Cheyenne program was canceled by the Secretary of the Army on 9 August 1972.
So the USAF is clinging to an agreement from 1948 to keep control of CAS fixed wing? Gee, not much has changed in technology, threats, tactics or strategy since then I guess.
I would be sorely embarrassed to try to make that justification with a straight face.
The Army should state its CAS needs and if the AF refuses to fund it and provide adequate aircraft, personnel and availability then the agreement should be voided and let Army have a go.
I thought it interesting that, during the design phase of the A-10, the USAF interviewed former Luftwaffe Stuka pilots from WW2 to get their experiences in attacking tanks. Among these was Hans-Ulrich Rudel, Germany's most decorated military man of the war. He flew the Ju-87G "Cannon Bird" with the pair of 37mm cannon firing tungsten-cored rounds and had a personal score of 519 tanks destroyed.
Cheyenne program was canceled by the Secretary of the Army on 9 August 1972.
The AH-1 already had the contract and were being mass produced by 1972. Now the rest of the rest of the story...
The REAL reason the AH-65 aircraft NEVER stood a chance was because of the stock that LBJ and Ladybird Johnson had in Bell Helicopter. No wonder the BELL AH-1 Cobra won out, even being substantially inferior. I've seen the AH-65 demo bird at the Ft. Rucker aviation museum. It was like the XB70 Valkyrie of helicopters. What an amazing piece of technology considering it was made in the 60's.
On another note... Funny... The USAF was going to retire ALL of the A-10s in the mid 80s. The Army said they'd take them and for a while it looked like they were actually going to get them... As soon as the USAF found out, they kept the A-10s just to keep the Army from getting them. I was in an Army aviation unit at the time and was chomping at the bits when this wend town... Can't make this stuff up.
By the time the Cheyenne was canceled in 1973, it appears that most of it's issues had been corrected (or were in the process). From reports available on DTIC, it still had a little way to go:
53. Correction of the following deficiency, the inability to effectively perform low-speed, low-level mission tasks below 120 KCAS under reduced-visibility weather conditions due to the lateral-directional stability characteristics (HQRS 7), is mandatory (para 30).
54. Correction of the following shortcomings is desirable:
a. Objectionable vibration levels in portions of the flight envelope (paras 47, 48, and 49).
b. Weak directional stability below 100 KCAS (HQRS 4) (para 26).
c. Poor side-force characteristics below 120 KCAS (HQRS 5) (para 28).
d. High power management workload during maximum power operations (para 44).
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/910262.pdf
So the USAF is clinging to an agreement from 1948 to keep control of CAS fixed wing? Gee, not much has changed in technology, threats, tactics or strategy since then I guess.
I would be sorely embarrassed to try to make that justification with a straight face.
The Army should state its CAS needs and if the AF refuses to fund it and provide adequate aircraft, personnel and availability then the agreement should be voided and let Army have a go.
The USAF is clinging to money. The Army did squeal when the AF tried to get rid of the A-10 and the AF lost.
We seem to have forgotten that quantity is it's own quality.
.
It takes 3 years after training to make a fighter pilot, in peace time, so quantity isn't coming back anytime soon.
It takes 3 years after training to make a fighter pilot, in peace time, so quantity isn't coming back anytime soon.
True that under the current model.
The current tradition dies hard - but years ago there were these things called 'Flying Sergeants' who were not 'officers and gentlemen.'
I'm not talking about fighter pilots, either, rather aggressive young men and women to fly either a turboprop or less technical jet aircraft in the close air support/attack aircraft role.
Damn, a whole bunch of WO's have done okay with Army helicopters in all roles, anti-armor, air assault, transport, gunships, medevac, etc.
Diamondback
05-06-19, 17:08
True that under the current model.
The current tradition dies hard - but years ago there were these things called 'Flying Sergeants' who were not 'officers and gentlemen.'
I'm not talking about fighter pilots, either, rather aggressive young men and women to fly either a turboprop or less technical jet aircraft in the close air support/attack aircraft role.
Damn, a whole bunch of WO's have done okay with Army helicopters in all roles, anti-armor, air assault, transport, gunships, medevac, etc.
And a chopper's a HELL of a lot harder to fly, at least in my simulator experience, than the more basic models of fighter/attack jet. Hell, the A-10's cockpit is basically the same layout as Republic used on the 1950s F-84 Thunderjet, other than the TV screen... Spamming WO's in Broncos could be a winning team for permissive-airspace situations and COIN, but we still need some way to deal with the ZSU's and Tunguskas--DIRCM (laser dazzlers that either lure the missile away or burn out its seeker) can handle the IR-guided MANPADS threat once it gets a little smaller and more evolved.
Similarly, across the board Warrants might be a great parallel career-pathway approach to retaining people for positions which require technical skill but not "Leadership Material"--sort of like an "officer" version of how the Army used to route people worth keeping but not "Leader Types" into Specialist and Technician ranks. A fully parallel W-# system mirroring the O-# grades would also allow greater retention of skilled personnel that are presently forced off to UAL by "Up-Or-Out."
Similarly, across the board Warrants might be a great parallel career-pathway approach to retaining people for positions which require technical skill but not "Leadership Material"--sort of like an "officer" version of how the Army used to route people worth keeping but not "Leader Types" into Specialist and Technician ranks. A fully parallel W-# system mirroring the O-# grades would also allow greater retention of skilled personnel that are presently forced off to UAL by "Up-Or-Out."
Being not .mil is this rationale as painfully obvious and as brilliant in its common sense that it seems to be?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Diamondback
05-06-19, 19:01
Being not .mil is this rationale as painfully obvious and as brilliant in its common sense that it seems to be?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not mil either, but I spent my formative years at the feet of WWII USAAF/later USAF veterans remembering the glory days of "Flying Sarges." I was also influenced by a white-paper I read advocating that "Up-or-Out" be replaced with "Up-or-Hold," allowing those who were almost at Retirement eligibility to serve out the time until pension-off and retain/share their "tribal knowledge". Personally, I would advocate that such billets have an Education & Training role, each officer so billeted being assigned one or two officers of the next pay-grade down to mentor. Say, a W-5 mentoring O-4's in an "finishing school for O-5 candidates," or just "tips and tricks to be better at this mission." If the beancounters really need to cut budget and heads, make a W-grade be Mandatory Retirement at 25 years' service--still lets us keep those people's knowledge longer than we can today, and since Warrants don't require Senate approval, that could *also* open up additional ways to recognize superior service in one's field. (There can be only flag-rank generals, but allowing a Bird Colonel who's an SME but not as much on the political ass-kissing to promote as W-7 would reduce the shaftage in those on the wrong side of the Pentagon Politics gamesmanship.)
The USAF's position for the last 50 years or so is that the E-8 and E-9 ranks do the job of Warrants.
Diamondback
05-06-19, 20:12
The USAF's position for the last 50 years or so is that the E-8 and E-9 ranks do the job of Warrants.
As with the Key West Agreement, wouldn't be the first time Uncle Sam's Airborne Fools have needed somebody with a Minuteman III-size crowbar to come pry their head out of their ass for them...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.