A Flock of F-15X Eagles

[Diamondback]

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."

[lowprone]

Our big 4 are failing miserably at everything except squandering massive amounts of tax payer money.
The knee high Navy excluded.

[Diamondback]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[NWPilgrim]

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]

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.

[mack7.62]

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]

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.