A Flock of F-15X Eagles

[chuckman]

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.

[Sry0fcr]

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]

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.

[chuckman]

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]

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.

[chuckman]

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.

[Slater]

The USAF would like an eventual total of 80 F-15EX's. Whether Congress will go along is another matter.

[Diamondback]

The USAF would like an eventual total of 80 F-15EX's. Whether Congress will go along is another matter.

Especially a purse-string-controlling House made up of America-haters like Lardass Pedo Nadler...

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

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]

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.