Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: What's old is new again (possible F-16 replacement)

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,213
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    The F-35's problem is not cost to buy, it's cost to fly.

    Ever seen the guys in full-up bunny suits applying RAM? That stuff is no-more-babies-for-you toxic and very susceptible to damage. As well, ALIS - LockMart's "Just In Time" computerized maintenance system - is a complete joke and is in fact being replaced. Then there are the early block aircraft that will never fly combat because it is too expensive to bring them to 3F or better standards. That's literally 100+ airframes that are for training only. Even better is the fact that F-35s and F-22s can JUST NOW talk to each other when a U-2 based "translator" aircraft is airborne and in range.

    Oof. Who cares how much the things cost to fly away when you consider all of the above.
    Scout Rider for the Mongol Hordes

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,076
    Feedback Score
    0
    For conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq where the USAF just needs a "bomb truck", the F-15EX will fill the bill nicely, I would think. The F-15E fleet is getting long in the tooth, and this new variant seems to be even more advanced.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,751
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Slater View Post
    For conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq where the USAF just needs a "bomb truck", the F-15EX will fill the bill nicely, I would think. The F-15E fleet is getting long in the tooth, and this new variant seems to be even more advanced.
    Except the EX is not filling that role. Its filling the F-15C/D role which are so worn out they're limited to what, 6 or 7g maneuvers now? The Strike Eagles were built much later and still have a decent amount of flight time left in them.

    So we get to pay 87 million for an F-15EX which is both more expensive and less capable than a F-35A all because the Obongo Administration decided to knowingly* or unknowingly compromise our air superiority by cutting F-22 production numbers. Voting dem has its consequences.
    Last edited by vicious_cb; 05-06-21 at 20:16.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,991
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    We also need to remember that a comprehensive inventory of F-15s and F-16s was in a big part due to Reagan rebuilding our inventory across the board. It was a unique time in military spending.

    If we try and replace that entire inventory with "newest, latest" we could bankrupt ourselves just like we did the Russians during the 80s.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,076
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    Except the EX is not filling that role. Its filling the F-15C/D role which are so worn out they're limited to what, 6 or 7g maneuvers now? The Strike Eagles were built much later and still have a decent amount of flight time left in them.

    So we get to pay 87 million for an F-15EX which is both more expensive and less capable than a F-35A all because the Obongo Administration decided to knowingly* or unknowingly compromise our air superiority by cutting F-22 production numbers. Voting dem has its consequences.
    True, the F-15EX is billed an an F-15C/D replacement. But if the need arises, the "EX" can carry all the munitions that an "E" can, plus the addition of six more weapons stations. It can also carry outsized weapons that won't fit in the F-35's internal bay, such as standoff missiles. The airframe is also stronger than preceeding versions.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    1,489
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    Except the EX is not filling that role. Its filling the F-15C/D role which are so worn out they're limited to what, 6 or 7g maneuvers now? The Strike Eagles were built much later and still have a decent amount of flight time left in them.

    So we get to pay 87 million for an F-15EX which is both more expensive and less capable than a F-35A all because the Obongo Administration decided to knowingly* or unknowingly compromise our air superiority by cutting F-22 production numbers. Voting dem has its consequences.

    The F-15EX still fills a niche role that the F-35 can't particularly carrying large and heavy weapons over long distances which the F-35 can not due to its necessary internal carriage of weapons to maintain its stealth.

    The F-22 cancellation was extremely short sighted and although the Obama administration finally cut it, it was on deaths door during the Bush administration. Defense Secretary Gates hated the F-22 and its production numbers were steady reduced for a decade prior to cancellation.

    The irony was the final lot of F-22s were starting to become affordable when they cut the program.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •