Jump to content

Air Force officially hates F-15s now


Recommended Posts

On 12/23/2018 at 12:29 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

. Or simply that F-35s wont be hitting guard units in numbers enough that would offset F-15 attrition. If the F-15s are being used as nothing more than "home defense" against hijacked airliners, and busted TFRs rather than a 5th gen fight over an IADS they should be very sufficient

 

 

TT,  you might want to review the deployment schedule of ANG F-15 units, cause you are selling them pretty short.  They are doing much more than scrambling every time a Cessa 150 flies near Mar-a-lago.   Many times, those units are found deployed at the "sharp end".   If there won't be sufficient F-35's to replace them, maybe it does make sense to purchase some of these upgraded Eagles, to keep those ANG units in business?  They need to do something, the current jets are in pretty rough shape.

 

I'm guessing they days of massive military spending are rapidly coming to a close so this discussion may be moot anyway.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

TT,  you might want to review the deployment schedule of ANG F-15 units, cause you are selling them pretty short.  They are doing much more than scrambling every time a Cessa 150 flies near Mar-a-lago.   Many times, those units are found deployed at the "sharp end".   If there won't be sufficient F-35's to replace them, maybe it does make sense to purchase some of these upgraded Eagles, to keep those ANG units in business?  They need to do something, the current jets are in pretty rough shape.

 

 

I said "IF" 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, 11bee said:

I'm guessing they days of massive military spending are rapidly coming to a close so this discussion may be moot anyway.

 

 

 

 

why?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2018 at 3:06 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

6911043833_26f0276b1c_o.jpg

 

 

built that way from the start 

I said “extra” for a reason- your computer image shows 4 AMRAAMs under EACH wing.  I didn’t think that was possible.  Is the LAU-115 or something similar compatible on the two existing hardpoints to enable 4 AMRAAMs under each wing?

Edited by Falconxlvi
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I should've adjusted my statement to internal capacity. I still think in a contested airspace they aren't gonna be rolling in with the external hard points attached....but you never know...cool CGI image!

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jefropas said:

I guess I should've adjusted my statement to internal capacity. I still think in a contested airspace they aren't gonna be rolling in with the external hard points attached....but you never know...cool CGI image!

 

Jeff

The picture of 4 AMRAAMs under each wing externally is bogus.  It’s a future growth concept that is far from reality

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/17250/lockheed-touts-non-existent-beast-mode-f-35-configuration-with-16-air-to-air-missiles%3fsource=dam

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Falconxlvi said:

The picture of 4 AMRAAMs under each wing externally is bogus.  It’s a future growth concept that is far from reality

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/17250/lockheed-touts-non-existent-beast-mode-f-35-configuration-with-16-air-to-air-missiles%3fsource=dam

Fake news?  Shocking.

 

Another bit of F-15 related news, not really relevant to this topic but interesting nonetheless. 

https://defence-blog.com/news/japan-considering-selling-old-f-15-jets-to-the-u-s.html

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

Another bit of F-15 related news, not really relevant to this topic but interesting nonetheless. 

https://defence-blog.com/news/japan-considering-selling-old-f-15-jets-to-the-u-s.html

 

 

and on the same website...

 

https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-air-force-plans-to-buy-newest-f-15-x-fighter-aircraft.html

 

Cans I have my cake and eats it too ???

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2017 at 6:31 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

That post is over 2 YEARS OLD!!!

Do you know for a fact that that is still what the "Fighter Pilot Mafia" wants? :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vaildog said:

 

Raptor production stopped early by Obama for shortsighted reasons

A bit more to it than that.  If you call diverting funds from this program to pay for two full-scale wars shortsighted, that's your prerogative.   Wasn't just Obama, this move was supported by the AF brass and the house / senate.   It was also recommended for termination by George W Bush's SecDef prior to Obama taking office. 

 

Aside from needing the money to fight those wars, another reason stated was to free up money for the F-35 program, which was going horrifically over budget.  

 

On the subject of purchasing those Japanese jets, wonder if they are better equipped / in better shape than the current AF F-15C's.   

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2018 at 6:40 PM, Falconxlvi said:

The picture of 4 AMRAAMs under each wing externally is bogus.  It’s a future growth concept that is far from reality

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/17250/lockheed-touts-non-existent-beast-mode-f-35-configuration-with-16-air-to-air-missiles%3fsource=dam

 

 

As of right now the F-35 can still go 4 amraam plus two winders on the wings. Im betting The only thing standing in the way of the full amraamer there is the funding to do the weapons testing. Which will be cheaper than buying new F-15s. But whatever. It's all semantics at this point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 11bee said:

A bit more to it than that.  If you call diverting funds from this program to pay for two full-scale wars shortsighted, that's your prerogative.   Wasn't just Obama, this move was supported by the AF brass and the house / senate.   It was also recommended for termination by George W Bush's SecDef prior to Obama taking office. 

 

Aside from needing the money to fight those wars, another reason stated was to free up money for the F-35 program, which was going horrifically over budget.  

 

On the subject of purchasing those Japanese jets, wonder if they are better equipped / in better shape than the current AF F-15C's.   

Sec Gates has said he regrets the F-22 cancellation in retrospect. For some reason when the government was willing to spend nearly unlimited funds on quantitative easing but cancelled the F-22 to save money. Penny-wise and pound foolish 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 11bee said:

A bit more to it than that.  If you call diverting funds from this program to pay for two full-scale wars shortsighted, that's your prerogative. 

 

It was short sighted. Even back then on this very forum people were saying it was. and time has proven them right as we are onto yet another "we didnt get enough F-22" iteration. This time its F-15x. Weve also seen calls for restarting f-22 production ever since it ceased. We've seen calls for hybrid designs, weve seen calls for snazzier F-22s. Weve seen calls for less snazzy F-22s that could be sold to allies. 

 

Even if you see the F-22 at a minimum as an F-15 replacement, it failed to be acquired in the numbers to make that possible. Which is why we are where we are now, not even 10 years later. 

 

So yes it was short sighted. It was terribly short sighted and obviously so. We traded "air dominance" for decades for dirt wars that have no relevance 10 years later, and instead cost us more blood sweat and treasure along with opportunity costs in who knows how many areas FOR YEARS. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. We suckered the Russians into sticking around until it cost them dearly. I hate to say that pulling out of Afghanistan in 2019 will have the same result as 2009, or 2029. But every year we stay we waste more so that's nice I guess.

 

And we are losing. Believe me. We are losing badly in ways that will be obvious in 10 years. 

 

"Short sighted" sounds better than "disastrous" I guess

 

 

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

 

 Wasn't just Obama, this move was supported by the AF brass and the house / senate. 

 

All the brass agitating for F-22s was replaced. Again, long term it looks like they were right. Moseley was booted and replaced with a cargo plane pilot who played ball. The writing was on the wall. Wanting more F-22s was against the secdefs wishes and you would be canned for trying otherwise.

 

We needed enough F-22s to last 50 years. So yes. It was terribly short sighted. It was short sighted In the fact that we are still looking for ways to fill that vacuum. It was short sighted in the fact that there is no winning In Iraq, or Afghanistan and that was before adding Libya and Syria to the list. It was short sighted in the fact that China revealed a stealth aircraft gates said they wouldnt have for years. 

 

So the fun question to me is when did the light bulb go on? When did we go "oops!" On canceling the F-22?

 

Comment below

 

 

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

 

 It was also recommended for termination by George W Bush's SecDef prior to Obama taking office. 

 

It's the same secdef. Gates and no one would have batted an eye had Obama replaced him and kept the F-22 going especially as jobs were a factor. 

 

Is that what Obama campaigned on "same" not "change"? "Hope" not "meh"??

 

Obama dropped a trillion dollars the first year in office. Even at the time political people with Jobs in F-22 districts were using the "shovel ready" mantra to keep F-22 going and people employed.

 

If you're going to drop 1t for "shovel ready jobs" why cant that be for keeping the F-22 line going?

 

 

But oh well. It's never his fault.

 

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

 

Aside from needing the money to fight those wars, another reason stated was to free up money for the F-35 program, which was going horrifically over budget.  

 

In 2008?? 

 

 

Bottom line we can live without enough F-22s (we pretty much have no other option) but it has with time I believe proven to be a mistake. The same click bait people bashing the F-22 10 years ago advocating for F-35, apply the same arguments to the F-35 and then lament not getting enough F-22s...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

It was short sighted. Even back then on this very forum people were saying it was. and time has proven them right as we are onto yet another "we didnt get enough F-22" iteration. This time its F-15x. Weve also seen calls for restarting f-22 production ever since it ceased. We've seen calls for hybrid designs, weve seen calls for snazzier F-22s. Weve seen calls for less snazzy F-22s that could be sold to allies. 

 

Even if you see the F-22 at a minimum as an F-15 replacement, it failed to be acquired in the numbers to make that possible. Which is why we are where we are now, not even 10 years later. 

 

So yes it was short sighted. It was terribly short sighted and obviously so. We traded "air dominance" for decades for dirt wars that have no relevance 10 years later, and instead cost us more blood sweat and treasure along with opportunity costs in who knows how many areas FOR YEARS. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. We suckered the Russians into sticking around until it cost them dearly. I hate to say that pulling out of Afghanistan in 2019 will have the same result as 2009, or 2029. But every year we stay we waste more so that's nice I guess.

 

And we are losing. Believe me. We are losing badly in ways that will be obvious in 10 years. 

 

"Short sighted" sounds better than "disastrous" I guess

 

 

 

All the brass agitating for F-22s was replaced. Again, long term it looks like they were right. Moseley was booted and replaced with a cargo plane pilot who played ball. The writing was on the wall. Wanting more F-22s was against the secdefs wishes and you would be canned for trying otherwise.

 

We needed enough F-22s to last 50 years. So yes. It was terribly short sighted. It was short sighted In the fact that we are still looking for ways to fill that vacuum. It was short sighted in the fact that there is no winning In Iraq, or Afghanistan and that was before adding Libya and Syria to the list. It was short sighted in the fact that China revealed a stealth aircraft gates said they wouldnt have for years. 

 

So the fun question to me is when did the light bulb go on? When did we go "oops!" On canceling the F-22?

 

Comment below

 

 

 

It's the same secdef. Gates and no one would have batted an eye had Obama replaced him and kept the F-22 going especially as jobs were a factor. 

 

Is that what Obama campaigned on "same" not "change"? "Hope" not "meh"??

 

Obama dropped a trillion dollars the first year in office. Even at the time political people with Jobs in F-22 districts were using the "shovel ready" mantra to keep F-22 going and people employed.

 

If you're going to drop 1t for "shovel ready jobs" why cant that be for keeping the F-22 line going?

 

 

But oh well. It's never his fault.

 

 

In 2008?? 

 

 

Bottom line we can live without enough F-22s (we pretty much have no other option) but it has with time I believe proven to be a mistake. The same click bait people bashing the F-22 10 years ago advocating for F-35, apply the same arguments to the F-35 and then lament not getting enough F-22s...

👏👏👏👏

 

  This is one among many reasons the US will be ejected from the Western Pacific in my lifetime 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vaildog said:

👏👏👏👏

 

  This is one among many reasons the US will be ejected from the Western Pacific in my lifetime 

And the Middle East (as is well underway), Southwest Asia (as will be underway shortly) and Eastern Europe but who's counting?   Frees up forces to defend our homeland though.

 

FWIW, always thought the decision to cancel the F-22 after just 187 jets was horribly shortsighted.   I don't follow defense subjects as closely as others, isn't the AF beginning to lay the groundwork for an F-22 successor?

 

 

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem with the F-22 is:  1981 Request for Information to develop a new fighter,  2004 F-22 to be declared operational.

 

23 years to develop a fighter.  Way too long to develop a fighter.  It didn't take 23 years to send a man to the moon.  That was a lot of money paid for people to figure out how to make a dime off the government and 189 airplanes being built.  The F-35 was just as bad.  Hopefully we get more than 189 before they pull the plug on that one..

 

Geoff M

Edited by Geoff M
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geoff M said:

The real problem with the F-22 is:  1981 Request for Information to develop a new fighter,  2004 F-22 to be declared operational.

 

Big changes between 1981 and 2004 to say the least. 

 

(I don't start counting at the RFI either personally.)

 

1 hour ago, Geoff M said:

 

23 years to develop a fighter.  Way too long to develop a fighter.  It didn't take 23 years to send a man to the moon.  

 

 

 

False equivalence. Sad. 

 

1 hour ago, Geoff M said:

 

That was a lot of money paid for people to figure out how to make a dime off the government and 189 airplanes being built.

 

Lol ok. Wow. 

 

There were "Customer" control issues, From start to finish right down to the "customer" canceling as the production cost flattened. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Geoff M said:

 

 The F-35 was just as bad.  Hopefully we get more than 189 before they pull the plug on that one..

 

Geoff M

 

You know how I know you dont know what you're talking about??

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...