Air Force officially hates F-15s now

[habu2]

39 minutes ago, GreyGhost said:

<cough Lockheed-Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, cough Northrop- Grumman F-14 Tomcat cough cough> 

 

Hughes > McAir> Boeing AH-64.....

[GreyGhost]

18 minutes ago, habu2 said:

 

Hughes > McAir> Boeing AH-64.....

 

Now that Disney owns 21st Century Fox, all 30 seasons of The Simpsons are going on Disney's streaming service later this year.

Its a dog eat dog world!

 

-Gregg

[11bee]

Not particularly on topic but I saw that USAF F-15C's just arrived in the Mideast as part of the US response to the latest "crisis" with Iran.   Noteworthy because they are all equipped with Sniper targeting pods on their centerline pylons.  Nice bit of kit, to help with times where you might be subject to EW or just don't want to advertise your presence by using your own radar.  I didn't think the active AF were using these, thought it was just the ANG.  Also, from a modeling standpoint, they all have some pretty cool nose-art / nicknames.   Wonder if anyone would be inclined to release a resin set with this pod, the upcoming IRST pod and the new instrument panel with the large display?

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by 11bee

[Dmanton300]

Lakenheath F-15C's can often be seen carrying Sniper here in the UK. 

[Da SWO]

Thread revival, because I didn't see a reason to create a new thread.

 

AF trial balloon to replace the F-15E's with new EX's.  Good idea in my opinion, plus they get more then 144 F-15EX's.  I see the EX doing what the early F-16's did; i.e. air to air, then rolling into a strike role once SEAD has degraded SAM systems, and also reduced the enemy air to air threat.

AF magazine had the first blurb on this, and the War Zone released a story today.

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35312/lets-talk-about-the-air-force-potentially-replacing-the-f-15e-with-the-f-15ex

 

Meanwhile, Boeing and Mitsubishi are moving ahead on an improved F-15J, again from the War Zone.

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35188/new-deal-makes-f-15-japanese-super-interceptor-one-step-closer-to-reality

 

The only downside I see is the Guard getting worn out F-15E's instead on new EX's. 

[habu2]

AF trial balloon?  or Boeing lobbyists?

 

And what does EX bring to the fight that the F-35A doesn’t?  Other than keeping the St Louis production lines open?

 

[Ljmorrow92]

The new EX's bring a proven airframe to the fight without having to send maintainers back to tech school for 6-9 months and completely revamp the support infrastructure to support the new airframes. We're talking about a minimal impact to AGE support and minimal impact to the logistics supply chain. They also won't have to extensively train new pilots because they're probably already pretty familiar with the F-15 platform.  Not to mention that you're not having to invest tons of man-hours into maintaining a 40 year old airframe. And finally, they can be churned out faster than the F-35, because that production line is already putting out planes as fast as they can. 

[Da SWO]

1 hour ago, habu2 said:

AF trial balloon?  or Boeing lobbyists?

 

And what does EX bring to the fight that the F-35A doesn’t?  Other than keeping the St Louis production lines open?

 

Twice as many air to air missiles, greater bomb load.

Ready supply of spare parts, ability to fly supersonic, adverse weather capability, lower maintenance costs.

Just a few things.

[Murph]

13 hours ago, habu2 said:

And what does EX bring to the fight that the F-35A doesn’t?  Other than keeping the St Louis production lines open?

 

 

A four ship of Strike Eagles has brought 80 SDBs to a fight.  That would take ten F-35s.  If you assume that past the initial days of a conflict the IADS has been degraded enough to allow non-LO platforms to operate then there's a place for a bomb truck.

 

Regards,

Murph

[achterkirch]

9 hours ago, Murph said:

 

A four ship of Strike Eagles has brought 80 SDBs to a fight.  That would take ten F-35s.  If you assume that past the initial days of a conflict the IADS has been degraded enough to allow non-LO platforms to operate then there's a place for a bomb truck.

 

Regards,

Murph

Add into the fact that it can carry large and over sized weapons (anything up to 22 feet long and up to 7,000 pounds) like JASSM-ER and a future hypersonic weapon.   It can also carry an insane amount of air to air weapons, 22 missiles in total. 

[JMB]

I have always liked the Eagle, so I guess with any upgrades or extensions, the question is how much money do you spend to see how far she will go....I dunno. Israel seems to think  there is a lot of life left in the bird...............

Is the Eagle (C/D) the only real air to air machine left ? 16/18/35 and many others have got that multirole capability and as recent wars have proven the first opening days are all that's needed before everything starts pounding mud.............Even the 22 with its latest upgrades has got some pretty mean mud moving measures now........and it's almost unanimously agreed that the 22 fleet is too small to engage in multiple conflicts.........

Do we continue to invest hard capitol into a airframe that is getting long in the tooth or move on the the more relevant........EVERY pilot I've seen an talked to lately says the 35 is the future............but with its still hefty price tag how many will be made and for how long. Administrations tend to change things year to year.

My opinion is that the Eagle served its time with distinction, might be time to start investing more in the next generations........but as somebody said recently.........Shes still undefeated in combat..........time will tell. jmho

[jpk]

The latest iterations of the Soviet Su "wonder jet" is based on essentially a design that is almost as old as the F-15. Why can't we do the same with the F-15? It's not like it is a lousy airframe to begin with.   

[11bee]

10 minutes ago, jpk said:

The latest iterations of the Soviet Su "wonder jet" is based on essentially a design that is almost as old as the F-15. Why can't we do the same with the F-15? It's not like it is a lousy airframe to begin with.   

Why?   What purpose would that serve when the AF is going all in on the JSF and is already starting to define the next generation fighter to replace the Raptor?  What programs would you cut to pay for this luxury?

[jpk]

Well, we need to either raise taxes or cut stuff. We have a 700 billion dollar defense budget and we're complaining we can't afford anything.

[11bee]

4 hours ago, jpk said:

Well, we need to either raise taxes or cut stuff. We have a 700 billion dollar defense budget and we're complaining we can't afford anything.

Howzabout we do both?   I'm thinking that number will be going way down, real soon. 

[habu2]

Raising taxes does not win elections. Get your priorities straight. 😉

[11bee]

5 minutes ago, habu2 said:

Raising taxes does not win elections. Get your priorities straight. 😉

It’s never a popular thing to do but I fear it is quite necessary.    We’ve been living beyond our means for quite a while.  
 

Maybe if my guy states for the record “Read my lips - no new taxes” it will reassure the voters?   

[jpk]

On 8/8/2020 at 6:21 PM, habu2 said:

Raising taxes does not win elections. Get your priorities straight. 😉

No bucks, no Buck Rogers. 

[jpk]

The tax base has been shifting for the last forty years. Corporations are paying less and less while regular workers are paying more. There's a reason why wages have not gone up for worker bees and that is because they are hefting more and more of the tax burden while corporations pay less and less. The real fact is our military is not strong to protect us domestically, it is to protect corporate interests and investments overseas. Take the two gulf wars for example. 

 

I find it interesting that the most robust economy we had and the mass movement of the population into a middle class happened after WWII up until 1970 or so. Until Kennedy started us on the path of lowering the corporate and income taxes slightly on the wealthy we had the greatest economic prosperity ever in the history of the world. We could afford all sorts of civil projects. And yet, corporate taxes were hovering in the neighborhood of 90%. Now they are below 30%, not to mention all the tax loop holes. So now they pay hardly anything. Explain to me how how it was, with corporate taxes so high yet we had the wealthiest middle class and the most productive industry back then? Now it's all fiat money on the stock market.

[habu2]

1 hour ago, jpk said:

Explain to me how how it was, with corporate taxes so high yet we had the wealthiest middle class and the most productive industry back then? 

 

Lobbyists from those same corporations lining the pockets of the politicians who vote to lower corporate taxes.

[11bee]

3 hours ago, habu2 said:

 

Lobbyists from those same corporations lining the pockets of the politicians who vote to lower corporate taxes.

 

But.. but...  I was assured that "trickle down economics" was going to benefit me!

[habu2]

you know what "trickles" downhill right?  

[Mstor]

9 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

But.. but...  I was assured that "trickle down economics" was going to benefit me!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

On 8/11/2020 at 11:06 AM, 11bee said:

 

But.. but...  I was assured that "trickle down economics" was going to benefit me!

 

both parties have completely embraced trickle down.

 

In the same manner that the post Vietnam democrat aversion to military spending vs social programs has largely gone away. some of the biggest pro military warhawks don't have R after their names now. Most of the big name generals are not R's either. Theyre not averse to little things like the constitution getting in the way of decades of learned authoritarian rule either so that's nice.   Even Saint Bernie loves him some MIC. in some blue states (including mine), MIC is the only job maker they have. VT is actually offering taxbreaks to people (not just corporations)  who move there (but remember, tax breaks don't have incentive or anything) silly Vermont! 

 

if they shut down even one base in my blue state we are screwed hard. well we are screwed already, but far faster. 

 

On 8/11/2020 at 6:01 AM, jpk said:

. Explain to me how how it was, with corporate taxes so high yet we had the wealthiest middle class and the most productive industry back then? Now it's all fiat money on the stock market.

 

 

Because like anything there is more to it than high corporate taxes= happy healthy middle class lots of changes happened in the 1960s as I'm sure many here are keenly aware of. Bringing back the days of Ike on paper won't magically transport you to 1958. I'm all for raising corporate taxes up to 90 percent if it does though, knock yourself out. 

 

Quote

Howzabout we do both?   I'm thinking that number will be going way down, real soon. 

 

Maybe. then again maybe not. We tried to leave Syria and the SecDef Resigned (strategic kurdish purposes). Big talk of trying to remove troops from A-stan before November... but then "suddenly and out of nowhere" Russia "bounties" pop up in Afghanistan. So a bipartisan agreement to stay was worked out before we could discover the story was bogus. We know now that the intel was given us to by the Afghan intel services so we would react exactly how we did (we will show those dumb Russkies by remaining in Afghanistan being slowly bled out! Theyll see-- They have no idea how diabolical a strategy that is!) Mention Russia now and we suddenly go full retard. 

 

I never thought I'd out cynic 11Bee but boy oh boy is hard not to observe that we are committed to forever war no matter the cost. A decline in the civilian sector (think Airlines) might also add to the desire to prop up the companies that double as weapons manufacturers with more defense money. Its hard to make predictions,  but things may be surprising. I wouldn't count them out. Even something as simple as leaving just one of our 6 or 7 continuous wars is considered a longshot--secdefs will leave over it. Red and Blue s will reach across the isle to ensure cooperation using false reports...

 

 

Quote

 What programs would you cut to pay for this luxury?

 

if one thinks that defense is the only acceptable place to rob when things get lean, then the only thing worse is thinking procurement is the only place to rob when things get lean in defense... more than quarter of the military budget is personnel for example. the recent (symbolic) bill to cull the pentagon by 10 percent (a kingly sum of 74 billion, or less than 2 percent of the entire federal budget) made sure to keep all personnel but get rid of other things in keeping with the "forever war, jobs welfare,  with ever changing uniforms who want to get good at others things too program. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

 

 

 

 

On 8/6/2020 at 11:02 AM, JMB said:

I have always liked the Eagle, so I guess with any upgrades or extensions, the question is how much money do you spend to see how far she will go....I dunno. Israel seems to think  there is a lot of life left in the bird...............

Is the Eagle (C/D) the only real air to air machine left ? 16/18/35 and many others have got that multirole capability and as recent wars have proven the first opening days are all that's needed before everything starts pounding mud.............Even the 22 with its latest upgrades has got some pretty mean mud moving measures now........and it's almost unanimously agreed that the 22 fleet is too small to engage in multiple conflicts.........

Do we continue to invest hard capitol into a airframe that is getting long in the tooth or move on the the more relevant........EVERY pilot I've seen an talked to lately says the 35 is the future............but with its still hefty price tag how many will be made and for how long. Administrations tend to change things year to year.

My opinion is that the Eagle served its time with distinction, might be time to start investing more in the next generations........but as somebody said recently.........Shes still undefeated in combat..........time will tell. jmho

 

1. Israel vastly outclasses nearly any nearby contemporary at this point. they can make due with F-15s for a long while. most of the nations surrounding them are in shambles. 

 

2. recent wars are not exactly indicative of of high end fights. in Kosovo SAMS persisted for months, and In Libya they had to pull certain aircraft out of fear of MANPADs. 

 

3. The F-35 is going to be in production for decades. in fact Japan and Korea just placed orders for more. (including that bizarro STOVL version everyone said was dumb and unnecessary) and the latest F-35 contract has them at just under 78 million flyaway for the F-35A. thats not a "hefty price tag"

 

4. shes undefeated in air to air combat, but F-15s have been shot down. 

 

The only thing in my mind that Makes F-15EX is if one does go whole hog and replace strike eagles and every F-15 really, with them. Made absolutely no sense to buy 8 or 10 a year for 8 years or whatever. theyre going to have to have an entire test program for it.  The whole thing seemed extremely vulnerable to "budget contractions" in other words they were going to be white elephants, but especially if they got reduced and they well might still. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by TaiidanTomcat