The scenario would be different in the case of a smaller airforce (ie. not USAF) w/c will only have a limited number of F-35s doing double-duty. I wouldn’t feel too comfortable being a F-35 pilot on BARCAP facing a squadron of approaching bandits with only a handful of AMRAAMs between me and my wingman. I’d waste no time calling for help but will my buddies arrive in time? maybe, maybe not.. sure would be nice to have more AMRAAMS in that situation.

Where the JSF knows where the legacy is well before hand and will most likely get the first shots in….. Well …. we will have to see…. A legacy carrying more A2A weapons and has a lesser chance if any of first shot vs. a low observable. And…. after the first kills made by the JSF… it is possible that it still could…. in some situations…. kill and still not be detected. I would take those odds. Again though it is a rule book of air warfare that now has a fork in it. Skillsets the legacy is going to have a hard time dealing with. Starting an air engagement with a legacy where your force has just sustained multiple kills and may still not have found the source, doesn’t sound like a very bright future. All depends on how good the Buicks L.O. is I guess. The AESA will be brutal to deal with too. If it frequency hunts and finds out the frequency pass-through of the legacys radome cover, that will be even more problems for the legacy. The AESA will have the potential ability to do this….and other tricks as the nerdsquad figures out all the dirty tricks you can do with AESA. Just a matter of time.

Can anyone make a guess as to the relative stealthiness of the F-22, F-35 and F-117A?

That is always a good question. USAF is seriously worried about the improvement of modern sensors that weaponeer against these aircraft. Allied Force 1999 is a prime example where legacy aircraft had some strikes upset and thrown off because of SAMs, and there are a few hair raising stories of F-16s having to dance for their life. So even though ( just me ) I don’t think we need to have an all stealth small shooter fleet, I think they are fed up with having to use a lot of resources problem solving keeping legacy aircraft alive in these environments. The F-35 stealth is probably just fairly good low observable stuff. You did want the low price didn’t you? And certainly this is better than being completely naked like a legacy.

The LGBs are way more accurate and the F-117 can carry 2000lb weapons. It is equipped with FLIR too.
The Raptor has none of it. So I would say no.
A/G will be F-35 business.

If Elmendorf will get one Raptor squadron only, the Nighthawks will be gone pretty soon.

“Way more” might be an exaduration. If it is a fixed target via JDAM or SDB, it is dead. BLU-110 ( the 1000lb forged pointy tip cousin to the 2000lb BLU-109 ) is good enough for a lot of things and mated to a JDAM especially with the upgrades in accuracy (moving up to SDB accuracy), is going to hit inside of 3-4 meters and will probably destroy a lot of targets just as well and certainly cheaper than a cruise missile.

Any 2000lb work ( and up ) can be handled with the B-2 after F-22 clears a path.

SDB is going to be real interesting as a large menu of target types are just as dead with this thing the same as if they were hit by a larger weapon, plus it will penetrate most H.A.S. and in the case of the SDB, each aircraft can hit more targets. SDB II will make that even better.
JSF will of course pick up some slack but it’s low observable ability is just probably “OK” but at least better than any legacy. MALD and other tricks will help.

F-117 served us well. However when you deploy a squadron of F-22s into a theater for our next misadventure, you have a lot more warfighting options with that squadron vs. a strike only jet. Probably more airframe up time also, as mentioned, F-117 is a lot of work. F-22 is starting to impress the maintenance pukes.

You cannot cram it into the existing bay however you can go out and redesign a bay for future block varients ( maybe a modular one) , with over 2500 jets posible the JSF would be a very lucrative market for modular Bays 😉

I’m not really big on putting more A2A internals on JSF. JSF on the offense will fight with a large advantage in that you have to find the thing with legacy systems and keep it from doing a Rodney King style beatdown of your airfields and AD assets. That includes the AESA on it doing any number of dirty deeds on the ingress.
In a bi-directional conflict where it is set up for air defense, and doesn’t initiate the first punch, there is opportunity for a second set ….small number of JSF setup for A2G, on alert and immediately sent out on a counter air strike against the opposing legacy tech airfield(s) AD of the aggressor. Here the legacy aggressor has to strike during the day in good visability. Otherwise they are going to get overwhelmed with a lack of situational awarness and even then a good day might not help a legacy aggressor. The JSF force will most likely be controlling the tempo of the air war early on and sustaining it. If the passive JSF defender isn’t wiped out on the first day by some adverse pearl harbor scenario, then the following night will be it’s to own and deal out a severe beating. The legacys that survive the initial encounter with JSF will be demoralized and know that their chance of making it through a second mission if they even get off the ground, will be slim. While there may be losses, most likely the percentage of Buick-of-Stealths lost will be far less than the legacy aggressor. Given that both sides SAM belts are at least equal, the legacy team will suffer a lot more.

A ‘What If’ Image of an F-15N Sea Eagle

Just been reading dis
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/f-15_facts.htm

Seriously, F-15s should be navalised, The A/B models $27M C/D $29M when the JSF is $39m and the super hornet around $50m.

Being like the tomcat but more advanced, faster, more manouverable, and has been exported worldwide.

Dont care how old it is, This things a damn killer!

Its obviously led to the F-22, Not only by the airframe but VT nozzles were first tested on it. Could make a decent bargain ATF for countries who want somthing like the F-22.

They should have also navalised the F-4E Phantom, Would have been good in the USN against the NVAF.

Ever seen the thing being refirbed in the depot and talked to the people? I have. A navalized F-15 would have so many different things in it it would be scary.
As some here have already mentioned… it would be lot of design work.
Wings and structure: Of course you need folding ones…. or at least tips. This means a refork of the whole fuel dump and venting system. “Not a pound for air to ground” in the original design means there are some weight saving structural things that you may not like for the strength needed for the beating a carrier jet takes. Spars, some ribs, etc.
Corrosion risk assessment to salt air. Don’t know how salt air friendly the thing is, but I would leave that to the experts. From some of the refirb tasks I have seen, I would label it as “not very”.
Landing gear as mentioned. The added weight from this would pork it past any nice turn and burn performance advantage/fuel carry it has that makes it so good. ( off topic Trivia, the nose gear on F-15s are weak…. even on the Es ). Not to mention forget anything like carrying 6 Phonix and having a one person cockpit do the work. ( adding two people to the F-15 takes out even more fuel that is already limited to the above issues.
Avionics: As the naval thing would be an after thought. Expect it to spend 20-30 minutes below deck after each landing to double check the avionics to confirm they are all connected and trauma free, every time the pilot logs what is in his opinion, a “hard landing”. ( Even F-18s have this problem to excess ( don’t know if the F-18E/F fixed this issue ). This would be a fun parlor game with the F-15 because if you take things out of the nose avionics bay, the jet can sit on it’s tail if you don’t put in counter weights. ( don’t know if the F-18 has this issue or not and with the center of gravity help of the swing wings, I doubt ( I could be wrong) that the F-14 would.
Intake issues vs. deck safety. Don’t know if this is an issue or not, but when the intake ramps are in the down position as they always are at startup and initial warmup, landing… they may ( in the opinion of a seasoned deck ape )… have safety-deck_handling adverse sucking action.
F-18 helped solve a few things with fly-by-wire/modern flight controls: Safe approach speeds and profiles. The F-15 is analog control rods and cables for the flight controls ( the digital assist limiter on top of the stick, drives a box below the stick that assists physical control input, based on a few things but thats it. So here with the F-15 doing bring-back with ordnance on it for landing, you might be back in the ballpark of F-4-like approach speeds ( fast )… F-18s are pretty safe around the carrier in many respects, friendlier approach speeds being one of them.
Given the layout of the nose area already, I don’t know where you would put a basket refueling probe. Yet one more after the fact engineering job. Here an almost complete rethink of the fueling system up top.
Don’t know. Fixing the F-15 design after the fact to work out on carriers would be a big mess. A drawing of an F-15N does not a carrier jet make.

Its an interesting proposition….almost LCS (Surface) and LCS (Subsurface) – the great drawback is the range and sustainability issue that Unicorn illustrates so well. Forward basing using a new class of depot/transport ship or utilising local basing rights could offset but neither would be wonderfully economical or practical solutions!.

The USN seem to have a novel approach for taking the fight into the littoral anyway, and one the redoubtable Mr K.Plummer would approve of, robots and remote sensor nets. UUV operation capability is designed in to most new generation units and rapid-deployment forward SOSUS nets and SURTASS-LFA are at various stages of development which, coupled to current generation shooter assets like VLA and chopper LWTs, do offer good shallows coverage against inherently poor-mobility targets like SSK’s. Thats even before you get to the really wild, off-in-the-future, stuff the USN is looking at like DARPA’s Loki and Water Hammer research projects!.

SSK’s are handy platforms and, well driven, they are a threat to anything that comes into their backyard. Exercise scope shots of CVN’s etc are no great shakes though….more interesting was this report of the Dutch Walrus getting the drop on the USS Boise, Wanshan anything you have on that would be fascinating!.

Good to see you Jonesy. Hope you are doing well.

Man the the cost of the medication that you are taking must be killing you….. 😮

What are you talking about?