JoeinTXNeither the F-22 nor the F-35 is intended to replace the F-15E.
Yes, and no.
The F-22 is pure air dominance. The F-35 is pure multi-role. What role does the F-15E fill? Either? No. The -15E was and is a maturation of the orginal design that can do all things a little better than the orginal A/D versions of the Eagle. It is not a dedicated medium tactical striker or an air superiority aircraft. It’s a mix with 1990s tech.
The F-22 is definitely intended to take the F-15’s place in front-line air defence. The F-35 is definitely intended to assume all tactical, manned roles within the USAF. The F-15E will take a back seat to them (and UCAVs) in the future even as it serves another 20 years in the ANG/Reserves in good numbers.
There is no direct manned repalcement for the F-15E which was, blasphemolously, labeled as F-111 replacement. It isn’t and never was. That job is now in the hands of drones and long range bombers.
Are things as bad as they seem? Heck no. We are seeing some sizeable and fascinating changes in the way that aerial warfare is being conducted and built. Having 600 1960s-era B-52s? Sounds great but in today’s environment they can’t be maintained or equipped or made survivable enough to match the battlefield they will encounter. OT, but look at the changes in computer tech in just the last 5 years. Apply that to aerospace and aerial warfare and combined operations…………
JoeinTXWell the “multiple sources” is simply this:
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2008/12/1113333222111-saudi-tornados-ided-over.html
Edit: The picture above is NOT from Pakistan. It’s a generic picture of Tornadoes. We have never claimed it to be anything else. We still stand by our sources who claim that the unknown aircraft sighted were possibly Tornadoes.
Which means pretty much nothing.
The Saudis are not going to send Tornadoes to Pakistan……they have never done such a thing in the past involving ME conflicts and aren’t about to now. Too much business and international relations at stake.
It’s garbage at this point and mostly wishful thinking by some. But, as others have already said, if Pakistan were ever to the point of overtly asking for outside assistance in its bristles with India………what the heck does that say about Pakistan? Weak? Unstable?
The Paks have been paranoid ever since the Indian terror situation and something of late has gotten them spooked. There are pics of PAF F-7s in the air of late in the region and that seems proportional and likely.
But not this…..
JoeinTXI was never happy with the 183 number……..simply not enough airframes to justify the cost and the program. I also did not think the 483 number was possible considering the financial situation.
The extra 60, meaning a total of 243, seems acceptable to me. The F-22 will do nothing and be nothing more than a golden air defense umbrella of strategically critical areas. The F-35 perform the vast majority of all other manned roles, especially considering its advances over the current inventory, including air defense.
We will have numbers of -16C/Ds and -15Es in our inventory for years to come to flesh out all other jobs until increasing numbers of UCAVs take their places.
In 2030 the USAF will have around 220 F-22s, 1500 F-35s, and 1200 or so UCAVs dedicated to tactical combat operations in addition to whatever bomber, cruise missile, and ICBM capabilities there are at the time.
Nothing wrong with that…..
JoeinTXWell there will never be a 2 seat variant, so maybe the Raptor will never replace the F-15E or the already gone F-117 – What will replace those I don’t know. Europe has the same problem with the Tornado IDS/GR4/ECR. I don’t think the F-35 could replace the F-15E, it simply will not have the range or payload.
Neither the F-22 nor F-35 are meant to be produced as dual-seat aircraft and this was from the get-go.
It appears that most forces these days look at medium range attack in the future to be a job for unmanned and non-air assets. By definition, a strike requiring that range will be done over contested/questionable airspace for a considerable period of time meaining that leaving the human out of the loop is the best option as of now. The F-22/F-35/Super Hornet/Rafale/Typhoon can be sent on shorter ranged missions with the expectation of controlling the air if need be as well as delivering the strike. The “FB-22” cannot do this and would be too valuable to send at long range into a contested area without air supremacy to deliver munitions that an unmanned unit can do with less support. The U.S. Navy can launch an X-47 with 4 LGBs against a target farther away and more heavily defended much more easily than it can a Super Hornet. The cost/risk equation makes it clear.
The F-117 and F-15E are not medium range aircraft in terms of either range or payload. They require a good deal more support to get to F-111 class attacks and are thus battlefield-plus aircraft that posess more versatility or newer tech but not more grunt.
Long-range, “strategic” striking is still within the realm of the manned airplane at least in the U.S. and Russia. There is value in a manned, capable, long-ranged platform than can deliver a large payload on demand especially from a stand-off range or altitude.
As much as I’ve always liked the intermediate range option, the unmanned platform is taking it’s place evermore in the form of UCAV or cruise type weapon. The replacements for the F-111, Tornado, etc. are today’s X-47s, X-45s and so on.
JoeinTXSince there isn’t just very much Rafale “news”……why do we keep having these “Rafale News” threads? Seriously.
Dassault and the Rafale have finally made good on promises they made 20 years ago in terms of capbility and now only after operational capability and we’re cranking up numerous threads about it?
Apart from actually getting built, what has the Rafale actually done to warrant this type of repeated posting?
JoeinTXLove the F-35.
No airplane since the F-4 Phantom will try to, from the start, perform so many roles from the same airframe and do so with such advanced capability.
I am a big fan of the Super Hornet but the F-35 will be eclipsing it on carrier decks over the next decade. I can see the day that F-35 variants are, 40 years from now, occupying all carrier roles with the help of airframes we don’t even know of yet. UAVs, etc.
The F-35 will be one of the premier manned airframes for the next 50 years or so. Wait on the Russkies or ChiComs to come up with something else………might as well wait for magic and fantasies.
JoeinTXIn the end, I would wonder if the F-35 is better than the F/A-18E/F?
As for the Growler, having a capable EW asset is a significant part of a serious aerial package and one that few air forces have.
As to whether the F-35 is any better than the SH…..it will have the advantages of better range, lower observability, and much better technology. It is a substantial upgrade over the SH as much as I like the E/F.
JoeinTX@Nicholas10
ABM and such is probably the most stupid waste of money politicians could think of to pour taxpayer’s hard earned money into the pockets of their friends (namely the militaro-industrial complex).
Everybody knows they’re never going to be used, because it would mean the end of the world as we know it.
Does someone in his right mind figure that Russia, China or India is going to launch a strike against the US? Or vice versa?
Gvts like to scare the people so they more gladly pay for that usueless stuff, because those who build them pay those who make decisions. Period.
Allow me to insert the word “Nuclear weapons” in place of “ABM”:
Nuclear weapons and such are probably the most stupid waste of money politicians could think of to pour taxpayer’s hard earned money into the pockets of their friends (namely the militaro-industrial complex).
Everybody knows they’re never going to be used, because it would mean the end of the world as we know it.
Does someone in his right mind figure that Russia, China or India is going to launch a strike against the US? Or vice versa?
Gvts like to scare the people so they more gladly pay for that usueless stuff, because those who build them pay those who make decisions. Period.
Kind of makes about the same sense, doesn’t it?:rolleyes:
JoeinTXOK I’ll say it – I seriously believe Boeing is incapable of producing a tanker that the USAF needs.
No, Boeing is not “incapable” of producing the airplane that the USAF wants. They are producing an airplane either smaller or larger than what the USAF wants. The -330 based variant is in a sweet spot and offering abilities that Boeing is not.
If KC(X) was about a pure tanker airplane for the USAF with no commercial concerns, then I have little doubt that Boeing would tailor make the best fit. But, it wasn’t and NG/EADS did the best at offering what they wanted. If the Air Force had gone to the makers 5 years ago and said “we need A, B, and C and if you can do it we’ll make all of your own investment money worth your while”………then Boeing’s position in the marketplace is substantially better than EADS/Airbus in drafting a one-off design for pure military use.
JoeinTXAnd I forgot to add that with all of that being reasonably and rightly said, this thing isn’t over.
Congressional reviews will vette and re-vette this……..politicians will launch investigations…….unions may well launch litigation that hold up the bigger picture.
While the USAF properly weighed and chose based upon their needs and the capabilities…….they may not wind up getting the airplane they chose. It’s possible that we could be sitting here in 2015 talking about this. The same goes for 2023 for KC(Y) and 2030 for KC(Z) based upon the situation.
JoeinTXThe USAF has litterally had years to study and weigh this decision and they ultimately chose the -330 derivative. Everyone, industry and military, knew the options and their respective qualities….the NG/EADS offer took the prize. I fully expected the -767 to win this competition because the Air Force from everything they seemed to telegraph was only looking for pure KC-135 replacement. In the end, they weren’t.
They were looking apparently for more versatility and capacity.
This decision needs to stand. Boeing should take it as a hard knock lesson and do their homework for the next round. NG/Airbus need to deliver on the aircraft and try to settle any question for future rounds.
No doubt, it will become a political football (the real oval kind, not soccer ball) and the Democrats will cry all over this while the GOP will generally back it. Euros, learn to love the Republicans.
JoeinTXIs it enough? Well, one has to hope so.
I can understand the Commanche cancellation……a $30 million stealthy scout ship fighting terrorists and regional militias in the God-forsaken parts of the world. I get it…..that’s a lot to spend. As proposed, taking much of the legacy Commanche program’s tech and putting it in an off-the-shelf airframe like the Bell, I can see that from a cost stand-point especially when the Apache/Cobra are still the true helo heavy-hitters in U.S. service for the foreseeable future.
Electronics, weapons, etc wise it should be out front. Airframe/performance wise it is subject to question.
JoeinTXThe false underside canopy was a small rage in the 1980s as an additional method for confusing the opponent in a close aerial engagement. They went to the point of mixing flat and gloss tones in these to attempt to absorb and reflect light as a reflective canopy covering an unreflective crew compartment would do.
But, as the years have progressed, the liklihood of serious WVR engagements have diminished and the real benefit of the false canopy has been debated so that today we see very few aircraft still wearing the scheme.
It’s funny to say, but, it’s nonstalgiac to see Canuck Hornets still wearing falsies……harkening back 20 years to a different time.
D@mn, that makes me begin to feel old……:rolleyes:
JoeinTXThere are many, many, who wish and want and pray for the F-35 to fail.
But, it isn’t going to happen. There is entirely too much experience, money, technology, and necessity involved here for it to fail. It won’t happen. Lockheed has conceived, for the first time literally, the airplane that can “do it all.”
A deep-strike stealth airplane for Israel……and an interceptor for the Netherlands……..a VSTOL multi-purpose craft for the RN/USMC….and a CTOL load-carrier for the USN….a multipurpose tactical aircraft for the general force looking forward….stealthiness, range, payload, etc.
No one, ever or anywhere has attempted to develop an aeroplane to cover all of these areas and do so with a reasonable ability to dominate in each….until the F-35.
Bow down to the one and only true future manned tactical aircraft of the early 20th Century.
JoeinTXI understand this funding for 20 F-22s to be over and above the approved and planned F-22 budgeting as of now…………a sort of USAF “rabbit out of a hat”……..which is the practice they may be adopting over the next several budget cycles.
More F-22s are a good no matter the situation.
Sign In
