Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The F-22 Necessary, Why Not Newer F-15?  
User currently offlineERAUMcDlover From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 74 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 14603 times:

i spend my summers in VA by Langley....and i'll tell you, there is NOTHING more amazing then sitting at the end of the runway with tears in your eyes as the shear power of a pair of F-15's roars away.

the F-15 is faster then the F-22.
the F-15 is cheaper then the F-22
the F-15 has a perfect record.
USAF pilots destined for the F-22, currently fly the F-15.
F-15 full production is current, and achievable.

why don't we take the engines and the radar from the F-22 and throw them in the F-15...a little more vectoring, next generation missiles, and maybe canards? seems to me that would be a lot cheaper and a hell of a lot more wise. the F-22 is so slow it seems that interception of a bogey is impossible! put those efficient engines in an EAGLE and watch her SOAR, can you imagine the capabilities of the F-15E, with the F-22 engines? the range charts!?!? i'd love my enemy to at least know i'm coming, not see me big time on the screen, but not not know i'm coming like the F-22...theres something to be said when you know eagles are after you, it darkens your day, but if you get bounced by F-22's.....maybe you have just enough adrenaline to outmaneuver and beat us.....
i remember the titanic was the unsinkable ship.....i'd hate for the F-22 to be the unhittable plane.....last thing we need is our pilots too cocky.....eagle cocky....yes....raptor cocky....hell we'll be fossils like the original raptors!

don't abandon the F-15 DOD....PLEASE....save us some money and prepare us more effieciently and easier for the next generation's currently being fielded.


DL, what a classy lady....Mad Dogs...a classy plane.....USA...just the best all around
65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAGM114L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days ago) and read 14590 times:

For better or worse, I bet the F-22 will be fielded along with the JSF. While it is hard to argue that there currently exists a viable threat to US Air Superiority, it is the USAF's job to keep it that way, and the F-22 is key for this.

Quoting ERAUMcDlover (Thread starter):
F-15 full production is current, and achievable.

True quantity is a quality all of its own, but if a need for the F-22 does arise the USAF will need an established support and production capability.

Quoting ERAUMcDlover (Thread starter):
don't abandon the F-15 DOD....PLEASE....save us some money and prepare us more efficiently and easier for the next generation's currently being fielded.

One could argue we could still be using the F-4. Suggest this to someone who has worked with F-4s and F-15s and I bet you would get a strange look. Often improvements are more that what meets the eye and not always appreciated by those who do not work with them.

Quoting ERAUMcDlover (Thread starter):
i'd love my enemy to at least know i'm coming

I suggest you branch Finance or Quartermaster.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 14427 times:

Surprise is victory in aerial combat.

The F-22 will be able to approach the enemy without warning and launch BVR missiles to take them down before entering visual or dogfight range. If, or when, close in fighting comes in the F/A-22 is far more capable than anything else out there.

As far as a threat to US air superiority...well, there are plenty of air forces out there with at least air parity with us on some scale, and that is unacceptable for our forces. The Mirage 2000, the F-16's (which we sold) and other aircraft out there armed with BVR and high g off boresight missiles have taken some of our edge away.

People that continue to point out the track record of our F-15's don't take into account the 30+ year age of the airplane and the fact that it has reached the pinnacle of it's effectiveness. Our F-15's are not superior to the latest SU fighters in some areas and we owe it to our soldiers and airmen to provide them with the best we can put out there.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14402 times:

The F-22A/B (I hate the politically correct designation of F/A-22) is a stealt package airplane. It also has a "super cruise" capability. The F-15 cannot do either of these. Don't get me wrong, the F-15 is still the worlds best fighter. But the current generation of the new Russian fighters is rapidly eroding the F-15s superiority. USAF needs a new fighter to regain the gap that is now closing.

Additionally, the F-15 is essentially out of production except for the few F-15E "Mud Hens" and, of course the F-15K program.

We need to continue to develope the F-22A/B as well as enter full production. Then we need to go onto developing the follow on F-22C/D, and possibly a E/F model to correct some of the Raptor's defencies. But, even many of these will be corrected through production block improvements.


User currently offlineERAUMcDlover From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14351 times:

no no no, i mean i know the f-15 needs to be retired, but why not produce a super eagle.....all the new avionics and engines of the f-22, as well as next generation armaments, and put it all in a mildly modified f-15 airframe.....top speed would increase, along with the supercruise, taking it farther, payload increases, along with ease of pilot conversion. the f-22 is very capable, but its taking a long time to work out kinks.....jamming itself, tail surface problems......i mean airframe repairs to an f-15......are pennies on the dollar compared with thousands on the same say....bullet hole on the f-22....the access panels are nice, but will they stay on with high speed, high-G maneuvers....i'm not sure.


DL, what a classy lady....Mad Dogs...a classy plane.....USA...just the best all around
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7811 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14351 times:

There was an interesting program on the History Channel about the development of the ATF program. Which was proceeded by an equally good show about the development and evolution of the F-14.

Now while the F-15 is a very capable aircraft it will not meet future demands, nor will the development of competing aircraft stop. It is the unforeseen future need that makes an aircraft like the F/A-22 neccessary. The F-15 can only be rebuilt and revamped so much. Now if the DOD and the Air Force and Congress would stop dragging their feet on F-22 procurement, and get them in numbers that would not only make it a viable replacement for the F-15 fleet, but also bring unit costs down.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 14330 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 2):
People that continue to point out the track record of our F-15's don't take into account the 30+ year age of the airplane and the fact that it has reached the pinnacle of it's effectiveness. Our F-15's are not superior to the latest SU fighters in some areas and we owe it to our soldiers and airmen to provide them with the best we can put out there.

I agree. The reason the F-15 has a perfect record is because it has not gone up against a truly well trained and effective force of modern fighters. The SU birds are truly awesome in trained hands. So is the Eurofighter and Rafale. We may have to go up against the Eurofighter as well someday - the French especially are known for selling almost anything to almost anybody.

The state of the art in fighters is ahead of the F-15. If we let ourselves fall even further behind by getting rid of the F-22, it will be very hard to catch up again if the need arises. Really good air superiority fighters take forever to develop no matter who is doing it. When China or someone else in that region confronts us with a modern, well trained airforce flying fighters superior to ours it will already be to late.

Our military doctrine requires air supremacy. This does not simply mean we win most dogfights. It means that we quickly and decisively evict nearly all of the enemy from the sky. Without air supremacy we are lost. Our forces are not built to fight without it. Building ground and naval forces capable of winning decisively without air supremacy would be way more expensive than buying the F-22, and might not even be possible at all.


User currently offlineChrista From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14294 times:

You know? I think that you Americans should perhaps buy the Eurofighter Typhoon. Obviously, you would have to rename it.. but still. It is a fantastic aircraft.

Regards,
Chris


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14266 times:

Boeing only makes Strike Eagles now and the closest thing to a current F-15A/B/C/D would be an F-18E and in many respects is a better platform in block II status than current F-15C's are.

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14243 times:

>> We may have to go up against the Eurofighter as well someday - the French especially are known for selling almost anything to almost anybody.

There has yet to be an export sale of the Rafael, though I believe there is a possibility of the first export sale to Singapore (or Malaysia?) in the near future.

>> the f-22 is very capable, but its taking a long time to work out kinks.....jamming itself, tail surface problems......

It's a little late, we've already spent the billions of dollars necessary to smooth out the production variants. The first squadron will enter service very soon, so the time to debate the merits of continuing the program have long passed.

>> You know? I think that you Americans should perhaps buy the Eurofighter Typhoon. Obviously, you would have to rename it.. but still. It is a fantastic aircraft.

It really does not compare to what has already been fully developed and tested by Lockheed. Like I said, it's a little late to consider alternative options though I could see a modified mix of F-22 and F-35 being considered.


User currently offlineEaglekeeper101 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 272 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14240 times:

F-15s drive me insane. They are maintenance piglets that have caused me more sleepless nights in the last 14 years than my ex-wife. They are old, cranky, and lovable. And it's time to let their children (F-22s) get out and have some fun in the air-superiority world.

Quoting ERAUMcDlover (Thread starter):
the F-15 is faster then the F-22

True, but raw speed isn't the beat-all /end-all of aerial combat. the F-22 can out-accellerate an F-15C in its sleep, especially in a normal ACM/BFM speed range - subsonic. The F-22 is much faster when and where it counts.

Quoting ERAUMcDlover (Reply 4):
no no no, i mean i know the f-15 needs to be retired, but why not produce a super eagle.....all the new avionics and engines of the f-22, as well as next generation armaments, and put it all in a mildly modified f-15 airframe.....top speed would increase, along with the supercruise, taking it farther, payload increases, along with ease of pilot conversion. the f-22 is very capable, but its taking a long time to work out kinks.....jamming itself, tail surface problems......i mean airframe repairs to an f-15......are pennies on the dollar compared with thousands on the same say....bullet hole on the f-22....the access panels are nice, but will they stay on with high speed, high-G maneuvers....i'm not sure.

The time and expense required for such an undertaking makes no sense. It would cost more to refit an F-15 to equal the capabilities of the F-22 than the F-22 cost to build in the first place...and it would never be as capable anyway. You can only do so much with an airframe before you max it out. The youngest -15C is just short of 20 years old now. How many more TCTOs should we stuff into the plane before it splits at the seams?

Don't get me wrong - the F-22 does have its own maintenance quirks. Like any other aircraft, it has unique traits that will bedevil maintainers for at least 20 years. It, however, represents the future. The F-15 has nothing to apologise for, and when it is finally retired, it will be remembered fondly (even by myself).

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 6):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2):
People that continue to point out the track record of our F-15's don't take into account the 30+ year age of the airplane and the fact that it has reached the pinnacle of it's effectiveness. Our F-15's are not superior to the latest SU fighters in some areas and we owe it to our soldiers and airmen to provide them with the best we can put out there.

I agree. The reason the F-15 has a perfect record is because it has not gone up against a truly well trained and effective force of modern fighters. The SU birds are truly awesome in trained hands. So is the Eurofighter and Rafale. We may have to go up against the Eurofighter as well someday - the French especially are known for selling almost anything to almost anybody.

The state of the art in fighters is ahead of the F-15. If we let ourselves fall even further behind by getting rid of the F-22, it will be very hard to catch up again if the need arises. Really good air superiority fighters take forever to develop no matter who is doing it. When China or someone else in that region confronts us with a modern, well trained airforce flying fighters superior to ours it will already be to late.

Our military doctrine requires air supremacy. This does not simply mean we win most dogfights. It means that we quickly and decisively evict nearly all of the enemy from the sky. Without air supremacy we are lost. Our forces are not built to fight without it. Building ground and naval forces capable of winning decisively without air supremacy would be way more expensive than buying the F-22, and might not even be possible at all.

What they said...

Be well!

signed,
an old, broken down F-15C "B-shopper"  Smile



"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineCheshire From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14202 times:

French especially are known for selling almost anything to almost anybody

What a cheap shot- ask anyone shot by the Mujahadeen or Contra rebels in Central America were their weapons came from- That's right- courtesy of the US taxpayer. The US is the last country on Earth to lecture anyone on responsible arms dealing.

The SU birds are truly awesome in trained hands

What- at an airshow? You mean demonstration models with a much lighter MTOW?

However much the Russians and Chinese might like to boast of the Su's capabilities over the Eagle, three factors nullify its supposed superiority-

Lack of an AWAC platform as capable as the E-3

Inferior Training, which in the case of Russia, leads to

Lack of combat ready pilots and a/c

It's a good thing too, since the USAF will always be able to protect us from madmen with Mirages.........


User currently offlineCheshire From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14201 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 6):
the French especially are known for selling almost anything to almost anybody.

What a cheap shot- ask anyone shot by the Mujahadeen or Contra rebels in Central America were their weapons came from- That's right- courtesy of the US taxpayer. The US is the last country on Earth to lecture anyone on responsible arms dealing.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 6):
The SU birds are truly awesome in trained hands.

What- at an airshow? You mean demonstration models with a much lighter MTOW?

However much the Russians and Chinese might like to boast of the Su's capabilities over the Eagle, three factors nullify its supposed superiority-

Lack of an AWAC platform as capable as the E-3

Inferior Training, which in the case of Russia, leads to

Lack of combat ready pilots and a/c

It's a good thing too, since the USAF will always be able to protect us from madmen with Mirages.........


User currently offlineAR1300 From Argentina, joined Feb 2005, 1740 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14187 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 2):
Our F-15's are not superior to the latest SU fighters in some areas and we owe it to our soldiers and airmen to provide them with the best we can put out there.

yes

Quoting Cheshire (Reply 12):
What- at an airshow? You mean demonstration models with a much lighter MTOW?

no.At the last Cope India exersices the Indians SU-27's outfought the F-15's.
It's a fact.

Quoting ERAUMcDlover (Thread starter):
the F-15 is faster then the F-22.

For afew short bursts.The F-22 has supercruise capabilities, allowing it to fly the whole time at Mach+ speeds.

Quoting ERAUMcDlover (Thread starter):
i'd love my enemy to at least know i'm coming

Ummm. that's quite stupid.Real war with real weapons is not a joke.You wanna win.You don't wan't them to praise your ac while they watch and say ''coooool''.And you don't want your enemy to know what's going on.


Mike

[Edited 2005-08-23 03:15:23]


They don't call us Continental for nothing.
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14173 times:

ERAMcDlover,

"why don't we take the engines and the radar from the F-22 and throw them in the F-15...a Little more vectoring, next generation missiles, and maybe canards?"

Been there done that! See attached link.

http://www.ascho.wpafb.af.mil/START/PG28-B.HTM

In the mid eighties MCAIR did just that. The canards were actually F-18 elevators and the engines were PW with two dimensional nozzles.

It was shown that with modifications the F-15 could perform 95% of the F-22 mission. But that did not leave any room for future growth. Stealth was also not as good.

The F-22 will have teething problems. But so did the F-4 and F-15. At least the Airforce is not requiring the destruction of the F-15 tooling to prevent congress from backing out of production of the F-22. They did just that with the F-4 Phantom. Even though there were foreign powers lined up to buy them.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineJrw261 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 14158 times:

Im sure this same debate took place when every one of the USAF's a/c was being developed. And the times it didn't were when we were at war and needed newly developed a/c yesterday.

Do you want a vaccine for your illness days after you get sick.. or before you get sick. I prefer before.


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 14153 times:

Quoting AR1300 (Reply 13):
no.At the last Cope India exersices the Indians SU-27's outfought the F-15's.
It's a fact.

Not sure if Cope India was an accurate gauge of capabilities since the USAF had certain tactical constraints placed on them and some wags around here and elsewhere have wondered if those constraints were placed on the Eagle drivers to make a better case for F-22 appropriations.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 14133 times:

As mentioned above the F-22 out performs the F-15 in all aspects except the top speed. Again the top speed is not of too great importance considering the F-22 can fly circles around the F-15, it out accelerates probably better in every flight envelope, and both of these are assuming the F-15 gets a chance to dogfight with the F-22 which of course is problematic if you can't find it.

The reason the top speed is slower, I believe Mach 1.8 versus 2.5+ is the intakes for the engines were designed with stealth in mind instead of outright top speed. I imagine if the intakes were changed to a less stealthy design the F-22 would probably best the F-15 in top speed.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 14043 times:

But if the money keeps getting cut for the F-22, when does the readily availabl F/A-18E become a viable alternative to the aged F-15C's not able to be replaced by the F-22?

Sure it lacks the top speed of an Eagle but GE has a souped-up variant of the GE F414 ready to go that I'm sure if the USAF wanted to buy a hundred or so could get the financial approval it needed for a green light on that.

The F/A-18E is an actual dual-purpose F/A aircraft with a modern pit, designed for maintenance, AESA radar, and many more hardpoints for new and improved AMRAAMs and AIM-9X with JHMCS. Let's see an F-15C sling 10-12 AAM's!  Smile

Considering the savings, I'd think it to be a heullva lot better to the alternative: NOTHING!

Let's face it - the F/A-18E is the new F-15C and just like with the F-14D, it may not be better in all areas it has a lot to offer. With all the numbers of the USN there would be tremendous savings to be had in commonality. Hell, it'd be like the old F-4 againa and who knows, maybe they Marines would buy some F/A-18F's lke they need to in order to properly replace their current F/A-18D's so as to retain FAC(A).



http://www3.famille.ne.jp/~m344/200204m_fa18e.jpg

http://www.swissjet.ch/1024/AIR04/Jets/20040916_F18F.jpg



[Edited 2005-08-23 18:19:53]

User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 14017 times:

Quoting Cheshire (Reply 11):
What a cheap shot- ask anyone shot by the Mujahadeen or Contra rebels in Central America were their weapons came from- That's right- courtesy of the US taxpayer. The US is the last country on Earth to lecture anyone on responsible arms dealing.

I am truly flattered that you believe me to be speaking on behalf of my government. I am nothing but a private citizen, I did not deny any real or supposed grievances against my government you may have. I was speaking about France, not the US. I said nothing about my own country. We've screwed up just like they did. Iran is a good example. IMHO France just seem to screw up more and for more selfish motives. We can agree to disagree on that.

BTW... I should be ashamed of what we did for the Contras and the Mujahedine. We helped brave men defended themselves from Communism with automatic rifles and shoulder fired SAMS while the Soviets were providing their enemies with the latest tanks and helicopter gunships. I see my country is truly shameful. We should have let them make due with sticks and stones. Its a big shame for free people to be strong, or help other free people be strong. Being free means you have to be weak. Military strength is a sign of moral inferiority. This is because war is, well, a bad thing. And weakness makes it go away. This kind of thinking just amazes me.

Quoting Cheshire (Reply 12):
What- at an airshow? You mean demonstration models with a much lighter MTOW?

No, I mean in training exercises with friendly airforces, raw analysis of the data, and the use of simulators. It is better or it is close enough that the Eagle has no decisive advantage - if you look at just the planes themselves and not the total war machine. This is not really disputed much by people in the know. If we did not depend on air superiority as much as we do, or not want to fight a war with as few casualties as possible, this would not be a big deal. The way things now stand, it is a big deal.

Quoting Cheshire (Reply 12):
Lack of an AWAC platform as capable as the E-3

Inferior Training, which in the case of Russia, leads to

Lack of combat ready pilots and a/c

It's a good thing too, since the USAF will always be able to protect us from madmen with Mirages.........

All of this is being worked on. Many of our allies are already there. Japan has been there for a long time. So has Israel. Would you care to guarantee that all that expertise and hardware will always be exclusively ours? In 5-10 years China will be able to take us on equal terms without the F22. Then it will be to late. It would take a very long time to regenerate the capability to build a truly WINNING fighter. Remember, it is not enough merely to have parity. When lives are on the line you have to win decisively. Lose the fewest men. Have the shortest war possible. Kill the fewest people. Sure it is possible to neglect this and catch up later. The trouble is the catching up later may have to be done during a long, global conflict - a conflict that could have been prevented or contained if we had a truly top of the line military.

I'll dissent from my fellow conservatives here and say that terrorism is not the greatest long-term threat to America. Al Qaida can crash our airplanes. Someday, they could even nuke one of our cities. The toll from even this worst of terrorist acts would not come close to the lives we lost in World War II. A prolonged , bloody conflict with another great power or alliance should be our greatest fear - whether conventional or nuclear. This could cause a true global cataclysm. A great power can do everything that Al Quaida can do and much, much more. The F22 is a weapon meant to deter such aggressors, or failing that, to win decisively against them.

[Edited 2005-08-23 18:59:37]

User currently offlineEaglekeeper101 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 272 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 14003 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 18):
The F/A-18E is an actual dual-purpose F/A aircraft with a modern pit, designed for maintenance, AESA radar, and many more hardpoints for new and improved AMRAAMs and AIM-9X with JHMCS. Let's see an F-15C sling 10-12 AAM's!

"Dual purpose." Able to attack ground targets while also employing the ability to conduct itself quite well in aerial combat, or vice versa.

Good things all, but what they represent is a compromise.

The F-15, however, as originally intended, was built for air superiority. Period. Its overall design reflects this - an airframe purpose-built for high-altitude maneuverability, designed around a (at the time) monstrous radar antenna, part of a radar package with better range and functionality than any fighter flying (with the exception of the F-14, IIRC, since its mission required even more radar capability than the Air Force needed)...long range for a fighter - especially combat range - due to its large internal fuel capacity and 3 goodly-sized drop tanks. These are just for starters...

The F/A-18E is, quite simply, not a pure air superiority aircraft. Its radar, while sophisticated, is of lesser range, if I remember rightly. I do not know, off the top of my head, what the combined internal/external fuel capacity of the -18E, but I would be hard-pressed to believe, solely based on size, that it carries as much as a -15 does (I'm equally sure it uses a little less fuel due to engine size, but I think the overall consumption would result in less range overall for the -18E). In addition, the Air Force would have to rely on a larger mixture of tankers during operations with the -18E, since I doubt it could be refitted to take a boom instead of the drogue it uses now. Logistical concern, I know - but something to keep in mind. Newer, more powerful engines, of the ilk of the engines currently in use on the F-22, would entail insane amounts of re-engineering, and would certainly be too costly to contemplate anyway - and then the aircraft would need even more fuel storage...which adds more weight...just the beginnings of a new chain...an endless circle...of more compromises.

Now, I cannot dispute which aircraft has a more sophisticated cockpit lol.  Wink

The F-22, horrifically expensive though it may be, is built with the same reasoning that the F-15 was. Its design is extremely suitable for that purpose, and is light years beyond the F-15 in capability.

In my opinion, trading this future capability for an aircraft that, although exceptional, represents a different design philosophy AND a different mission, is unwise.

Be well!  Smile



"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 13994 times:

Quoting Eaglekeeper101 (Reply 20):
"Dual purpose." Able to attack ground targets while also employing the ability to conduct itself quite well in aerial combat, or vice versa.

Good things all, but what they represent is a compromise.

With the new AESA radar the aircraft can scan both air and ground targets at the same time. The F/A-22 is far more a compromise than the Super Hornet is!  Smile If we have a number of strategically placed F-22's we can offset each base with a squadron or two of F/A-18E's for the economical ground=pounding while retaining much of the F-15C's aerial supremacy. Let's face it, a Super Hornet wins in a knife fight with AIM-9X and it's slow speed charactersitics and with it's better radar and more hardpoints to sling current and future AMRAAMs, it's a better BVR airacfart as well. The only thing the F-15C has on an F/A-18E is thrust and range. An AIM-9X up the tailpipe will take care of the thrust differential and KC-767's will make up for the range.

As far as the radar is concerned, I'm sure the engineers could tailor it to what the USAF prefers.

The engines you speak of were remember for the Super Hornet, and are already designed and tested per GE - they just need to be ordered. They use lessons learned from the JSF engine and offer better maintenance, fuel economy, and more thrust.

I'm not saying it would be 100% replacement for the Eagles but then again they aren't necessarily 100% a replacement for the F-14's either.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 13978 times:

The F/A-18E does not win in a knife fight with the F-15. The Eagle still outturns and maintains it's speed for longer in the turns.

Both aircraft can use the AIM-9X, and the only real advantage to the Rhino is the newness.

Quoting Cheshire (Reply 12):
However much the Russians and Chinese might like to boast of the Su's capabilities over the Eagle, three factors nullify its supposed superiority-

Lack of an AWAC platform as capable as the E-3

Inferior Training, which in the case of Russia, leads to

Lack of combat ready pilots and a/c

Well, they are rectifying their AWACs issues, and the Chinese at least are spending more time and money in training, and the number of pilots grows there all the time.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 13968 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 22):
The F/A-18E does not win in a knife fight with the F-15

Well maybe not with all it's inherient external fuel tanks, or course!  Smile

Quoting DL021 (Reply 22):
The F/A-18E does not win in a knife fight with the F-15. The Eagle still outturns and maintains it's speed for longer in the turns.

The F-15's wing is only advantageous at high altitudes, but I should have been more specific. In a low altitude and low-speed fight after the initial pass the advantage is all Super Hornet with the long LERX's and ability to point it's nose at airspeeds the F-15C would just be faling out of the sky. Still, such hypotheticals are probabilities just like rolling dice at a casion, so it's relatively academic at best.

I still think the USAF should look into replacing the F-15C's it can't afford to replace F-22's with. Since the F-15C's pale in comparsion to the F/A-18E in the A/G role, the Super Hornets are likely even a better and less expensive alternative for the USAF slinging mud than it is to risk the numerically rare F-22's. If the Navy is buying over 500 of them they can't be so bad as to where the USAF couldn't buy some and save some money for their pet projects!  Smile


User currently offlineEaglekeeper101 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 272 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 13962 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23):
Since the F-15C's pale in comparsion to the F/A-18E in the A/G role, the Super Hornets are likely even a better and less expensive alternative for the USAF slinging mud than it is to risk the numerically rare F-22's

If I am reading you correctly (please let me know if I am not), you are stating that the -18 is a better alternative for A/G than the -22.

If this is your position, well, you are correct. Why? Because the F-22 was not designed for A/G at all. However, it works air superiority better than just about anything (when it's not broken lol).

If you want ultimate A/G...well, I have a fond weakness for the F-111, the A-6, the A-4, and the Buccaneer - oh well, color me 30-ish  Wink

I do hope that, someday, we will order more F-22s than we have currently budgeted for. I am also sure that F-15s aren't going to go away for a long long time. I would bet that we will still be getting good usage out of our Eagle fleet for at least 10-15 more years.

Now, I am not saying the -18 is useless. On the contrary, I wish the Air Force had gone with what has become the F-18 over that short-range, Lawn Dart-ish contraption called...the F-16  grumpy 

Now, we just have to see how the JSF shapes out to be - perhaps it will be a class winner (and bank breaker) just like its big brother...time will tell.

Be well!



"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." - Bahá'u'lláh
25 AirRyan : I'm certainly not advocating any further cuts to the F-22 and in fact I'm of the opinion that we should still buy 700 of them and let our inept bean c
26 Eaglekeeper101 : I see the direction you are headed in... Following your train of thought for devil's advocate sake, would it possibly be much more advantageous for th
27 Flyf15 : If you look at the Su-27 being the F-15 of Russia, take a look at how far Russia has been able to go. They now have the likes of the Su-35 and 37 - va
28 AirRyan : I would really only be for the F/A-18E if the numbers were right. It makes me sick to see others like Israel (given away at that) and the UAE fly awa
29 Ftrguy : Air Ryan, I'm going to be a dork, but your cockpit picture is to an F/A-18C and not an E model. FYI
30 Post contains images AirRyan : My bad, it still took me a second to figure it out when you noted the difference!
31 J.mo : I recently watched an interesting program on the National Geographic channel or the Military Channel on the F-22 vs. the F-15. The Air Force staged an
32 LMP737 : Why would the USAF want an aircraft who's original design is close to thirty years of age? Or an aircraft that was shoved down the throat of the Navy
33 MD-90 : You can clearly find pictures of Sukhois being brilliantly demonstrated at max gross in the database. Complete with full loads hanging from the wings
34 Vzlet : MD-90, Not that I can offer any proof, but I'd think it very unlikely that any Flanker would be burdened with 20,000 pounds of fuel for a demo flight
35 AFHokie : I just did a search on here, have yet to find a photo of a flanker performing with any pylons let alone any loads. Aircraft performing at airshows do
36 Post contains images Glideslope : Actually, the thought of going up against French Eurofighters is quite appealing.
37 Sonic67 : I agree that further development of the F-15 with perhaps with thrust vectoring and new avionic will help but can only be taken so far on an existing
38 Jmets18 : Speed: F/A-22 vs. F-15 Not to put everyone's panties in a bunch that have spent the last week discussing this, but the F-15 is not faster in any porti
39 Atmx2000 : Especially since French Eurofighters don't exist, since the French bailed out on the project.
40 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Just to nitpick here a bit Jmets . . . but if you're making allusions that you may possess secrective/sensitive information on a USAF aircraft to a p
41 Duce50boom : No kidding ANC. If you really are in the know Jmets you probably already know what you can and can't talk about. Instead of insinuating "yeah, it can
42 AirRyan : Because the USAF has wasted all their R&D funds for a fighter jet on the F/A-22 and they are already being told that they won't be allowed to buy eno
43 Post contains images AirRyan : I noticed my link above for the Super Hornet pic doesn't work anymore, so I'll try this one. That pit sure beats anything any F-15 has ever yielded to
44 Duce50boom : Cousin Eddie: "Yep, she's a real beaut' Clark. Like the greenwalls"
45 Post contains images AirRyan : You must be reffering to the Family Truckster!
46 L-188 : Ask anybody on the USS Stark or the HMS Sheffield where the missiles that hit their respective ships came from and where the aircraft that launched i
47 Duce50boom : You know it AirRyan! ....."I don't know why they call this stuff hamburger helper.....Seems to do just fine by itself. I prefer it to tuna helper myse
48 MD-90 : You're right, I was just spouting off and shouldn't have said max gross. But I've seen pictures of Sukhois performing with extensive stores under the
49 Sean1234 : The Air Force says top speed Mach 1.8+ Lockheed says 2.0+
50 DL021 : All that is kinda like the Navy being willing to confirm that the top speed of their SSN's is "in excess of 32 knots"....... in other words, to parap
51 Jwenting : But the chances of going up against France at some point are rather realistic. They seem to be ever more doing anything to oppose the US, military in
52 DL021 : dude, seriously, that ain't gonna happen.
53 Post contains images Pelican : Can you explain me, how the French could sell a Eurofighter??? pelican
54 Jwenting : That's what they said in the 1920s about Japan attacking the United States.
55 Sovietjet : I thought the F/A-22 wasn't "stealth" at least as much as the F-117 and B-2 are. Is it? I'm sure it's not that invisible.
56 Post contains images AGM114L : Ahh, but we can always dream
57 Post contains images Glideslope : Absolutely! I could not agree with you more. Outstanding post!!!
58 Post contains images Glideslope : ROFLMAO. They are the size of Texas. Time to wake up.
59 Post contains images TheSonntag : I hope I live to the day when the French try to invade the US. As long it isn't our (ze Gerrrmanz) fault. Why is something telling me that this would
60 DL021 : Take one in on trade? Boeing sold some A-340's if I recall correctually.... OK....point, but there was no longstanding alliance with that nation and
61 MD-90 : France spends the third most on their military in the world. USA is first, China second, France third, Japan fourth.
62 MrChips : He's right about that, and it doesn't take a security clearance to figure that out. Think about it for a second - The F-15 can only go 2.5 Mach with
63 LMP737 : Seems to me that the more logical thing to do would be to buy more F-15's instead of having the added expense of a new type aircraft in their fleet.
64 Sebolino : Jwenting, you are sick.
65 Post contains links Lumberton : Lockheed Martin just got a cash injection to continue producing the F-22. This will increase the total to delivered/on order to 107. Here's the articl
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Is The F-22 Necessary, Why Not Newer F-15?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is The F-22 Worth Billions Of Dollars? posted Sat Apr 3 2004 19:13:50 by Spoon04
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
Why Is The Phantom A Twinseater? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 23:31:58 by TheSonntag
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 04:20:46 by Dandy_don
Why Is The Navy Replacing F-14 Tomcats posted Tue Feb 8 2005 21:33:55 by 747400sp
Why Is The C-5 Such A Hangar Queen? posted Wed Oct 22 2003 15:29:59 by Cheshire
Why Not Keep The F-14 As A Full Time Bomber? posted Fri Mar 7 2003 06:20:01 by CX747
Why Not Keep The F-14? posted Mon May 20 2002 21:42:55 by CX747
Is The F-15 An Endangered Species? posted Mon May 7 2001 05:58:47 by FlyBoeing
Is The U.S.C.G. Considered "Military" posted Sun Nov 12 2006 19:19:37 by UH60FtRucker

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format