RJMAZ wrote:seahawk wrote:
The F-35 is the first fighter aircraft to have significant body lift.
seahawk wrote:Then you sent up one of the spares that would always ready in a conflict. And if the drag is higher you need to tank more often, but still less often than 6 fighters.
Surely 2 F-15 can not cover as much area as 6 F-16s, but for the same area covered they could carry more weapons. As I said it is a capability with some appeal, not a game changer or something the USAF needs to have, especially as you could develop the Beast mode for the F-35 which would then carry 14 missiles. But probably with more drag than the F-15.
seahawk wrote:Why would you fly with a full load over Syria, when you do not expect to fight any dogfights and just arm for self defence. The same with CAP over the US, when you expect Cessnas or hijacked airliners, you do not need many missiles.
But I thought the USAF is getting ready for conflict with a near peer enemy, like China and there the outlook is imho different. There cruise missile attacks with 20+ missiles are realistic as are enemy formation of more than 20 fighters. And considering how they mount the AAMs on the F-15 the belly mounted ones won´t be that draggy, so you would probably only drop the quad packs and end up with 14 missiles in a practical load out. In the end your argument is like saying that the F-14 being able to carry 4 (up to 6) AIM54 was pointless, as they mostly flew CAP with just one mounted during the Cold War.
seahawk wrote:But made sense when it came to shooting down anti-ship missiles and bombers if the Cold War turned hot.
Same with a 22 missile load on an F-15, it would not merge with 22 MiG-35 or Su-35, but against say 8 cruise missiles and the expect low hit rate of the missiles against such targets, it makes sense. So for the defence of CONUS it has some appeal.
seahawk wrote:Only if you have more fighters.
bikerthai wrote:seahawk wrote:Only if you have more fighters.
Which give the theory of leasing these frames to Taiwan more credence
They don't need the range, they do need mass quantities of missile but do not have infrastructures to support so many frames.
seahawk wrote:Which assumes that the first attack would be fighters and not cruise missiles.
bikerthai wrote:seahawk wrote:Which assumes that the first attack would be fighters and not cruise missiles.
Or that the fighters would not come in waves thus having a significant number of missile allow for longer CAP time before returning to base for reload (assuming you survived). Even then, If you have 12 fighters in rotation, you would not have many in the air at the same time, so I would think you are not worried about lack of Chinese fighters to engage.
Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe
Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days
Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit
Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior
Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft
Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials
Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions
Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin
Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon
Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos
Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft
Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries
Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground
Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos