Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:47 pm

mmo wrote:
Can you tell me where you come with the statement that all AF pilots are experienced with F-5s? Do you know the range of the F-5 radar? I am surprised you didn't advocate a return to SPADS.
Aren't F-5s used as trainers for new AF Jet pilots? Spads wouldn't work because they are too slow to catch up with even a Cessna, and they would be no fun in the rain.


mmo wrote:
I would say the difference in positions is more you seem to consider yourself an expert at all things and anyone who does not agree with you is not an expert. I spend 11 years on active duty as a pilot and 11 more in the ANG as a pilot. I can categorically state you don't have a clue what you are talking about. How many holes in the ground is it going to take for you to accept the current C/D models need to be replaced.
When are you going to get over using personal attacks as your debate method?

BTW
I will point out that I do know how to format responses in this forum which seems beyond your ability.
 
mmo
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:25 pm

Some USAF pilots train in the T-38, which is not the F-5. The F-5 evolved from the T-38, other than the manufacturer, Northrup, that is the only similarity.

Personal attack? I was merely stating a fact. You seem to think the F-15C/D fleet just rolled off the assembly line. There are significant G restrictions on the aircraft and the more it flies, the shorter the life span it has remaining. You don't even acknowledge that fact despite being told that fact by several people.

As for personal attacks, what was the purpose of the BTW comment? What did that add to the discussion?
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:26 pm

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Spar wrote:
It's going to take three years to train pilots, each with many years of experience flying (multi engine) jet fighters in the exact same location, in the exact same mission? And they're going to be trained on an aircraft that is more automated than the one(s) that they are already experienced with? Let's add to that the fact that the most demanding part of the F-35 systems is probably the ground attack aspect, which the National Guard, flying their CONUS Air Defense mission have no need for.

Whoever is selling you that premise is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
And the maintenance people are not the reason for anything beyond six months of delay.
You know a whole air force base doesn't have to be shut down just because an F-35 has landed there for the first time. Life can go on while training takes place.

Spar, I have posted this previously but again because you seem to doubt it over and over again.

Ozair, you can post it 10 more times and it still will stick out as a falsehood.

Sorry Spar, until you come up with some actual factual evidence then what you are suggesting is merely an opinion based on incorrect data.

Spar wrote:
The circumstance involved in converting NG units which have the defense of CONUS as their mission are not the same as for an imaginary squadron in some bureaucrat's project planner.

Spar, the below is a graphic and link to an article outlining the current process to get a new trainee through flight training and up to standard. At the moment you can see that a new pilot takes approximately 11 months to go from conversion onto the jet to be able to be deployed to a conflict but that is only as a wingman. A squadron needs not just wingman but people who can lead two ships and four ships. The graphic shows it takes that pilot another 24 months to get to that 4 ship lead point.

Image

At the very least, even if you halved every single part of that training timeframe, you are still looking at 18 months for an experienced pilot to become proficient enough to get to the qualification required to lead a four ship of a new aircraft into combat.
When today’s student aviator completes IFF, they can expect to relocate their families again for between six and eight months of training — finally in their fighter — at a “Formal Training Unit” (FTU). FTUs put brand new flying training graduates through a “basic” course, some six to eight months in length, producing qualified but inexperienced fighter aviators. FTUs also run shorter “transition” courses, where experienced fighter aviators learn a new aircraft or return to a fighter after some time outside of a flying assignment. The FTU enterprise represents a massive service investment that assigns around a quarter of all Air Force fighters to non-combat training squadrons.
After the aircrew completes FTU, they pack and move again to their new combat squadron as an inexperienced wingman. They are not yet qualified to go to war. To become “Mission Ready” for combat, they require an additional one to three months of local training. Most combat squadrons receive batches of new FTU graduates every three to four months, which requires a constant squadron training focus on the basic mission qualification syllabus.
After an additional year of seasoning, these wingmen will undergo a training “upgrade” from wingman to “flight lead” to command a formation of two aircraft, with a second upgrade months later preparing them to lead a four aircraft formation. This steady churn of basic qualification and upgrade training dominates the peacetime schedule of a fighter squadron.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/01/rebui ... -aviators/
Of course throughout the above process we also have the lives of the individual members that need to be accounted for. They are of course entitled to leave (active duty USAF get 30 days of leave, 6 weeks, every year), to have public holidays, to have Christmas/Easter/Thanksgiving etc with their families. They have other additional basic training they need to fulfil like mandatory courses in first aid, occupational health and safety, suicide awareness, ethics etc. The USAF is struggling to retain fighter pilots and continues to undertrain on the number they have, so units are stretched especially with deployments and exercises.

You then need to add the issue that presents to a squadron today trying to train up to an advanced standard,
Further increasing the training burden are the “direct support” sorties that require squadrons training for aerial combat to provide their own adversary aircraft. While some F-22 squadrons use T-38s as dedicated adversaries, and the Air Force is investing over 100 million dollars annually to rent adversary jets from private contractors, most squadrons must allocate a number of their own fighter sorties to role-play an adversary force for squadron mates to spar with. Every direct support sortie flown is one less sortie available for advanced training.

With such a high demand for sorties to qualify and upgrade new wingman, it’s hard for squadrons to find the time required to focus on the advanced tactics that will give them the edge in a fight against the emerging threats presented by China or Russia. A typical fighter squadron spends about 25 percent of its allocated sorties on upgrade training and an additional 40 percent flown in “direct support,” either acting as adversaries or as the additional formation members required to support training of new or upgrading pilots. That means that most of a fighter squadron’s time is spent repetitively training in basic tactics, limiting the time available to dedicate to advanced tactics.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/01/rebui ... -aviators/


Spar wrote:
The NG units have a very specialized and very limited role,

That is not correct. While the ANG F-15C squadrons may only conduct A2A missions they require significant training to reach and maintain an advanced standard. They are deployed to assist USAF active duty units in real world operations, for example,
Air National Guard F-15Cs and airmen are headed to Europe to augment U.S. forces on the Continent, part of ongoing efforts to boost peace and stability in the region while deterring Russian aggression in eastern Europe.

https://www.stripes.com/news/air-guard- ... e-1.401961

Those ANG pilots need to be trained to the highest standard should they have to encounter and fight against top end active Russian Air Force units. Only training them to a CONUS air defence standard to intercept bombers is simply not enough and does not meet USAF requirements.

Spar wrote:
there is no reason why a NG squadron couldn't fly two different types to fulfill its mission;

Can you please name a single USAF active or ANG fighter squadron that flies two different types of aircraft today? In fact what you will actually find is that squadrons don’t even fly the same type of aircraft with a different engine, for example GE and PW powered F-16s are never in the same squadron, they are always separated into separate squadrons and usually separate bases. If the USAF doesn’t fly the same F-16 but with different engines in the same squadron, why would they fly two different aircraft in one squadron…

Spar wrote:
heck, most of the NG territory could be serviced just fine with F-5s, and all AF pilots are experienced with F-5s.

Sorry Spar, the intent of ANG squadrons, as evidenced above, is not just the defence of CONUS but also the ability to deploy with and augment active duty USAF squadrons. For example multiple ANG squadrons deployed to both Gulf wars, flew over Bosnia etc. For example the 159th fighter wing which becomes the 122nd Expeditionary Squadron when activated,

In the late 1990s, the 122d Expeditionary Fighter Squadron was activated on several occasions, sending packages of personnel and aircraft Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, to fly Combat Air Patrol missions over Iraq as part of Operation Northern Watch. Also the 122d EFS was activated with a deployment to Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, flying CAP missions over Southern Iraq as part of Operation Southern Watch. On 25 June 1999, members of the 159th Fighter Wing, New Orleans ANG, while on deployment to NAS Keflavik, Iceland, flying F-15A aircraft, intercepted two Russian TU-95 "Bear-H" aircraft.
In response to the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the 122d Fighter Squadron engaged in Combat Air Patrols over major United States Cities as part of Operation Noble Eagle (ONE). ONE patrols continued into 2002 before being scaled down.
In 2006, the F-15A models were retired and the 122d was upgraded to the more capable F-15C Eagle. As part of the Global War on Terrorism, the 122d EFS has been deployed to support Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, Operation New Horizons in Central and South America and Operation New Dawn in Afghanistan.[citation needed]
The most recent deployment of the 122d Expeditionary Fighter Squadron was completed in October 2012 when the squadron deployed to at Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates, and as part of the 380th Expeditionary Operations Group, the 122d EFS flew missions in support of the Joint Air Defense of the Persian Gulf and Operation Enduring Freedom. The mission included providing air superiority in support of national military objectives and flying Fighter Integration Sorties with F-22 Raptors and F-15E Strike Eagles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/159th_Fighter_Wing

Spar wrote:
You're just throwing up pompous officialdom as a substitute for actual logic. Three years is ridiculous.

Nope, more clear evidence about the timeframes required by the USAF to convert a squadron and the above info covers active duty squadrons, not ANG units who will take longer because of their lesser availability.

Spar wrote:
Ozair, I repeat, the "fatigue" issue of the F-15 C lacks empirical evidence to show that it even exists. It has a strong appearance of being a political ploy, or something that is being blown out of proportion in order to control a conversation.

Nope, the evidence is very clear. Because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it any less so.


Spar wrote:
Ozair, Here lies the difference between our positions. You, as a career government employee, are unswervingly obedient and loth to challenge anything said by those 'above" you. I, as (mostly) a lifelong civilian believe that no one is above review, especially someone who is spending my money.

Apparently I am a career government employee… I hope that means I qualify for a pension?

Again Spar, you have not provided any evidence to support your positions. Your opinion is an opinion that is not aligned with reality based on the multiple facts I have presented .

Spar wrote:
Ozair, you need to face the fact that left unchecked, the Air Force is a self serving organization.

The USAF’s mission is to generate air power in support of US Government policy. What else do you think the USAF should be doing?
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:05 pm

mmo wrote:
You seem to think the F-15C/D fleet just rolled off the assembly line.

No that's just hyperbole, I do know that there have been other military aircraft that have had longer life spans than what the F-15 C will have acquired in the 2030s, and I don't believe any of them ever had their main wing spars replaced, let alone their entire wings.

mmo wrote:
There are significant G restrictions on the aircraft and the more it flies, the shorter the life span it has remaining.

Those G restrictions obviously would be to prevent the planes from timing out on the number of wing spar flexes incurred so that they will remain within engineering tolerance until the spars are replaced. After the new wing spars are installed, those G- limits (whatever minor limit they are) will be dropped. The F-15 that came apart over Missouri in 2007 was pulling almost eight Gs before the defective fuselage spar failed, that was near the limit of what the human body can take. The fact that he chose to engage in a maneuver that extreme tells me that he wasn't worried about the plane coming apart, and the plane wouldn't have come apart except that it had a fuselage spar that was out of tolerance the day it was installed.

In my opinion, this entire issue of the F-15 fleet being on the verge of collapse is fake. It is a political issue, not an engineering issue. There have been no failures to date, the F-15 fleet is just like any other fleet of aircraft; sure, it should be monitored and when a major part like the wing spars have received or approach the maximum number of flexes that engineering knowledge deems safe, then that part should be replaced. And that is what has been happening and that is what has been proposed. The Missouri accident cause an extensive reevaluation and analysis of the F-15 fleet and it was obviously decided that the plane is safe; it's been 12 years since that incident and the Air Force is still flying them.

mmo wrote:
You don't even acknowledge that fact despite being told that fact by several people.

I disagree, it's not an uncommon event to have someone disagree with oneself in the civilian world.

mmo wrote:
As for personal attacks, what was the purpose of the BTW comment? What did that add to the discussion?

Prior to this post, each and every one of your recent posts has reeked of arrogance and superiority and contained at least one personal insult. It seemed appropriate to point out that you are not as omnipotent as you seem to think of yourself.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:32 pm

Ozair wrote:
Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Spar, I have posted this previously but again because you seem to doubt it over and over again.

Ozair, you can post it 10 more times and it still will stick out as a falsehood.

Sorry Spar, until you come up with some actual factual evidence then what you are suggesting is merely an opinion based on incorrect data.

Spar wrote:
The circumstance involved in converting NG units which have the defense of CONUS as their mission are not the same as for an imaginary squadron in some bureaucrat's project planner.

Spar, the below is a graphic and link to an article outlining the current process to get a new trainee through flight training and up to standard. At the moment you can see that a new pilot takes approximately 11 months to go from conversion onto the jet to be able to be deployed to a conflict but that is only as a wingman. A squadron needs not just wingman but people who can lead two ships and four ships. The graphic shows it takes that pilot another 24 months to get to that 4 ship lead point.

Image

At the very least, even if you halved every single part of that training timeframe, you are still looking at 18 months for an experienced pilot to become proficient enough to get to the qualification required to lead a four ship of a new aircraft into combat.
When today’s student aviator completes IFF, they can expect to relocate their families again for between six and eight months of training — finally in their fighter — at a “Formal Training Unit” (FTU). FTUs put brand new flying training graduates through a “basic” course, some six to eight months in length, producing qualified but inexperienced fighter aviators. FTUs also run shorter “transition” courses, where experienced fighter aviators learn a new aircraft or return to a fighter after some time outside of a flying assignment. The FTU enterprise represents a massive service investment that assigns around a quarter of all Air Force fighters to non-combat training squadrons.
After the aircrew completes FTU, they pack and move again to their new combat squadron as an inexperienced wingman. They are not yet qualified to go to war. To become “Mission Ready” for combat, they require an additional one to three months of local training. Most combat squadrons receive batches of new FTU graduates every three to four months, which requires a constant squadron training focus on the basic mission qualification syllabus.
After an additional year of seasoning, these wingmen will undergo a training “upgrade” from wingman to “flight lead” to command a formation of two aircraft, with a second upgrade months later preparing them to lead a four aircraft formation. This steady churn of basic qualification and upgrade training dominates the peacetime schedule of a fighter squadron.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/01/rebui ... -aviators/
Of course throughout the above process we also have the lives of the individual members that need to be accounted for. They are of course entitled to leave (active duty USAF get 30 days of leave, 6 weeks, every year), to have public holidays, to have Christmas/Easter/Thanksgiving etc with their families. They have other additional basic training they need to fulfil like mandatory courses in first aid, occupational health and safety, suicide awareness, ethics etc. The USAF is struggling to retain fighter pilots and continues to undertrain on the number they have, so units are stretched especially with deployments and exercises.

You then need to add the issue that presents to a squadron today trying to train up to an advanced standard,
Further increasing the training burden are the “direct support” sorties that require squadrons training for aerial combat to provide their own adversary aircraft. While some F-22 squadrons use T-38s as dedicated adversaries, and the Air Force is investing over 100 million dollars annually to rent adversary jets from private contractors, most squadrons must allocate a number of their own fighter sorties to role-play an adversary force for squadron mates to spar with. Every direct support sortie flown is one less sortie available for advanced training.

With such a high demand for sorties to qualify and upgrade new wingman, it’s hard for squadrons to find the time required to focus on the advanced tactics that will give them the edge in a fight against the emerging threats presented by China or Russia. A typical fighter squadron spends about 25 percent of its allocated sorties on upgrade training and an additional 40 percent flown in “direct support,” either acting as adversaries or as the additional formation members required to support training of new or upgrading pilots. That means that most of a fighter squadron’s time is spent repetitively training in basic tactics, limiting the time available to dedicate to advanced tactics.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/01/rebui ... -aviators/


Spar wrote:
The NG units have a very specialized and very limited role,

That is not correct. While the ANG F-15C squadrons may only conduct A2A missions they require significant training to reach and maintain an advanced standard. They are deployed to assist USAF active duty units in real world operations, for example,
Air National Guard F-15Cs and airmen are headed to Europe to augment U.S. forces on the Continent, part of ongoing efforts to boost peace and stability in the region while deterring Russian aggression in eastern Europe.

https://www.stripes.com/news/air-guard- ... e-1.401961

Those ANG pilots need to be trained to the highest standard should they have to encounter and fight against top end active Russian Air Force units. Only training them to a CONUS air defence standard to intercept bombers is simply not enough and does not meet USAF requirements.

Spar wrote:
there is no reason why a NG squadron couldn't fly two different types to fulfill its mission;

Can you please name a single USAF active or ANG fighter squadron that flies two different types of aircraft today? In fact what you will actually find is that squadrons don’t even fly the same type of aircraft with a different engine, for example GE and PW powered F-16s are never in the same squadron, they are always separated into separate squadrons and usually separate bases. If the USAF doesn’t fly the same F-16 but with different engines in the same squadron, why would they fly two different aircraft in one squadron…

Spar wrote:
heck, most of the NG territory could be serviced just fine with F-5s, and all AF pilots are experienced with F-5s.

Sorry Spar, the intent of ANG squadrons, as evidenced above, is not just the defence of CONUS but also the ability to deploy with and augment active duty USAF squadrons. For example multiple ANG squadrons deployed to both Gulf wars, flew over Bosnia etc. For example the 159th fighter wing which becomes the 122nd Expeditionary Squadron when activated,

In the late 1990s, the 122d Expeditionary Fighter Squadron was activated on several occasions, sending packages of personnel and aircraft Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, to fly Combat Air Patrol missions over Iraq as part of Operation Northern Watch. Also the 122d EFS was activated with a deployment to Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, flying CAP missions over Southern Iraq as part of Operation Southern Watch. On 25 June 1999, members of the 159th Fighter Wing, New Orleans ANG, while on deployment to NAS Keflavik, Iceland, flying F-15A aircraft, intercepted two Russian TU-95 "Bear-H" aircraft.
In response to the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the 122d Fighter Squadron engaged in Combat Air Patrols over major United States Cities as part of Operation Noble Eagle (ONE). ONE patrols continued into 2002 before being scaled down.
In 2006, the F-15A models were retired and the 122d was upgraded to the more capable F-15C Eagle. As part of the Global War on Terrorism, the 122d EFS has been deployed to support Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, Operation New Horizons in Central and South America and Operation New Dawn in Afghanistan.[citation needed]
The most recent deployment of the 122d Expeditionary Fighter Squadron was completed in October 2012 when the squadron deployed to at Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates, and as part of the 380th Expeditionary Operations Group, the 122d EFS flew missions in support of the Joint Air Defense of the Persian Gulf and Operation Enduring Freedom. The mission included providing air superiority in support of national military objectives and flying Fighter Integration Sorties with F-22 Raptors and F-15E Strike Eagles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/159th_Fighter_Wing

Spar wrote:
You're just throwing up pompous officialdom as a substitute for actual logic. Three years is ridiculous.

Nope, more clear evidence about the timeframes required by the USAF to convert a squadron and the above info covers active duty squadrons, not ANG units who will take longer because of their lesser availability.

Spar wrote:
Ozair, I repeat, the "fatigue" issue of the F-15 C lacks empirical evidence to show that it even exists. It has a strong appearance of being a political ploy, or something that is being blown out of proportion in order to control a conversation.

Nope, the evidence is very clear. Because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it any less so.


Spar wrote:
Ozair, Here lies the difference between our positions. You, as a career government employee, are unswervingly obedient and loth to challenge anything said by those 'above" you. I, as (mostly) a lifelong civilian believe that no one is above review, especially someone who is spending my money.

Apparently I am a career government employee… I hope that means I qualify for a pension?

Again Spar, you have not provided any evidence to support your positions. Your opinion is an opinion that is not aligned with reality based on the multiple facts I have presented .

Spar wrote:
Ozair, you need to face the fact that left unchecked, the Air Force is a self serving organization.

The USAF’s mission is to generate air power in support of US Government policy. What else do you think the USAF should be doing?


Sorry Ozair, but three years to train highly experienced pilots, who already have experience with multiple types, to fly the exact same mission in the exact same location doesn't pass the smell test. You're a good bureaucrat, but your argument won't sell to anyone with any experience in the real world.

The F-15, be it the C or the EX will never ever deploy offshore again, as it has purely an air to air role and so it is of no use for pounding people like the Palestinians into the ground. It could only have worth against an enemy which has an air force. If that day ever comes, the aircraft that will be used will be F-22s and F-35s for obvious reasons. I will add that if that day ever came the defense of CONUS would become more of a reality than the formality that it currently is.

This argument of yours actually works against the EX - and may be the strongest argument of all against the EX. If we ever wound up in a war of attrition, the F-15 EX would be useless to replace F-22s and F-35s that themselves couldn't maintain in the battlespace. Going with the F-15 EX, would deny the US an important and maybe some day a critical reserve fleet.

There is no evidence to support the "fatigue" issue. Just your words.

Re: the Air Force is a self serving organization: Don't be obtuse.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:14 am

Spar wrote:
Sorry Ozair, but three years to train highly experienced pilots, who already have experience with multiple types, to fly the exact same mission in the exact same location doesn't pass the smell test. You're a good bureaucrat, but your argument won't sell to anyone with any experience in the real world.

LOL, okay. Presented with facts you respond with nothing…

How about another

AVM Gordon [RAAF] said the F-35A was “easy to fly” but “training F-35A pilots is very different to training pilots in other fighters because of the nature of fifth-generation capabilities.

A formation would be spread over tens of kilometres and “wingmen will be a tactical node providing sensors, weapons and manoeuvrability in direct support of the mission objectives. Flying is the easy bit. Making the right decisions in exploiting the information advantage is the hard part.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... 1998d58392

You train and fight a 5th gen platform differently to a fourth gen. Hence it is perfectly reasonable to have the transition times stated (irrespective of the fact those times are for any aircraft, not just the F-35). We have also had multiple accounts from experienced aircrew who talk about how difficul the adjustment is to 5th gen because of the different concepts and tactics and especially how long it takes to transition to the amount of information that is available. Conversly, we have the recent story from Red Flag where a junior pilot, new to fighters and having only flown the F-35, was able to make the jump rapidly and provide value at a Red Flag exercise.

Spar wrote:
The F-15, be it the C or the EX will never ever deploy offshore again, as it has purely an air to air role and so it is of no use for pounding people like the Palestinians into the ground. It could only have worth against an enemy which has an air force. If that day ever comes, the aircraft that will be used will be F-22s and F-35s for obvious reasons. I will add that if that day ever came the defense of CONUS would become more of a reality than the formality that it currently is.

Well you should really read the link I provided already in a little more detail. Again…
The most recent deployment of the 122d Expeditionary Fighter Squadron was completed in October 2012 when the squadron deployed to at Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates, and as part of the 380th Expeditionary Operations Group, the 122d EFS flew missions in support of the Joint Air Defense of the Persian Gulf and Operation Enduring Freedom. The mission included providing air superiority in support of national military objectives and flying Fighter Integration Sorties with F-22 Raptors and F-15E Strike Eagles.

So while an ANG unit was flying in the Middle East it conducted missions alongside a 5th gen aircraft including supporting that aircraft.

Spar wrote:
This argument of yours actually works against the EX - and may be the strongest argument of all against the EX. If we ever wound up in a war of attrition, the F-15 EX would be useless to replace F-22s and F-35s that themselves couldn't maintain in the battlespace. Going with the F-15 EX, would deny the US an important and maybe some day a critical reserve fleet.

But again Spar you completely ignore the reason for the decision to go with the F-15EX. It is based on the ability to convert a current F-15C pilot to the new airframe in as short a time as possible and allow for availability of aircrew capable of flying and fighting their aircraft to an advanced standard. Same with the ground staff supporting the aircraft.

It isn’t about capability, it is about availability. The USAF has stated, and continues to state, that 4th and 5th gen aircraft will continue to work together on operations for the foreseeable future. The USAF acknowledges it has so many 4th gen aircraft it needs to replace that it will have to run with both generations for the next twenty years.
Spar wrote:
There is no evidence to support the "fatigue" issue. Just your words.

Nope, again Spar you need to provide evidence. I have provided multiple statements from senior USAF officials on the fatigue issues, including from F-15C aircrew, as well as a contract and the subsequent work undertaken, which specifically states the intent is to determine the fatigue of the jet when flown past the nominated service life. What more evidence should anyone need…

Spar wrote:
Re: the Air Force is a self serving organization: Don't be obtuse.

Obtuse, no. I’m not sure how you can describe the USAF as a self-serving organisation. Let’s again go to an actual source for the info,

The mission of the United States Air Force is to fly, fight and win in air, space and cyberspace.

https://www.airforce.com/mission

I think that is pretty clear…
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:08 am

Ozair wrote:
AVM Gordon [RAAF] said the F-35A was “easy to fly” but “training F-35A pilots is very different to training pilots in other fighters because of the nature of fifth-generation capabilities.

A formation would be spread over tens of kilometres and “wingmen will be a tactical node providing sensors, weapons and manoeuvrability in direct support of the mission objectives. Flying is the easy bit. Making the right decisions in exploiting the information advantage is the hard part.

Mr. gorden wasn't taking into account the fact that the CONUS defense mission procedures and tactics are already in place and do not include formations spread over tens of kilometers. That is where the fact that these are all highly experienced professionals doing a job that has already been defined over decades of experience is being conveniently ignored by the people who want to sell the F-15 EX. Training the pilots for the mission is not in the cards, they and their local commanders will work out any beneficial tactical changes that an F-35 offers over the F-15 C. They will write the book.

Ozair wrote:
Well you should really read the link I provided already in a little more detail. Again… "The most recent deployment of the 122d Expeditionary Fighter Squadron was completed in October 2012"

2012 was back in the days before the F-35 came on line. Things are different now and never will be the same again.

Ozair wrote:
But again Spar you completely ignore the reason for the decision to go with the F-15EX. It is based on the ability to convert a current F-15C pilot to the new airframe in as short a time as possible and allow for availability of aircrew capable of flying and fighting their aircraft to an advanced standard.

It's you that completely ignores the reason for going with the EX: graft. Then comes the alleged justification for the EX, that's a story which has two sides: EX vs F-35 and EX vs upgraded C model. The reasons for either are opposite of the arguments for the other. For the EX vs the F-35 you claim speed to convert is most important issue, but if speed to convert is even an issue, then upgrading the C model wins hands down; there is no interruption whatsoever. Just take some C models out of the desert and upgrade them. There really is no rational argument in favor of the EX vs the C model. The only argument is the fictitious "the F-15 C is really really old and nobody knows when they are all going to fall apart and be unflyable".

As I said previously, there is no evidence to support the "fatigue" issue. Just your words. And I don't need to provide evidence of a negative. If you want to claim that there is an actual fatigue issue it's up to you to make your case, not just say "I told you so", "or they're doing tests, doesn't that prove that they will fail the tests?"

Ozair wrote:
I’m not sure how you can describe the USAF as a self-serving organization.

I can believe that you really can't see that. But that doesn't mean that the Air Force brass doesn't on occasion put what they perceive to be the Air Forces' interests ahead of what even they know are the national interest. The "what's good for GM is good for America argument".
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:56 am

Spar wrote:
Mr. gorden wasn't taking into account the fact that the CONUS defense mission procedures and tactics are already in place and do not include formations spread over tens of kilometers. That is where the fact that these are all highly experienced professionals doing a job that has already been defined over decades of experience is being conveniently ignored by the people who want to sell the F-15 EX. Training the pilots for the mission is not in the cards, they and their local commanders will work out any beneficial tactical changes that an F-35 offers over the F-15 C. They will write the book.

Air Vice Marshall Gordon, not Mr…, that adds to his experience, understanding and access to capability.

So you would like to dictate tactics for CONUS defence now? You have deemed that the CONUS mission can only be done with aircraft that are limited to flying specific profiles or in proximity to each other. Perhaps we should limit their speed, or their weapons capability? It would of course be absurd to deny the ANG units the ability to complete their missions using as much technology and capability as necessary and so stating that the F-35 in that role wouldn’t fly as it does with active USAF units, and allies, is also absurd. Also, you fail to acknowledge that these units are not trained in just CONUS defence, which you have never defined, and not overall advanced A2A tactics given their role in supporting the active USAF force not just domestically but overseas as well.

Spar wrote:
2012 was back in the days before the F-35 came on line. Things are different now and never will be the same again.

I disagree. The F-35 is flying over in the Middle East right now working with 4th gen USAF units, Allied 4th gen aircraft etc and as already stated the USAF will continue to field F-15s, F-16s A-10s for the next 10-20 years. The ANG will continue to rotate overseas as required to supplement and assist active USAF forces.

Spar wrote:
It's you that completely ignores the reason for going with the EX: graft. Then comes the alleged justification for the EX, that's a story which has two sides: EX vs F-35 and EX vs upgraded C model. The reasons for either are opposite of the arguments for the other. For the EX vs the F-35 you claim speed to convert is most important issue, but if speed to convert is even an issue, then upgrading the C model wins hands down; there is no interruption whatsoever. Just take some C models out of the desert and upgrade them. There really is no rational argument in favor of the EX vs the C model. The only argument is the fictitious "the F-15 C is really really old and nobody knows when they are all going to fall apart and be unflyable".

Nope Spar, the difference is that my positions are supported by congressional testimony, statements by USAF senior leadership etc. Yours is not.

Spar wrote:
As I said previously, there is no evidence to support the "fatigue" issue. Just your words. And I don't need to provide evidence of a negative. If you want to claim that there is an actual fatigue issue it's up to you to make your case, not just say "I told you so", "or they're doing tests, doesn't that prove that they will fail the tests?"

Nope Spar, the difference is that my position is based on the testimony of senior USAF leadership, the stated experiences of many who are inside this issue and includes why the USAF is investigating fatigue. You have provided no evidence to support your claim.

Why should we believe you when we have experts stating the opposite?

Spar wrote:
I can believe that you really can't see that. But that doesn't mean that the Air Force brass doesn't on occasion put what they perceive to be the Air Forces' interests ahead of what even they know are the national interest. The "what's good for GM is good for America argument".

Well in the absence of evidence to justify your point the rest of us will just have to believe that most of the people serving in the US Military are generally trying to be honest and serve their country the best way they can. Society has a few bad eggs and militaries are not immune from these types of individuals either but these remain a very small subset of a very large organisation.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:12 am

I'm satisfied with the debate and where it stands. Any reader who is interested can read both views and make up their minds on the basis of what's been said above.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:15 am

Ozair wrote:
Spar, the below is a graphic and link to an article outlining the current process to get a new trainee through flight training and up to standard. At the moment you can see that a new pilot takes approximately 11 months to go from conversion onto the jet to be able to be deployed to a conflict but that is only as a wingman. A squadron needs not just wingman but people who can lead two ships and four ships. The graphic shows it takes that pilot another 24 months to get to that 4 ship lead point.

Image

At the very least, even if you halved every single part of that training timeframe, you are still looking at 18 months for an experienced pilot to become proficient enough to get to the qualification required to lead a four ship of a new aircraft into combat.
When today’s student aviator completes IFF, they can expect to relocate their families again for between six and eight months of training — finally in their fighter — at a “Formal Training Unit” (FTU). FTUs put brand new flying training graduates through a “basic” course, some six to eight months in length, producing qualified but inexperienced fighter aviators. FTUs also run shorter “transition” courses, where experienced fighter aviators learn a new aircraft or return to a fighter after some time outside of a flying assignment. The FTU enterprise represents a massive service investment that assigns around a quarter of all Air Force fighters to non-combat training squadrons.
After the aircrew completes FTU, they pack and move again to their new combat squadron as an inexperienced wingman. They are not yet qualified to go to war. To become “Mission Ready” for combat, they require an additional one to three months of local training. Most combat squadrons receive batches of new FTU graduates every three to four months, which requires a constant squadron training focus on the basic mission qualification syllabus.
After an additional year of seasoning, these wingmen will undergo a training “upgrade” from wingman to “flight lead” to command a formation of two aircraft, with a second upgrade months later preparing them to lead a four aircraft formation. This steady churn of basic qualification and upgrade training dominates the peacetime schedule of a fighter squadron.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/01/rebui ... -aviators/
Of course throughout the above process we also have the lives of the individual members that need to be accounted for. They are of course entitled to leave (active duty USAF get 30 days of leave, 6 weeks, every year), to have public holidays, to have Christmas/Easter/Thanksgiving etc with their families. They have other additional basic training they need to fulfil like mandatory courses in first aid, occupational health and safety, suicide awareness, ethics etc. The USAF is struggling to retain fighter pilots and continues to undertrain on the number they have, so units are stretched especially with deployments and exercises.

You then need to add the issue that presents to a squadron today trying to train up to an advanced standard,
Further increasing the training burden are the “direct support” sorties that require squadrons training for aerial combat to provide their own adversary aircraft. While some F-22 squadrons use T-38s as dedicated adversaries, and the Air Force is investing over 100 million dollars annually to rent adversary jets from private contractors, most squadrons must allocate a number of their own fighter sorties to role-play an adversary force for squadron mates to spar with. Every direct support sortie flown is one less sortie available for advanced training.

With such a high demand for sorties to qualify and upgrade new wingman, it’s hard for squadrons to find the time required to focus on the advanced tactics that will give them the edge in a fight against the emerging threats presented by China or Russia. A typical fighter squadron spends about 25 percent of its allocated sorties on upgrade training and an additional 40 percent flown in “direct support,” either acting as adversaries or as the additional formation members required to support training of new or upgrading pilots. That means that most of a fighter squadron’s time is spent repetitively training in basic tactics, limiting the time available to dedicate to advanced tactics.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/01/rebui ... -aviators/

Those ANG pilots need to be trained to the highest standard should they have to encounter and fight against top end active Russian Air Force units. Only training them to a CONUS air defence standard to intercept bombers is simply not enough and does not meet USAF requirements.

Spar wrote:
there is no reason why a NG squadron couldn't fly two different types to fulfill its mission;

Can you please name a single USAF active or ANG fighter squadron that flies two different types of aircraft today? In fact what you will actually find is that squadrons don’t even fly the same type of aircraft with a different engine, for example GE and PW powered F-16s are never in the same squadron, they are always separated into separate squadrons and usually separate bases. If the USAF doesn’t fly the same F-16 but with different engines in the same squadron, why would they fly two different aircraft in one squadron…


Ozair-
These charts got me thinking about the T-X trainer and how it fits into overall training. Once on say the F-15EX, would a pilot at times fly the T-X as it should have a lower hour cost?

I understand the T-X can mimic other planes, but I would expect it to not have the great 'situational awareness' of the F-35. Thus a couple hours of training in the T-X might degrade the pilots performance in the F-35 in some aspects, but on the plus size give the pilots more air time to work skills in other areas.
 
mmo
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:40 am

Spar wrote:

No that's just hyperbole, I do know that there have been other military aircraft that have had longer life spans than what the F-15 C will have acquired in the 2030s, and I don't believe any of them ever had their main wing spars replaced, let alone their entire wings.


Care to name a few. The T-38 is on it's 4th or 5th set of wings, The B-52 has numerous structual mods to the wings and will require a upper wing reskin to fly beyond 2035, the C-5 had had a new wing box, IIRC.

mmo wrote:
There are significant G restrictions on the aircraft and the more it flies, the shorter the life span it has remaining.

Those G restrictions obviously would be to prevent the planes from timing out on the number of wing spar flexes incurred so that they will remain within engineering tolerance until the spars are replaced. After the new wing spars are installed, those G- limits (whatever minor limit they are) will be dropped. The F-15 that came apart over Missouri in 2007 was pulling almost eight Gs before the defective fuselage spar failed, that was near the limit of what the human body can take. The fact that he chose to engage in a maneuver that extreme tells me that he wasn't worried about the plane coming apart, and the plane wouldn't have come apart except that it had a fuselage spar that was out of tolerance the day it was installed. [/quote]

First of all, the limits on the aircraft are significant, not "minor" as you state. The fact he was pulling 8 G's is really immaterial as was below the limit at the time. Your statement about the maneuver makes no sense at all. If he is operating inside the envelope, he should be protected to operate there. The boneyard is full of very good C/D models which have severe structural issues which have rendered the aircraft unsafe. Just a point of clarification on the wing box, it is more than the wing box which needs to be replaced. The entire wing structure needs to be replaced and there are several other areas of the aircraft which are fatigue prone which would have to be fixed too.

Spar wrote:
In my opinion, this entire issue of the F-15 fleet being on the verge of collapse is fake. It is a political issue, not an engineering issue. There have been no failures to date, the F-15 fleet is just like any other fleet of aircraft; sure, it should be monitored and when a major part like the wing spars have received or approach the maximum number of flexes that engineering knowledge deems safe, then that part should be replaced. And that is what has been happening and that is what has been proposed. The Missouri accident cause an extensive reevaluation and analysis of the F-15 fleet and it was obviously decided that the plane is safe; it's been 12 years since that incident and the Air Force is still flying them.


And your opinion has been rejected by the DOD, USAF and Boeing. What do you know that they don't/.




mmo wrote:
You don't even acknowledge that fact despite being told that fact by several people.

I disagree, it's not an uncommon event to have someone disagree with oneself in the civilian world.

mmo wrote:
As for personal attacks, what was the purpose of the BTW comment? What did that add to the discussion?

Prior to this post, each and every one of your recent posts has reeked of arrogance and superiority and contained at least one personal insult. It seemed appropriate to point out that you are not as omnipotent as you seem to think of yourself.[/quote]

Again, what is the purpose of this comment? You have added nothing to the discussion other than a personal attack on my "posting skills". I could point out your spelling and grammatical mistakes, but that isn't the topic of discussion. The topic of the discussion is your displeasure with the DOD/USAF purchasing new F-15s. Do you have the same displeasure with the USN purchasing new F-18s or upgrading the existing ones they have? Should they wait for the F-35 as you suggest the USAF should? The simple issue is the services don't feel the need for rushing production of the F-35 when the threat level can be handled by 4th+ generation fighters.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:44 am

mmo wrote:
The simple issue is the services don't feel the need for rushing production of the F-35 when the threat level can be handled by 4th+ generation fighters.

That isn't accurate mmo. The USAF wants as many F-35s as they can get their hands on,

“We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth-generation aircraft,” she told Defense News in September. "In any of the fights that we have been asked to plan for, more fifth-gen aircraft make a huge difference, and we think that getting to 50-50 means not buying new fourth-gen aircraft, it means continuing to increase the fifth generation.”

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... hter-jets/

If the budget does force the service to pick an aircraft, that decision is obvious, Wilson said. "We're not going to trade off fifth-generation for fourth-generation."

https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... secaf.html

The Navy has less of an issue given the average age of their fleet is significantly lower than the USAF. I expect though the USN will increase their buy once the F-35C has a couple of sea deployments and finds its feet and will continue to acquire top ups as long as it is available, similar to the SH today.

The USMC is taking as many F-35Bs as they can get

“The F-35’s—twenty-four to zero kill ratio—killed all the targets,” Davis said. “It was like Jurassic Park, watching a velociraptor—kills everything, does really well. We can’t get that airplane fast enough into the fleet.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ptor-35602
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:30 am

JayinKitsap wrote:

Ozair-
These charts got me thinking about the T-X trainer and how it fits into overall training. Once on say the F-15EX, would a pilot at times fly the T-X as it should have a lower hour cost?

The more hours a pilot flies in his jet the better he becomes. Flying the T-X isn't about getting more hours at a lower cost, the point of the jet is conversion training. Once a pilot moves to his FTU there is no reason to go back and fly the T-X. The pilot gets more benefit from flying in the sim than flying a T-X at that point.

JayinKitsap wrote:
I understand the T-X can mimic other planes, but I would expect it to not have the great 'situational awareness' of the F-35. Thus a couple hours of training in the T-X might degrade the pilots performance in the F-35 in some aspects, but on the plus size give the pilots more air time to work skills in other areas.

As above, really no need. The sim is where he gets the advanced training, where they can through threats in a number that cannot be replicated even at Red Flag.
 
mmo
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:26 pm

Ozair wrote:
mmo wrote:
The simple issue is the services don't feel the need for rushing production of the F-35 when the threat level can be handled by 4th+ generation fighters.

That isn't accurate mmo. The USAF wants as many F-35s as they can get their hands on,

[quote]
I don't believe I said anything like that. The current plans call for over 1700 F-35s purchased for the USAF. The replacement schedule for the current F-15C/D is not planned for the immediate future. However, DOD does not want to spend the money for the necessary upgrades for the existing F-15C/D fleet and that is where the F-15CX comes into the picture. If that doesn't happen, some F-35s will have to be diverted from the planned replacement scheme.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:51 pm

Don't you hate it when the quote function does not work right?

Even I, as a F-15 supporter believe that the Air Force does want all the F-35 they can get their hands on. Unfortunately with the current fleet requirement and the inability to train enough pilots in time to support the F-15 C/D early retirement, they have to go with the back-up plan the F-15EX. They are getting a "non ideal" platform because of circumstances. Heck, maybe we should be discussing whether there enough pilots out there to train for the new F-35 without impacting current operation needs?

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:22 pm

mmo wrote:
Ozair wrote:
mmo wrote:
The simple issue is the services don't feel the need for rushing production of the F-35 when the threat level can be handled by 4th+ generation fighters.

That isn't accurate mmo. The USAF wants as many F-35s as they can get their hands on,

I don't believe I said anything like that.


You clearly stated the US Services weren’t rushing out to acquire F-35 aircraft because they consider 4th+ gen aircraft sufficient for the threat, the links I provided make it very clear the USAF and USMC want as many F-35 as they can get and dealing withn the threat is the prime reason.

mmo wrote:
The current plans call for over 1700 F-35s purchased for the USAF. The replacement schedule for the current F-15C/D is not planned for the immediate future. However, DOD does not want to spend the money for the necessary upgrades for the existing F-15C/D fleet and that is where the F-15CX comes into the picture. If that doesn't happen, some F-35s will have to be diverted from the planned replacement scheme.

1763 is the program of record the USAF has determined to replace A-10/F-16 aircraft but that doesn’t restrict the USAF from acquiring more F-35 if replacing additional aircraft is the goal. The F-16 was initially only funded for 600 approx aircraft and we can see where that went. I expect as the price continues to drop and sustainment comes under control and hits the 25k mark that the USAF will up the buy at the expense of all other fighter aircraft, a 100 a year is a very obtainable number.

The other interesting issue is that although Congress continues to fund additional F-35 every year these aren’t taken off the SAR totals, so likely the USAF already gets more aircraft than they requested because congress ups the buy.

bikerthai wrote:
Even I, as a F-15 supporter believe that the Air Force does want all the F-35 they can get their hands on. Unfortunately with the current fleet requirement and the inability to train enough pilots in time to support the F-15 C/D early retirement, they have to go with the back-up plan the F-15EX. They are getting a "non ideal" platform because of circumstances.

It is less about training pilots and very much more about availability of units.


bikerthai wrote:
Heck, maybe we should be discussing whether there enough pilots out there to train for the new F-35 without impacting current operation needs?

That is really two issues, first the time it takes to train new pilots all the way from entry to finally reaching a squadron. Second is retention of trained aircrew. Separate issues but both contribute to the overall USAF shortage of pilots.
 
mmo
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:23 am

[quote="Ozair"]
You clearly stated the US Services weren’t rushing out to acquire F-35 aircraft because they consider 4th+ gen aircraft sufficient for the threat, the links I provided make it very clear the USAF and USMC want as many F-35 as they can get and dealing withn the threat is the prime reason. [quote]

My post only talked about the USAF. However, the main provider of F-15 use is the ANG. The F-15CX allows a very easy transition for the current units. If the CX were not procured and the replacement schedule juggled so the F-15 units were given F-35s, the retention would hit rock bottom. I still have former students (was a T-38IP) who fly the F-15 and they would absolutely leave as the training is just too long and the time demanded for a new aircraft is just too much. Most of these guys are airline pilots so getting time off for the F-15 now is not a big deal. However, most don't want to take the financial hit by going to RTU. So, now you have new F-35s sitting on the ramp with no one to man the cockpit. As it is now, the ANG/AFRES units are doing more and more and unless you are a tech or a guard bum, most people don't want to do all the time which is being asked of them. So, as usual, they vote with their feet. In my case, I left the cockpit and got a job at the Pentagon because of the time required being asked of me. With a staff job, I could do the minimum required and end up getting the same retirement. As it was, for my "real job" I was going from the 744 to the 777/787 and time off was a precious commodity!!
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:44 am

mmo wrote:
Ozair wrote:
You clearly stated the US Services weren’t rushing out to acquire F-35 aircraft because they consider 4th+ gen aircraft sufficient for the threat, the links I provided make it very clear the USAF and USMC want as many F-35 as they can get and dealing withn the threat is the prime reason.


My post only talked about the USAF. However, the main provider of F-15 use is the ANG.

Fair enough, usually when someone uses the term "services" they are talking about all three, hence the confusion. That still doesn't validate your point though, the USAF and by extension the ANG, would love to have more F-35s, it is clearly the aircraft of preference.

mmo wrote:
The F-15CX allows a very easy transition for the current units. If the CX were not procured and the replacement schedule juggled so the F-15 units were given F-35s, the retention would hit rock bottom. I still have former students (was a T-38IP) who fly the F-15 and they would absolutely leave as the training is just too long and the time demanded for a new aircraft is just too much. Most of these guys are airline pilots so getting time off for the F-15 now is not a big deal. However, most don't want to take the financial hit by going to RTU.

No doubt that is a factor. As we have discussed previously, I consider that less of a problem 5 years from now than today as F-35 pilots, who within a short time will form the second largest pilot group in the USAF behind the F-16 and then the largest after that, transition out of active service.

mmo wrote:
So, now you have new F-35s sitting on the ramp with no one to man the cockpit. As it is now, the ANG/AFRES units are doing more and more and unless you are a tech or a guard bum, most people don't want to do all the time which is being asked of them. So, as usual, they vote with their feet. In my case, I left the cockpit and got a job at the Pentagon because of the time required being asked of me. With a staff job, I could do the minimum required and end up getting the same retirement. As it was, for my "real job" I was going from the 744 to the 777/787 and time off was a precious commodity!!

Agree it is a difficult decision and the last thing the USAF wants is to not be able to generate the current mission rate and availability from the ANG given the already high reliance on ANG units.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:57 am

mmo,

Thanks for the clarification on ANG pilots. That help explained why in the long run getting the 35 to guard units wouldn't be an issue as 35 pilots move from active duties. But in the short run, there would be a pilot crunch, specially for that ANG.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:13 pm

Re: F-15EXs “never leaving CONUS”

Yes that may be true but that’s strictly a policy decision not something determined by physical reality. I see no reason why they can’t rerole and rotate EXs out of the ANG in favor of Es from active units and you don’t have any training concerns whatsoever.

It would also be neat if they bothered to train A2A WSOs in the process. Let them fly with empty back seats in the meantime.

I also hope they assign an actual block number soon “EX” is stupid.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:08 am

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
Re: F-15EXs “never leaving CONUS”

Yes that may be true but that’s strictly a policy decision not something determined by physical reality. I see no reason why they can’t rerole and rotate EXs out of the ANG in favor of Es from active units and you don’t have any training concerns whatsoever.

It would also be neat if they bothered to train A2A WSOs in the process. Let them fly with empty back seats in the meantime.

I've said a number of times moving the Es to the ANG makes sense. Roll the EX onto the USAF Active units who would still benefit from the rapid conversion time and likely make better use of the airframes advantages over the E fleet.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
I also hope they assign an actual block number soon “EX” is stupid.

I think we may be stuck with at least the X.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:54 am

Ozair wrote:
Roll the EX onto the USAF Active units who would still benefit from the rapid conversion time and likely make better use of the airframes advantages over the E fleet.

Are you saying that the EX that is proposed to replace F-15Cs (which are strictly used for an air defense mission), will have the complete package of functions necessary to give the EX the same air to ground capability as the F-15Es?

We have a stealth strike aircraft already, the F-35; what kind of logic calls for the Air Force (or DoD) buying new non-stealth strike aircraft? The EX as a C model replacement didn't make much sense to begin with, but at least it seemed appropriate for the job because stealth isn't really necessary for most of the ANG needs. But now we are learning that this new plane isn't just intended for air defense.

What is the plan here? Is the national guard going to get into the air to ground business? Are they planning to double the needed flight crew? Are they going be making monthly trips to the gunnery ranges in the western United States? (maybe triple air crew requirements)
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:22 am

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Roll the EX onto the USAF Active units who would still benefit from the rapid conversion time and likely make better use of the airframes advantages over the E fleet.

Are you saying that the EX that is proposed to replace F-15Cs (which are strictly used for an air defense mission), will have the complete package of functions necessary to give the EX the same air to ground capability as the F-15Es?

Not too much difference between an EX and an E. The EX radar will have full A2G radar modes, no reason to remove them, full EPAWSS EW system for A2A and A2G threats (same programming as the E), will have JHMCS, will be two seat and flown with no one in the back seat, will have the outboard wing stations available for ordnance which would suit the USAF F-15E squadrons better than ANG units.

Spar wrote:
We have a stealth strike aircraft already, the F-35; what kind of logic calls for the Air Force (or DoD) buying new non-stealth strike aircraft?

The USAF plan is, and has been for years, to operate the F-15E in its strike aircraft role until the early 2040s. In that context, it makes sense to provide USAF active units the newest airframe available and role the older frames to the ANG. The E fleet is still being upgraded with new radars and EPAWSS anyway so will maintain great capability for the A2A role.

Spar wrote:
The EX as a C model replacement didn't make much sense to begin with, but at least it seemed appropriate for the job because stealth isn't really necessary for most of the ANG needs. But now we are learning that this new plane isn't just intended for air defense.

What is the plan here? Is the national guard going to get into the air to ground business? Are they planning to double the needed flight crew? Are they going be making monthly trips to the gunnery ranges in the western United States? (maybe triple air crew requirements)

Relax mate, the aircraft being acquired will be capable of multi-role missions but the ANG will operate it as an A2A platform only.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:47 pm

Ozair wrote:
The E fleet is still being upgraded with new radars and EPAWSS anyway so will maintain great capability for the A2A role.

EPAWSS is ECCM, it is meant to give penetrating aircraft the edge against AD systems. It has no purpose for the national Guard CONUS mission and as I understand it, it is a multi million dollar upgrade. Any aircraft that needs EPAWSS really needs stealth, EPAWSS is just a band aid on an obsolete airplane.

Again, the F-15 EX program is revealed as an expensive hoax, whatever the real purpose or justification for buying these obsolete aircraft is being hidden from the American taxpayer: the one who is paying for it. The Russians and Chinese probably know full well what it's all about. My guess is that beyond being a gift to Boeing, it's to be another handout to the Israelis.
 
mmo
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:42 pm

Why not mention Qatar and Saudi who paid for most of the development and research for this version. Again, if you are going to spout "facts" make them accurate.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:57 pm

mmo wrote:
Why not mention Qatar and Saudi who paid for most of the development and research for this version. Again, if you are going to spout "facts" make them accurate.
Qatar and SA spent their money upgrading an obsolete aircraft because the US won't sell them F-22s or F-35s. But even with the free development costs, the obsolete F-15EX is still $15 million apiece more expensive than the F-35.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:15 pm

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
The E fleet is still being upgraded with new radars and EPAWSS anyway so will maintain great capability for the A2A role.

EPAWSS is ECCM, it is meant to give penetrating aircraft the edge against AD systems. It has no purpose for the national Guard CONUS mission and as I understand it, it is a multi million dollar upgrade. Any aircraft that needs EPAWSS really needs stealth, EPAWSS is just a band aid on an obsolete airplane.

No Spar, that is not accurate. The EPAWSS is a passive and active EW system that can be used against both surface and airborne threats.

EPAWSS upgrades F-15C and F-15E aircraft electronic warfare capabilities to detect and identify air and ground threats, employ counter-measures, and jam enemy radar signals.

https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/25/2 ... 18-121.PDF

For the CONUS mission an upgraded EW system is necessary to detect and track passively airborne targets and then be able to jam those targets radar systems or threat missiles launched against the platform. Note in the link above that it makes it clear that if the F-15C is not retired that the EPAWSS is necessary for the platform to continue to function in the A2A role.

Using the F-15C aircraft without EPAWSS will limit the warfighter’s ability to detect and identify air and ground threats, employ counter-measures, and jam enemy radar signals.

The F-15C aircraft was originally slated to receive the system but was de-funded for two reasons, to fund a higher priority air dominance program and because the USAF had already identified internally that the F-15C fleet wasn't sustainable going forward and replacement was being planned.

Just so we are clear, as per the link above, the EPAWSS upgrade was cancelled in Feb 2017...

Spar wrote:
Again, the F-15 EX program is revealed as an expensive hoax, whatever the real purpose or justification for buying these obsolete aircraft is being hidden from the American taxpayer: the one who is paying for it. The Russians and Chinese probably know full well what it's all about. My guess is that beyond being a gift to Boeing, it's to be another handout to the Israelis.

Nope, just more hysteria and no logical understanding of how and why platforms are used in their roles.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:17 pm

Ozair wrote:
The EPAWSS is a passive and active EW system that can be used against both surface and airborne threats.
Sure it can be used against airborne radars, but it was designed to defeat layered air defense networks; that is why it was funded, that's what EPAWSS is all about.

The national Guard CONUS airspace policing mission has no need for sophisticated counter radar systems; in the event of an attack on the US mainland by (China or Russia) such attack would come across the Bering Strait and would encounter F-22s; but in the extremely unlikely event that such an attack were to come at lower latitudes, nobody in an attacking fleet would want to turn on an electronic beacon to announce their presence. Airborne jamming isn't used in that manner and you know that.

CONUS defense has no use for EPAWSS and as I said earlier, EPAWSS is just a band aid for the F-15E to give the illusion that it can compete with the F-35 in a ground strike role against a defended target. If you need EPAWSS you need stealth. The development of EPAWSS may have been justifiable for the F-15E which the Air Force plans on keeping until 2040, but even there it was only marginally justifiable for an airforce with hundreds of F-35s in inventory.

Ozair wrote:
Nope, just more hysteria and no logical understanding of how and why platforms are used in their roles.
Nope, you're just trying to sell several falsehoods while trying to sell an obsolete airplane.
Why are you doing that?
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:24 am

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
The EPAWSS is a passive and active EW system that can be used against both surface and airborne threats.
Sure it can be used against airborne radars, but it was designed to defeat layered air defense networks; that is why it was funded, that's what EPAWSS is all about.

Spar, you are creating things again. EPAWSS stands for Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System. I don't see just surface based targets only in the acronym...

BAE who designed EPAWSS make it very clear the intention is against both surface and air based threats

Providing both offensive and defensive electronic warfare options for the pilot and aircraft, EPAWSS offers fully integrated radar warning, geo-location, situational awareness, and self-protection solutions to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats in signal-dense contested and highly contested environments.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/e ... tem-epawss

Not only that, the program of record was originally funded on the basis that both the F-15C and E fleets would receive the upgrade. The link in my first post on this makes that very clear.

Spar wrote:
The national Guard CONUS airspace policing mission has no need for sophisticated counter radar systems; in the event of an attack on the US mainland by (China or Russia) such attack would come across the Bering Strait and would encounter F-22s; but in the extremely unlikely event that such an attack were to come at lower latitudes, nobody in an attacking fleet would want to turn on an electronic beacon to announce their presence. Airborne jamming isn't used in that manner and you know that.

Well the USAF and NORAD disagree with you. Airborne jamming is not just what the EPAWSS does, the passive location function is likely to be more important as it would allow the F-15s to more accurately detect, identify and track air targets without using their own radars. But that doesn't mean jamming won't happen or be required.

Air based jamming is used for a host of reasons. The adversary could launch airborne decoys against US defending forces which were equipped with jammers, the US has their own via the MALD-Js. being able to detect, classify and defeat those jammers is important. What about surface based assets jamming US fighters across A2A frequencies to prevent them from detecting threats. What about USAF fighters using jamming to prevent Russian aircraft from finding their targets via radar? Lots of possibilities where EPAWSS provides a vital function for the aircraft.

The amusing question based on your statement above becomes, what point is there to CONUS air based defence anyway if the only place the Russians are going to come in over the Bering Strait? Why does the USAF maintain all those F-15C ANG units then? The 114th is in Oregon, 122nd is in Louisiana, the 123rd is also in Oregon, the 131st is in Massachusetts, the 159th is in Florida and the 194th is in California. If we are only worried about the Bering Strait and extremely unlikely lower latitude events why not just get rid of all the F015C ANG fighter units?

Unless of course the USAF plans to use them, as they have done previously, overseas... ;) EPAWSS may come in handy then.

Spar wrote:
CONUS defense has no use for EPAWSS and as I said earlier, EPAWSS is just a band aid for the F-15E to give the illusion that it can compete with the F-35 in a ground strike role against a defended target. If you need EPAWSS you need stealth. The development of EPAWSS may have been justifiable for the F-15E which the Air Force plans on keeping until 2040, but even there it was only marginally justifiable for an airforce with hundreds of F-35s in inventory.

Sorry Spar, you have provided no evidence that the EPAWSS is a band aid solution. Given BAE, who developed EPAWSS, has used the experience and knowledge gained from developing the EW systems for both the F-22 and F-35 it is clear the USAF asked for and requested a high performance system that was as modern and capable as possible.

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Nope, just more hysteria and no logical understanding of how and why platforms are used in their roles.
Nope, you're just trying to sell several falsehoods while trying to sell an obsolete airplane.
Why are you doing that?

Falsehoods you say Spar, then please prove me wrong with facts....

I have provided said facts multiple times, you have provided none. Until you do then claiming I am trying to sell falsehoods is delusive.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:59 am

Ozair wrote:
I have provided said facts multiple times........................


EPAWSS is a band aid intended to give the delusion that an F-15E can do the job of an F-35. However, it's real purpose is to fluff up BAE system's financials a bit while allowing a few members of Air Force brass who are living in the past to pretend they and their plane are still relevant.

You can parrot BSAE's sales pitch here if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the F-15 no longer has any business entering contested air space (with or without EPAWSS).
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:19 am

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
I have provided said facts multiple times........................


EPAWSS is a band aid intended to give the delusion that an F-15E can do the job of an F-35. However, it's real purpose is to fluff up BAE system's financials a bit while allowing a few members of Air Force brass who are living in the past to pretend they and their plane are still relevant.

You can parrot BSAE's sales pitch here if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the F-15 no longer has any business entering contested air space (with or without EPAWSS).

Ah okay, so before I was trying to sell for Boeing, now apparently for BAE and I can't forget you also apparently think I am a career public servant who just toes the party line.

Shame that instead of at least trying to provide some evidence of your position you just retort to the same trite.
 
texl1649
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:46 am

Thanks again Ozzie for the information and perspectives you share on this forum. Hopefully this thread gets cleaned up. I agree it’s an interesting idea to phase the EX aircraft into active units and roll the older Strike Eagles to ANG ones.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:08 am

Ozair wrote:
Shame that instead of at least trying to provide some evidence of your position you just retort to the same trite.

How much evidence do you need before you understand that the F-15 lacks the attribute of stealth thus it is at a severe disadvantage vs F-35, F-22, B2 (or B-21) if it were ever to attempt to operate in contested airspace?
What kind of evidence would you need to bring you to understand that the F-15E would be nothing but a hanger queen if the US were to ever get into a military action with any nation that has a substantial air defense system?
What kind of evidence would you need to allow you to understand that an F-35 can do anything that an F-15EX can do (and more) and costs 15 million dollars apiece less than the F-15?
What would it take to make you understand that a 12 million dollar upgrade is a better deal than a 95 million dollar replacement?

You claim I haven't brought any facts to the table (aka evidence) yet every one of my arguments is based on uncontested facts; The F-15 is obsolete , A new F-15 costs more than a new F-35, an upgrade for an F-15C cost 83 million dollars less than buying a new F-15 which does the same job.
 
mmo
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:33 am

SPAR

Again, long on rhetoric but short on facts.

One problem with your position is you don't take into account the infrastructure required for the F-15 to F-35 transition. That adds costs, be it overhead or indirect operating costs.

Have a read of this https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/f-15e ... periority/

The SLIP he refers is wing and EPWASS only. It does not address fatigue in bulkheads or wiring issues which is a plague on the fleet. He also assumes 80 million for a fly away cost of the EX with a 1.5 billion charge for production setup and an 89.2 million fly away cost for the F-35.

While you may not agree with his position, he provides a logical argument with facts to support his position. You provide no facts to support your position. Every one of your posts is based on "uncontested facts" but you can't provide any documentation for them. KInd of like the "dog ate my homework" excuse.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:21 am

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Shame that instead of at least trying to provide some evidence of your position you just retort to the same trite.

How much evidence do you need before you understand that the F-15 lacks the attribute of stealth thus it is at a severe disadvantage vs F-35, F-22, B2 (or B-21) if it were ever to attempt to operate in contested airspace?

Spar, have I ever said that an F-15EX would be superior to an F-35/F-22/B-21 in a contested environment? No I have not. I am a strong advocate for the F-35 and very keen to see it succeed.
The evidence I have asked you to provide are based on the statements you continue to make above regarding the purpose and role of the EPAWSS upgrade. You made some clear factual errors in your claims and continue to not provide evidence to support those claims.

Spar wrote:
What kind of evidence would you need to bring you to understand that the F-15E would be nothing but a hanger queen if the US were to ever get into a military action with any nation that has a substantial air defense system?

Well I think hanger queen is probably the wrong words to use. If we are talking about which aircraft is more available then the F-15E may be ahead, perhaps not over the F-35 (which is close to that 80% number now) but certainly over the F-22.

Image

The 2018 mission capable rate for the F-15E is significantly higher than both the F-22 and F-35. Both have likely improved since then but we know the F-22 continues to be constrained. The F-15E is also likely to have improved since that data point given it also received an increased investment in sustainment funds.

If you want to talk about which is more survivable in a battlespace, then the F-15E will certainly play a role in future conflicts. That doesn't mean it is more survivable than a 5th gen platform, just that the USAF will continue to need it to execute missions even in highly contested environments. They continue to be deployed to operations in the Middle East today and the USAF plans to use them for operations to/past 2040. In fact active USAF F-15Cs, you know those aircraft you said never leave the US now, are based at RAF Lakenheath and continue to support operations over Syria earlier this year, a contested zone that has a substantial air defence system. Note the below image taken over Syria in Feb 19.

Image

Today, and likely for the next 5-10 years, F-15Es will continue to be used as strike assets given their payload, range and systems. The USAF is prepared to operate 4th gen platforms in highly contested environments through support from jamming from unmanned platforms, such as MALD-J, and manned platforms such as EA-18, Compass Call, the F-15E’s own EPAWSS and support from the large fleet of F-16CJs dedicated to the SEAD mission that fly for the USAF today. I expect the F-15E role will change over the next 20 years but that again isn’t what I have asked you to provide.

Spar wrote:
What kind of evidence would you need to allow you to understand that an F-35 can do anything that an F-15EX can do (and more) and costs 15 million dollars apiece less than the F-15?

Spar have I ever said any different? I fully acknowledge that the F-35 is a better aircraft (have said so many times in this thread) than the F-15EX for probably 95% of the missions the USAF needs. About the only thing the F-15EX does better is give joy rides to journalists and drop GBU-28s.

Spar wrote:
What would it take to make you understand that a 12 million dollar upgrade is a better deal than a 95 million dollar replacement?
You claim I haven't brought any facts to the table (aka evidence) yet every one of my arguments is based on uncontested facts; The F-15 is obsolete , A new F-15 costs more than a new F-35, an upgrade for an F-15C cost 83 million dollars less than buying a new F-15 which does the same job.

Again Spar, you haven’t provided any evidence to refute the statements and evidence provided by myself and others, that the F-15C can last as long as you claim. The USAF firmly believes it needs to be retired, Senior USAF leadership have made that very clear. The USAF has paid significant sums of money to understand how the F-15 fleet is fatiguing given they themselves acknowledged they don’t know what else will happen with the jet past its designed flight hours.

Is the F-15 obsolete today, no probably not. Plenty of 4th gen aircraft will continue to fly in the USAF for the next 20 years and the USAF has made it clear they have to plan and use them to meet force structure requirements. The C fleet have mostly been upgraded with a very capable AESA radar and were originally slated to receive the EPAWSS upgrade before funding cuts. The E fleet also has new radars, EPAWSS coming and new mission computers and remains the USAF platform of choice to integate new weapons. USAF 4th gen aircraft are not going anywhere anytime soon and the USAF, while slowly changing, is currently positioned to fight a major conflict, even in a highly contested environment, with primarily 4th gen assets and therefore has the capabilities available to do so.

Is the F-15 obsolete for what the USAF needs for the next 50 years, almost certainly.

The last point to address remains the one you seem to not be able to get past. It isn’t about money…

It remains about availability of aircraft to meet USAF force structure and mission capable goals. To do so the USAF has determined that the F-15EX is the best way to maintain that force structure and aircaft/pilots available even though it may cost more to do so.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:53 am

mmo wrote:
Again, long on rhetoric but short on facts.

One problem with your position is you don't take into account the infrastructure required for the F-15 to F-35 transition. That adds costs, be it overhead or indirect operating costs.

Have a read of this https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/f-15e ... periority/

The SLIP he refers is wing and EPWASS only. It does not address fatigue in bulkheads or wiring issues which is a plague on the fleet. He also assumes 80 million for a fly away cost of the EX with a 1.5 billion charge for production setup and an 89.2 million fly away cost for the F-35.

While you may not agree with his position, he provides a logical argument with facts to support his position. You provide no facts to support your position. Every one of your posts is based on "uncontested facts" but you can't provide any documentation for them. KInd of like the "dog ate my homework" excuse.
I'll begin to address your questions but I'm not going to put a lot of time into it tonight.

First off I want to address this "long on rhetoric but short on facts" which I see as a bit short on detail. "Short on facts" is in itself short on facts. What are the facts I'm leaning on that you and Ozair disagree with?

I have used 95 million as the cost for the EX, that number came from one of your earlier posts and has gone unchallenged.
I have used 80 million for the cost of the F-35, I got that number from post #728 and has gone unchallenged.
The 12 million dollar figure for the C model has been used by many people here and has gone unchallenged.
I have spent some time previously and came to the conclusion that the actual number of NG F-15s that the SF intends to keep is 196 Do you question that number? If you question it I'll go back and find the source, but I believe it to be correct and i expect no disagreement.
I've been vague on the cost of the EPAWSS upgrade for the C model but I'll accept Brad Orgeron's number and use 3.4 million if I mention that cost in the future.

There are a lot of subjective opinion that Ozair and you disagree with me on but those are subjective opinions, not facts.
There have been subjects that I consider tangential to the subject at hand, and have discussed in a very abbreviated manner simply because I'm posting in an internet forum, not writing a book. The force threat from the Russia / Chinese air forces is one of those subjects. If I'm to really deal with that in detail then I would have to include ICBMs and SLBMs as well as SLCMs in the discussion. That kind of detail should not have to be discussed in anything but very abbreviated fashion here unless one of you wants to lay out the whole picture.

As far as Brad Orgeron's piece is concerned, I see it as nothing other than off the cuff boosterism. I take it with more than a grain of salt but I'm not going to go line by line in a critique of the article, I don't see a point in doing that.

Tomorrow I'll offer my take on his first three options.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:13 am

I'll address one point of yours.
Ozair wrote:
If you want to talk about which is more survivable in a battlespace, then the F-15E will certainly play a role in future conflicts. That doesn't mean it is more survivable than a 5th gen platform, just that the USAF will continue to need it to execute missions even in highly contested environments.

I am quite sure that the Air Force commanders will never use an F-15 against an active air defense network of any kind until the day comes that they have no F-35s or F-22s for the job.

They may be used against failed states or against enemies located in "friendly" territory, but no commander is ever going to use them if things get serious. In a real military conflict, as opposed to bomb runs, they will be modern day hanger queens, not because of any maintenance readiness issue, but simply because they lack capability.

The tragic truth is that any money spent on acquiring them is pure waste if the United States ever gets involved in a war for its survival. If we ever run short of F-35s those F-15s surely won't be able to stand up against whatever is taking the F-35s down.

Buying new F-15s may someday be looked upon as a criminal act.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:55 am

Spar wrote:
I'll address one point of yours.
Ozair wrote:
If you want to talk about which is more survivable in a battlespace, then the F-15E will certainly play a role in future conflicts. That doesn't mean it is more survivable than a 5th gen platform, just that the USAF will continue to need it to execute missions even in highly contested environments.

I am quite sure that the Air Force commanders will never use an F-15 against an active air defense network of any kind until the day comes that they have no F-35s or F-22s for the job.

You're quite sure? Well it is good you are quite sure even though you are again wrong. That is not the reality of how the USAF trains for fighting against an "active" air defence network. (what does an active air defence network mean...?)

How about a good example, you know, a source, reference, fact, link etc...

A perfect example of this would be Red Flag, the premier high threat training exercise that US forces, and when invited allies, use to train against a contested and densely populated air and surface threat environment.

The Air Force says the Red Flag exercise is organized at Nellis and the Nevada Test and Training Range to provide "realistic threat systems and an opposing enemy force that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world."

"Red Flag gives aircrew an opportunity to experience advanced, relevant, and realistic combat-like situations in a controlled environment to increase their ability to complete missions and safely return home," the statement reads.

https://news3lv.com/news/local/nellis-a ... g-exercise

I think it can be agreed that Red Flag represents the pinnacle of US training and real life simulation of air and surface threats.

Now the question is what does the USAF use when participaing in red Flag. Who is there and what missions are they fulfilling? We are specically interested in the F-35 and F-15E so lets look at the last few Red Flag exercises and see where they were.

19-3 - Flying the Blue A2A was F-22, F-35A, F-35B and F-16. Flying the interdiction mission was, yes indeed, the F-15E....
19-2 - Flying the Blue A2A was F-35A, F-16 and Typhoon. Flying the interdiction mission was, yes indeed, the F-15E...
19-1 - Flying the Blue A2A was F-35A, F-22, F-16, F-18E and Typhoon. Flying the Interdiction mission was AF-18A and B-52.
18-3 - No 5th gen, no F-15E.
18-2 - No 5th Gen flying Blue A2A but F-35A and F-15E both flying interdiction.
18-1 - Flying the Blue A2A was F-22, F-35A, F-15C, F-16, Typhoon. Flying the interdiction mission was, yes indeed, the F-15E...
17-4 - Flying the Blue A2A was F-22, F-35A, F-16, Typhoon. Flying the interdiction mission was, yes indeed, the F-15E...

Source link is here. https://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/flag_units.html

So Spar let us be very clear, a military trains how they want to fight. Right now today it is very very clear that the USAF trains the F-15E to fight the interdiction/strike role. It has 5th gen fighters who are participating in the same exercises but these are primarily used in the A2A role. The F-15E remains clearly a significant factor in USAF doctrine to attack and, with support from 5th gen assets, flies and fights in the highly realistic and accurate threat representation of a Red Flag battlespace.


Spar wrote:
They may be used against failed states or against enemies located in "friendly" territory, but no commander is ever going to use them if things get serious. In a real military conflict, as opposed to bomb runs, they will be modern day hanger queens, not because of any maintenance readiness issue, but simply because they lack capability.

Nope, my evidence above makes it clear the USAF trains and fights the F-15E as an integral part of their Interdiction/Strike campaigns.

Spar wrote:
The tragic truth is that any money spent on acquiring them is pure waste if the United States ever gets involved in a war for its survival. If we ever run short of F-35s those F-15s surely won't be able to stand up against whatever is taking the F-35s down.

Buying new F-15s may someday be looked upon as a criminal act.

Well that is again just hysteria. Whether the F-15EX sees a full service life or not is somewhat immaterial as between the time the aircraft arrives and is retired it will fulfill the purpose it was acquired for, to maintain aircraft mission availability for the USAF.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:59 pm

Ozair wrote:
........you are again wrong. That is not the reality of how the USAF trains for fighting

Oh sure, they'll "train for" and have peacetime exercises and all that. But when there are real missiles flying and real shrapnel in the sky, the F-15s will be parked on the tarmac and they'll stay that way until there is certainty that there are no hidden AA sites left to suddenly light up and start launching.

That's reality, you're talking fantasy. Look at how Desert storm was carried out - even back then, in the very early days of stealth, when there were only a few F-117s available, the F-15s stayed away from the action for days until it was deemed safe for them. The Air Force is on the way to having over 1,000 very capable F-35s in inventory.

The F-15 E's days are over. And they're already over now, not at some point in the future. F-15s are fine for policing the sky over the US as long as we already have them in inventory, but building more of them makes no sense to anyone other than Boeing stockholders.

Putin is talking about a new arms race, if we go about it intelligently, Russia will be left in the dust just like before; but if we only use military procurement for pork barrel graft, it will be us that comes up short. The F-15 EX is starting out in the wrong direction.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:30 pm

Here I'll address Orgeron's Option 1: which begins:
Extend and Upgrade the F-15C fleet. This option would essentially accept current maintenance concerns and low readiness rates associated with maintaining 35 to 40-year-old fighter aircraft. Under this option, the Air Force would refurbish old F-15C airframes to keep them flying until 2040, while upgrading key systems to keep aircraft up to date with projected threats.

From this, the most useful piece of information that I find is that the wing / spar upgrade would last for over 20 years "keeping them flying until 2040"; I will add this detail to my above list of unchallenged "facts" (unless someone wants to challenge it).

Orgeron's analysis of this scenario (upgrading the current C model) is abbreviated. As an F-15 pilot he very much wants a shiny new plane to fly, as all of us might want a new company car. I believe that is the basis for his analysis, and that explains why he gives this scenario such short shrift.

He raises the issue of operating costs but he offers no analysis or breakdown of costs which is necessary if operating costs are to be taken into account as a significant factor. As it is, the operating costs of a C model are stated as X amount of dollars per flight hour (with no explanation or breakdown whatsoever) and the insinuation is that this number will remain unchanged after disassembling the plane and installing new wing spars and wings along with selected fuselage spars. At the same time, numbers are quoted (as estimates) for the costs per hour to maintain the EX model F-15s. This cost is said to be much lower than the cost to maintain the C models even though they are essentially the same plane with the biggest difference being that the EX is fly by wire.

I fail to see why a fly by wire aircraft would inherently be cheaper to maintain than a plane with a hydraulic flight control system. In fact it would appear that operating a one off plane like the F-15EX would put the user at a severe disadvantage when it comes to buying replacement computers, displays, power supplys and especially actuators. There would be and could be no second source for any of this. The operator of an F-15EX would be at the mercy of Boeing's accounting department.

In fact. such a scenario once came to being with the McDonnell Douglas version of the F-15 and in the end, the problem of a high failure rate and expensive replacements for actuators was solved.
https://www.contech.com/technical/succe ... c-systems/
I have to wonder if the stated cost per hour for the C models has been calculated on the basis of past experience rather than current costs.

Currently almost every part for the McDonnel Douglas version of the F-15 has multiple sources:
https://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_hy ... ystem.html

I believe that the cost per hour argument is false and if anyone wants to make that argument they need to come up with cost details so that we know where the money is going and has gone in the past.

So we are left with the fact that for about 12 million dollars per copy we can continue to use the current F-15Cs until 2040 and we can be sure that by 2040 there will be something else coming online that will make the F-15Cs unnecessary anyway. There would be no transition time or down time associated with this course of action, the first planes to be upgraded could be taken from the desert where there are many F-15s in storage and thereafter no squadron would have to be short any planes.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:18 pm

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
........you are again wrong. That is not the reality of how the USAF trains for fighting

Oh sure, they'll "train for" and have peacetime exercises and all that. But when there are real missiles flying and real shrapnel in the sky, the F-15s will be parked on the tarmac and they'll stay that way until there is certainty that there are no hidden AA sites left to suddenly light up and start launching.

That's reality, you're talking fantasy.

Spar, sorry that is not accurate. Unless you can provide a source to back up your claims and refute mine the evidence is very clear that the USAF intend to use the F-15E as interdiction/strike assets within complex IADS as demonstrated by Red Flag.

Spar wrote:
Look at how Desert storm was carried out - even back then, in the very early days of stealth, when there were only a few F-117s available, the F-15s stayed away from the action for days until it was deemed safe for them.

Spar this is the problem. If you actually read what happened during the first Gulf War you would know your statement is completely inaccurate. On the first night of the war the US used F-15E to attack high priority SCUD targets and air defence targets across Iraq. Source is the Gulf War Airpower study by the USAF and available here, https://fas.org/sgp/library/gwapsv2.doc

Some excerpts
First night of the war, literally striking at H hour…
As the first F-117s withdrew, their missions completed, F-15Es and EF-111s approached their targets,

At approximately the same time that the F-15Es were beginning their strikes on the Scud sites at H-2 and H-3, other Iraqi fighters launched.

In case you were wondering H-2 and H-3 were major Iraqi airfields that were heavily defended and over the first days were also struk by F-117s.

a major Navy package followed the Marines into the area at the same time that sixteen F-15Es struck targets near Basra

Third day of the war
The third day kicked off with F-15Es striking Scud and air defense targets.


So Spar, we have evidence above from an absolutely irrefutable source that you are wrong, your claim that F-15Es did not fly on the first night and were held back for days is completely inaccurate.

Spar wrote:
The Air Force is on the way to having over 1,000 very capable F-35s in inventory.

Sure but today the USAF has approximately 180 F-35s, of which close to half are sitting in training units and test squadrons, and based on the program of record the USAF won’t have 1000 F-35s until approximately 2032. Even then, the USAF will continue to field the whole F-15E fleet with the F-35s replacing F-16 and A-10 units. At some point in the next 10 years the F-35s will transition to being the aircraft of choice for strike missions but until that time the F-15E will continue to play a significant role in USAF strike.

Spar, unless you actually start providing some facts to support your clearly outlandish and inaccurate claims I see no point in continuing this discussion. Your posting is the very definition of trolling, never providing sources to support your claims, never answering questions asked of you, nitpicking small details and ignoring facts presented to you.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:23 am

Ozair wrote:
Spar, sorry that is not accurate. Unless you can provide a source to back up your claims and refute mine the evidence is very clear that the USAF intend to use the F-15E as interdiction/strike assets within complex IADS as demonstrated by Red Flag.

What do you think they're planning to do with all the stealth planes they are buying? Park them and turn the dinosaurs loose? We currently have over 500 operational stealth planes capable of doing anything an F-15 can do and also capable of coming home in one piece.

Get real Ozair, you can post condescending nonsense all day but that doesn't change the fact that the USAF actually intends to use these stealth aircraft.

And the fact that they used F-15s and other non stealth aircraft to attack peripheral targets out in the Iraq desert means nothing. They used them to attack localized targets after the early warning net was taken down by an Apache helicopter attack. The major attacks that were taking down Iraq's AD network and command and control were being done by cruise missiles and F-117s. They wanted no air losses and that's how they ran the campaign. The F-15s and A-6s and so on were used to nibble at the edges of Iraq's air force or whatever targets availed themselves on the periphery.

In the future we can expect the exact same type of tactic - air losses will continue to be unacceptable and as in Iraq, non-stealth aircraft will stay out of harm's way. It the future, the major difference will be that we will have hundreds of very capable stealth aircraft available instead of only the flyable cadre of the 59 F-117s they had in inventory in Iraq.

You're just playing with rhetoric and doing your best to twist facts to suit your preferred version of events. Your "you have no sources" is getting a bit old and stale; your arrogance is laughable.

If you want to leave the conversation, be my guest.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:37 am

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Spar, sorry that is not accurate. Unless you can provide a source to back up your claims and refute mine the evidence is very clear that the USAF intend to use the F-15E as interdiction/strike assets within complex IADS as demonstrated by Red Flag.

What do you think they're planning to do with all the stealth planes they are buying? Park them and turn the dinosaurs loose? We currently have over 500 operational stealth planes capable of doing anything an F-15 can do and also capable of coming home in one piece.

Get real Ozair, you can post condescending nonsense all day but that doesn't change the fact that the USAF actually intends to use these stealth aircraft.

And the fact that they used F-15s and other non stealth aircraft to attack peripheral targets out in the Iraq desert means nothing. They used them to attack localized targets after the early warning net was taken down by an Apache helicopter attack. The major attacks that were taking down Iraq's AD network and command and control were being done by cruise missiles and F-117s. They wanted no air losses and that's how they ran the campaign. The F-15s and A-6s and so on were used to nibble at the edges of Iraq's air force or whatever targets availed themselves on the periphery.

In the future we can expect the exact same type of tactic - air losses will continue to be unacceptable and as in Iraq, non-stealth aircraft will stay out of harm's way. It the future, the major difference will be that we will have hundreds of very capable stealth aircraft available instead of only the flyable cadre of the 59 F-117s they had in inventory in Iraq.

You're just playing with rhetoric and doing your best to twist facts to suit your preferred version of events. Your "you have no sources" is getting a bit old and stale; your arrogance is laughable.

If you want to leave the conversation, be my guest.

Again Spar nothing credible to support your claims despite clear evidence to the contrary. Come back with some actual credible sources for the inaccurate opinions you are expressing and we can continue the discussion.
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:45 am

Ozair wrote:
Again Spar nothing credible to support your claims despite clear evidence to the contrary. Come back with some actual credible sources for the inaccurate opinions you are expressing and we can continue the discussion.

So you just wave your hand and say it's not so.........................
There is of course no rebuttal, so you just say it's not so.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:36 am

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Again Spar nothing credible to support your claims despite clear evidence to the contrary. Come back with some actual credible sources for the inaccurate opinions you are expressing and we can continue the discussion.

So you just wave your hand and say it's not so.........................
There is of course no rebuttal, so you just say it's not so.

Have I waved my hand Spar or have I provided source references to support my statements? Reread the last few pages and tell me which of us has supported their statements with links, facts, excerpts etc.

I also don’t need to rebut. I provide facts and sources that you either ignore or downplay without providing any to support your position. As I have pointed out to you previously, the forum rules are very clear on this,

When stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins, please be sure to include an HTML link or reference to a publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. It is each member's responsibility to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation.

Given you don’t post anything to refute my references other than your opinion, which I have a low confidence of being factually accurate based on your responses, the discussion is pointless and I therefore will avoid discussions with you based on your misinformation.
 
mmo
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:46 am

Spar wrote:
Ozair wrote:
........you are again wrong. That is not the reality of how the USAF trains for fighting

Oh sure, they'll "train for" and have peacetime exercises and all that. But when there are real missiles flying and real shrapnel in the sky, the F-15s will be parked on the tarmac and they'll stay that way until there is certainty that there are no hidden AA sites left to suddenly light up and start launching.

That's reality, you're talking fantasy. Look at how Desert storm was carried out - even back then, in the very early days of stealth, when there were only a few F-117s available, the F-15s stayed away from the action for days until it was deemed safe for them. The Air Force is on the way to having over 1,000 very capable F-35s in inventory.

The F-15 E's days are over. And they're already over now, not at some point in the future. F-15s are fine for policing the sky over the US as long as we already have them in inventory, but building more of them makes no sense to anyone other than Boeing stockholders.

Putin is talking about a new arms race, if we go about it intelligently, Russia will be left in the dust just like before; but if we only use military procurement for pork barrel graft, it will be us that comes up short. The F-15 EX is starting out in the wrong direction.


This will be a repost, sort of, with regards to your comments which are completely wrong.
Take a look at this, https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2 ... 27-065.pdf you will see the F-15E strike package on the first night was composed of 24 F-15E while CAP was provided by F-15C. So, where do you come up with your statement about limited F-117 and the F-15 sitting around? There was also an assortment of F-111F, F-4G USN F/A 18, F-14, A-6E and A-7E aircraft on the first night. So, I would double-check your sources, if you have any at all!

With respect to your comments on training, again I don't know where you are getting your info but it is wrong. There is RED FLAG, COPE ROAD and COPE NORTH to name a few. While there is no live SAMS fired, there are simulated SAMS and AAA used and it is computer-scored and getting shot down electronically is not a fun experience. They are flown in peacetime but flow to wartime standards. I have flown all three several times and it is a very taxing exercise.

Like all your previous posts, long on rhetoric and short on facts.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:13 pm

mmo wrote:
This will be a repost, sort of, with regards to your comments which are completely wrong.
Take a look at this, https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2 ... 27-065.pdf you will see the F-15E strike package on the first night was composed of 24 F-15E while CAP was provided by F-15C. So, where do you come up with your statement about limited F-117 and the F-15 sitting around? There was also an assortment of F-111F, F-4G USN F/A 18, F-14, A-6E and A-7E aircraft on the first night. So, I would double-check your sources, if you have any at all!

With respect to your comments on training, again I don't know where you are getting your info but it is wrong. There is RED FLAG, COPE ROAD and COPE NORTH to name a few. While there is no live SAMS fired, there are simulated SAMS and AAA used and it is computer-scored and getting shot down electronically is not a fun experience. They are flown in peacetime but flow to wartime standards. I have flown all three several times and it is a very taxing exercise.

Like all your previous posts, long on rhetoric and short on facts.

Yes they were out flying the first night but all except the F-117s and the F-4 wild weasels the non-stealth aircraft were staying out beyond the range of the SAM network. The non-stealth planes didn't enter into the protected areas until it was thought that all the SAM sites were non-op. Had they actually gone in the first few nights the losses would have been substantial.

I find this conversation odd because I know that if this conversation had started out with the slightest bit of questioning of the value of stealth, the two of you would be arguing exactly the opposite of what you are doing now. It's also funny that you and Ozair want to highlight the F-15E performance in the Gulf war when their use in that war is held as the ultimate example of how not to use modern air power. From the first night, the F-15 Es were attacking scud launchers, and quickly their use was devoted exclusively to scud hunting which they seldom found. The scud hunt was out in the desert away from any other targets of value. After the Iraqi air defenses were taken down, the F-15s could have been valuable had they been used against the Iraqi army, but instead they spent the entire war harmlessly hunting scuds that were seldom found.

The Iraq war absolutely proved the value of stealth it was a turning point in military aviation it is remarkable that the two of you are here trying to downplay it's major importance.

BTW
I want to correct my earlier statement that there are currently 500 stealth aircraft in the US inventory, that was based on the fact that there have been 410 manufactured as of July 2019, but I didn't account for the fact that a number of them went to other nation's, air forces so the number the US military has accepted is probably close to 300 but I can't find an exact number. The F-35s and F-22s combined make a stealth fleet of 400 or so currently, but by the time any F-15EXs are actually available, the number of stealth planes delivered to the US will certainly be over 500. Compare that to the 56 F-117s that were available in Iraq.
 
mmo
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:53 pm

Spar wrote:
Yes they were out flying the first night but all except the F-117s and the F-4 wild weasels the non-stealth aircraft were staying out beyond the range of the SAM network. The non-stealth planes didn't enter into the protected areas until it was thought that all the SAM sites were non-op. Had they actually gone in the first few nights the losses would have been substantial.


I was correcting your statement where you stated the F-15E was sitting on the ground, they weren't. You are also incorrect regarding non-stealth aircraft. The "Secret Squirrel" mission was planned to take out major command and control facilities as well as power generating stations. There were F-15E that had in town targets. In addition, the F-15C was flying CAP all over Iraq. The F-111F were also scud hunting as well as the F-16s. But, some of the F-111F had targets in heavily defended areas. I hope you realize Bagdad was only one heavily defended area.[/quote]

Spar wrote:
I find this conversation odd because I know that if this conversation had started out with the slightest bit of questioning of the value of stealth, the two of you would be arguing exactly the opposite of what you are doing now. It's also funny that you and Ozair want to highlight the F-15E performance in the Gulf war when their use in that war is held as the ultimate example of how not to use modern air power. From the first night, the F-15 Es were attacking scud launchers, and quickly their use was devoted exclusively to scud hunting which they seldom found. The scud hunt was out in the desert away from any other targets of value. After the Iraqi air defenses were taken down, the F-15s could have been valuable had they been used against the Iraqi army, but instead, they spent the entire war harmlessly hunting scuds that were seldom found.

The Iraq war absolutely proved the value of stealth it was a turning point in military aviation it is remarkable that the two of you are here trying to downplay it's major importance.


Odd conversation??? I am merely responding to your posts. How much of the tonnage did the F-117 drop during the entire conflict? Off the top of my head, I think it was 2.3%. The B-52 was responsible for almost 50% of the tonnage. If, as you say, why wasn't the F-117 responsible for more tonnage. The simple fact is there were other, better assets available to do the same job.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth which I never stated. I have never stated stealth was the be all and end all. Conversely, I never stated stealth was a waste of resources. You seem to write like stealth is the solution to everything. There are some very big limitations on stealth and as radar improves stealth will become not as valuable as you seem to think it is. Just look at the F-117 shootdown in Bosnia. It was shot down by an old soviet radar. The reason was it was illuminated when it was 90degrees to the radar beam. A known weakness in the first generation of stealth.

Spar wrote:
BTW
I want to correct my earlier statement that there are currently 500 stealth aircraft in the US inventory, that was based on the fact that there have been 410 manufactured as of July 2019, but I didn't account for the fact that a number of them went to other nation's, air forces so the number the US military has accepted is probably close to 300 but I can't find an exact number. The F-35s and F-22s combined make a stealth fleet of 400 or so currently, but by the time any F-15EXs are actually available, the number of stealth planes delivered to the US will certainly be over 500. Compare that to the 56 F-117s that were available in Iraq.


BTW, there were only 36 F-117 deployed to KKMC. Again, you are great at throwing numbers out but they are usually wrong.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Spar
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:55 pm

mmo wrote:
BTW, there were only 36 F-117 deployed to KKMC. Again, you are great at throwing numbers out but they are usually wrong.

LOL I got the number 56 from the Doc file that Ozair linked.
Earlier I knew that there had been 59 manufactured for the Air Force.

That makes it even more convincing (if it even needed more convincing) that non-stealth aircraft in the US Air Force are obsolete. If 36 F-117s had such a dramatic effect on the Gulf war, imagine how much effect 300 or 400 much much more capable F-22s and F-35s have in our current force. Or in a couple years time, about when these EXs start to arrive, there will be over 500 combat coded stealth aircraft available.

We are spending our defense dollars very foolishly.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:09 pm

Depends on the size of the overall force. F-35/F-22 flying CAP over friendly airbases, BARCAP for tankers and E-3s or plinking tanks in the desert won´t increase the offensive effect of the total force.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wezgulf3 and 14 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

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