Forum: F-35 Lightning II

alloycowboy wrote:

@geogen & hb........ if you are getting the feeling that I am ignoring some of the crazier aspects of your posts it's because I am. But I guess that makes us even because you both keep ignoring the fact that the F-15 has a radar cross section the size of a barn door which really puts a big "NO THANK YOU" on any future sales of the F-15 by Boeing.

There is only one person who is pushing the F-15E, and it certainly ain't me.

Edit:I really wonder if you ever even bother to read anything I've written in the past two months.

F-16.net Sponsor

Since alloycowboy knows it all... what exactly is the RCS of a current gen F-15E w/ future addition of inlet blockers and potential applications and when supported by next-gen SoJ ECM? There might be some avenues for deception to be exploited there too.

Also, with F-15E+'s superior long-range sensor situational awareness, maybe it would be part of the tactics to lure a potential to turn his emissions on first, did you contemplate that? If both sides are ranged and geolocated, it would then come down to tactics, numbers and actual stand-off weapon systems which would determine the outcome.

Next-gen air combat is not a pre-conceived narrow set box of rules. One must remain flexible and adapt to the force structure one has (eg SLEP F-16s instead of block IV/V F-35), not the force structure one wishes he had.

Geogen..... Obviously that data is classified but to be competitive against the Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale Boeing needs to bring the RCS down to about "1". Don't get me wrong I like the F-15. But after 40 years it's time to put the old girl to rest as she had done her duty and then some.

alloycowboy wrote:

Geogen..... Obviously that data is classified but to be competitive against the Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale Boeing needs to bring the RCS down to about "1". Don't get me wrong I like the F-15. But after 40 years it's time to put the old girl to rest as she had done her duty and then some.

Now the question: Is that one barn door, one cannon ball, one marble, or one honey bee? Guess we'll never know. Very Happy

hb_pencil wrote:

alloycowboy wrote:

@geogen & hb........ if you are getting the feeling that I am ignoring some of the crazier aspects of your posts it's because I am. But I guess that makes us even because you both keep ignoring the fact that the F-15 has a radar cross section the size of a barn door which really puts a big "NO THANK YOU" on any future sales of the F-15 by Boeing.

There is only one person who is pushing the F-15E, and it certainly ain't me.

Edit:I really wonder if you ever even bother to read anything I've written in the past two months.

I'm for it. The F-35 just doesn't look healthy enough to bet much on it. Obviously my 'Deep Strike 3000' future ACC force structure is obscenely expensive, and was meant as my best-case scenario, but the key elements- upgraded and new-production F-16s and F-15s- are useful even without the F-35. It's going to take a while to build all those JSFs, and we need to account for that fact. We're talking 2025, probably 2030 before they're all delivered. There needs to be a stopgap until then. If the JSF goes belly-up after a few dozen are built, the stopgap becomes Plan A until FA/XX-NGAD-thingummy becomes reality. (Or the procurement machinery dusts off the F-22 tooling).

@ Sothernphantom...... The bridge to the F-35 is going to the F-16 SLEP program. The F-15 is a low production fighter and at current production rates of 40 aircraft per year their is no way they could spool it up to meet the comming demand for fighters which will require production of approxiametly 230 fighters per year. Regarding the health of the program, I think the F-35A is pretty healthy, it's the F-35B and F-35C that are problematic at the moment because the US Navy has this crazy idea that jets should take off and land on boats.

Classic Footage of some crazy fool named Eugene Ely who wasn't smart enough so say, "I don't think so Mr. Secretary" when the Secratary of the Navy telegraphed him asking him to land a Curtis Biplane on a Naval Ship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3c2lZnYtkw

Another Blast from the Past. In the Sea Venom era there was no LSO on RN/RAN Carriers. By the late 1960s the RN revived the LSO to help with their larger aircraft such as the Sea Vixen and then Phantom whilst the RAN used LSOs at the start of the A4G/S2E era beginning 1969. Earlier the Venom pilot had an Observer (who otherwise operated the onboard Intercept Radar for the Fighter All Weather) to call out the airspeed during the approach. RAN FAA 805 Squadron Line Book records a typical First Deck Landing.

alloycowboy wrote:

@ Sothernphantom...... The bridge to the F-35 is going to the F-16 SLEP program. The F-15 is a low production fighter and at current production rates of 40 aircraft per year their is no way they could spool it up to meet the comming demand for fighters which will require production of approxiametly 230 fighters per year. Regarding the health of the program, I think the F-35A is pretty healthy, it's the F-35B and F-35C that are problematic at the moment because the US Navy has this crazy idea that jets should take off and land on boats.

Classic Footage of some crazy fool named Eugene Ely who wasn't smart enough so say, "I don't think so Mr. Secretary" when the Secratary of the Navy telegraphed him asking him to land a Curtis Biplane on a Naval Ship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3c2lZnYtkw

I should have mentioned earlier that PBS has been running a 2-part series called "Angle of Attack" for about a month now on the various public stations. It's about the history of carrier air probably timed with the this year's 100th anniversary of naval aviation. Boeing paid for the show.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Ask a stupid question, get thrown the under "bus".