F-15C the latest Eagle avionics update

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5715
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 04:52

popcorn wrote:Guess who's acting DoD Chief?



Any future deal with Boeing will be scrutinized even more closely. Plus, did you forget the US House will be controlled by the Democrats starting in January....
Offline

chucky2

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2016, 20:27

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 16:16

Bah, you act like Canada isn't being controlled by Trudeau, or however you spell his name. The competition can be whatever he says it will be to get whatever result he wants it to be. The cool thing a out F-15X is no one else will have them after we second hand sell them to Canada. Which means, they can name it whatever they want. F-115 Super Arrow...F-115 Trudeau Arrow...F-115 Trudeau Arrow Refurbished Dominance...the possibilities are endless...
Offline

ChippyHo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2006, 16:43
  • Location: Montreal

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 16:53

chucky2 wrote:Bah, you act like Canada isn't being controlled by Trudeau, or however you spell his name. The competition can be whatever he says it will be to get whatever result he wants it to be. The cool thing a out F-15X is no one else will have them after we second hand sell them to Canada. Which means, they can name it whatever they want. F-115 Super Arrow...F-115 Trudeau Arrow...F-115 Trudeau Arrow Refurbished Dominance...the possibilities are endless...


You are an epic moron - but then i guess you like typing nonsense.
What the hell do you even bring to this conversation :roll:
Offline

chucky2

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2016, 20:27

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 18:15

ChippyHo wrote:
chucky2 wrote:Bah, you act like Canada isn't being controlled by Trudeau, or however you spell his name. The competition can be whatever he says it will be to get whatever result he wants it to be. The cool thing a out F-15X is no one else will have them after we second hand sell them to Canada. Which means, they can name it whatever they want. F-115 Super Arrow...F-115 Trudeau Arrow...F-115 Trudeau Arrow Refurbished Dominance...the possibilities are endless...


You are an epic moron - but then i guess you like typing nonsense.
What the hell do you even bring to this conversation :roll:


You should wish for what I said to be true, that'd be way better than falling apart F-18s.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2301
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 19:02

Anything not F-35A will have pretty much identical results.
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 883
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 00:25

Corsair1963 wrote:
Fox1 wrote:
The Air Force will ultimately end up taking whatever the Pentagon tells them they'll be taking.




You mean "Congress" and I've seen no such support for more F-15's. In addition who do you think has a bigger lobby and influence on Capital Hill Boeing or Lockheed Martin???


:doh:


Actually Fox1 nay have the right of it.

This situation is not without precedent. Back in the early ''89, development/production of the F-14D which was on time and on budget was canceled by the Pentagon, not the Navy who wanted 527 of them, new and rebuild. The Pentagon then directed USN to order the F/A-18E/F and it was put in their budget. The following FY Navy did not request any money for the Super Hornet but rather requested more F-14Ds plus the money for the overhead to cover the gap caused by the cancellation of the previous FY (the assembly line was still building Tomcats at alow rate, but there would be a gap based on the one year delay. DoD removed the F-14 money and inserted Super Hornet funding into the budget submitted to Congress instead. The leaders of NAVAIR were taken out to the woodshed where the facts of life were explained to them. From then on there was no more talk about continuing the Tomcat.

Congress, which was not part of the decision process, held hearings on DoD's actions and while they didn't like what was going on, it was not an issue important enough to them to get directly involved. F-15X, if it actually goes, may turn out to be a similar situation.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 792
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 01:04

The situation is totally analogous to the F-14D vs. Super Hornet provided you ignore A-12, A-X, AF/X and
the actual historical record of contracts.


Congress was also told the Super Hornet was a cheap derivative with considerable commonality with the
classic Hornet. F-15X is neither and neither was the Super Hornet in reality.

NAVAIR leadership also had zero credibility on the hill following NAVAIR's dismal performance in GW1, the
A-12 debacle and the Tailhook scandal.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5715
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 04:23

aaam wrote:
Actually Fox1 nay have the right of it.

This situation is not without precedent. Back in the early ''89, development/production of the F-14D which was on time and on budget was canceled by the Pentagon, not the Navy who wanted 527 of them, new and rebuild. The Pentagon then directed USN to order the F/A-18E/F and it was put in their budget. The following FY Navy did not request any money for the Super Hornet but rather requested more F-14Ds plus the money for the overhead to cover the gap caused by the cancellation of the previous FY (the assembly line was still building Tomcats at alow rate, but there would be a gap based on the one year delay. DoD removed the F-14 money and inserted Super Hornet funding into the budget submitted to Congress instead. The leaders of NAVAIR were taken out to the woodshed where the facts of life were explained to them. From then on there was no more talk about continuing the Tomcat.

Congress, which was not part of the decision process, held hearings on DoD's actions and while they didn't like what was going on, it was not an issue important enough to them to get directly involved. F-15X, if it actually goes, may turn out to be a similar situation.



LOL :lmao: The USAF is "never" going to buy the F-15X. Nor, is the DoD or US Congress going to force them to do so.:doh:


Just like the USAF wasn't going to buy the F-22/F-35 hybrid..... :wink:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5715
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 08:34

QUOTE: If purchased, the F-15X aircraft will reportedly end up in the hands of several Air National Guard units as a replacement for the service’s current F-15C aircraft. But at the moment, it appears any acquisition of the advanced F-15 variant will prove an uphill battle within the Pentagon.

According to Bloomberg Government, the push for the new aircraft came from senior leaders within the Pentagon like deputy secretary of defense Pat Shanahan “and not the Air Force, which would be flying the planes.”

Indeed, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson in September stated that the Air Force had no interest in picking up the fourth-generation F-15X, preferring instead to invest in expanding its fleet of fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

“We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth-generation aircraft,” Wilson told Defense News in a Sept. 5 interview. “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.”

The National Interest’s Dave Majumdar put the Air Force’s skepticism more bluntly: “It’s amazing this Boeing sales pitch is being swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the trade press . . . The Air Force will never buy this jet. It is useless inside heavily defended airspace if we are dealing with any sort of real military force.”

https://taskandpurpose.com/f-15x-pentag ... =tp-buffer
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 15:09

Corsair1963 wrote:QUOTE: If purchased, the F-15X aircraft will reportedly end up in the hands of several Air National Guard units as a replacement for the service’s current F-15C aircraft. But at the moment, it appears any acquisition of the advanced F-15 variant will prove an uphill battle within the Pentagon.

According to Bloomberg Government, the push for the new aircraft came from senior leaders within the Pentagon like deputy secretary of defense Pat Shanahan “and not the Air Force, which would be flying the planes.”

Indeed, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson in September stated that the Air Force had no interest in picking up the fourth-generation F-15X, preferring instead to invest in expanding its fleet of fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

“We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth-generation aircraft,” Wilson told Defense News in a Sept. 5 interview. “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.”

The National Interest’s Dave Majumdar put the Air Force’s skepticism more bluntly: “It’s amazing this Boeing sales pitch is being swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the trade press . . . The Air Force will never buy this jet. It is useless inside heavily defended airspace if we are dealing with any sort of real military force.”

https://taskandpurpose.com/f-15x-pentag ... =tp-buffer


Q: When is the last time the US worked inside heavily defended airspace against a significant conventional military force?

A: It's been a while.

Q: When is the last time any of those ANG units deployed to that sort of environment?

A: Perhaps the Korean War. They are squadrons tasked almost entirely with standing CONUS air defense alert.

That was an amusingly ignorant comment by Majumdar.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

magnum4469

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 18:27

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 18:36

Corsair1963,
Below is your quote from the "F-16 Block 72 offered to Bulgaria?" forum. As I read though these I see you very much support the F-16V Blk70/72 aircraft by LM, but yet you think it is a terrible idea for the F-15X. It seems all your arguments are against the F-15X and all for the F-16V... You say that unless it is the F-35, it is worthless against any threat because anything less that full 5th generation fighter it will not cut it. So why do you change your tune when it comes to the F-16V??? Or is it you just completely support LM aircraft and want to have nothing to do with Boeing???


Corsair1963 wrote:Just show the opportunity that India missed. When the US and Lockheed Martin offered them the whole F-16 production line years ago. (MMRCA) As today India could be building new F-16's for all of these recent orders. (in addition to theirs) :bang:


I'm not trying to pick a fight, it just seems you completely contradict your own arguments based on who is producing the end product...
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 21:03

For pure air defense where it is the primary aim to intercept long range strike aircraft and the missiles they release the F-15X is probably more suited than the F-35. In a clean natural state it is a Mach 2+ aircraft with greater supersonic acceleration than F-35. With CFTs and EFTs it will have more range and endurance and it will be able to carry more missiles. It also has a bigger AESA antenna as well as a more modern Legion IRST. In the air superiority role it could hang with F-22 at high altitude that could send target tracks to it when it gets Link 16 transmit capability. It just could not fly over IADs that have not been neutralised but you won't find many of those over the Sea where it will probably do most of its operating.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1813
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 00:28

marsavian wrote: In a clean natural state it is a Mach 2+ aircraft with greater supersonic acceleration than F-35. In the air superiority role it could hang with F-22 at high altitude that could send target tracks to it when it gets Link 16 transmit capability.


You can't have it both ways - your clean M2 F-15 is virtually irrelevant.

So RCS and IR sig only matters now over an enemy IADS does it. Presumably the F-22 (or F-35) is there to protect and make up for the fact the brand new F-15X would mostly be useful against things that couldn't shoot back as the worlds most expensive airliner interceptor. :D

What do you think its speed will be in flying SAM site mode? forget M2.0 will it even break M1.0? Forget hanging with F-22A or even F-35A more like. How much more fuel does it need to deal with (heaven forbid) something that knows it is there and can defend itself like 300 miles out? - what happens to the real range/endurance in this case? How many more missiles do you need to fire at an alerted enemy?

We can wait for the bomber hordes to come to the US and prove this flying SAM site concept for the ANG - one the Russian Flankers have been touting for years - shame that everyone just always got by with far less missiles.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5715
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 00:45

magnum4469 wrote:Corsair1963,
Below is your quote from the "F-16 Block 72 offered to Bulgaria?" forum. As I read though these I see you very much support the F-16V Blk70/72 aircraft by LM, but yet you think it is a terrible idea for the F-15X. It seems all your arguments are against the F-15X and all for the F-16V... You say that unless it is the F-35, it is worthless against any threat because anything less that full 5th generation fighter it will not cut it. So why do you change your tune when it comes to the F-16V??? Or is it you just completely support LM aircraft and want to have nothing to do with Boeing???


Corsair1963 wrote:Just show the opportunity that India missed. When the US and Lockheed Martin offered them the whole F-16 production line years ago. (MMRCA) As today India could be building new F-16's for all of these recent orders. (in addition to theirs) :bang:


I'm not trying to pick a fight, it just seems you completely contradict your own arguments based on who is producing the end product...


What??? My point of course was if India had selected the F-16 many years ago. (over a decade) When the first MMRCA came out. It could be reaping the benefits today. By producing all of these orders for F-16's.....(i.e. $$$)

Also, I don't support buying the F-16V or any other 4/4.5 Generation Fighter over the F-35. That said, some countries have the resources to make that choice while others do not.

For example India has the resources to acquire the F-35 today over any 4th Generation Fighter. While, somebody like Bulgaria does not. In addition Bulgaria is a NATO Member and F-16's will be part of the alliance for many years to come. So, if it "must" buy a 4th Generation Fighter. The F-16 is a good choice....in this case.

In the case of the F-15X it is more expensive and less capable than the F-35. Do I really need to explain more??? :?

All this really comes down to is resources and threats. Honestly, I don't see any conflict with the opinions that I have expressed here???
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5715
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 00:51

marsavian wrote:For pure air defense where it is the primary aim to intercept long range strike aircraft and the missiles they release the F-15X is probably more suited than the F-35. In a clean natural state it is a Mach 2+ aircraft with greater supersonic acceleration than F-35. With CFTs and EFTs it will have more range and endurance and it will be able to carry more missiles. It also has a bigger AESA antenna as well as a more modern Legion IRST. In the air superiority role it could hang with F-22 at high altitude that could send target tracks to it when it gets Link 16 transmit capability. It just could not fly over IADs that have not been neutralised but you won't find many of those over the Sea where it will probably do most of its operating.



The Eagle doesn't fly MACH 2.5 or even Mach 2 under combat conditions. Nor, does it have more range than the F-35. Honestly, do we really have to repost the comments made by Lt. Col. David “Chip” Berke, USMC (Ret) and Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn, USAF.....(yet again)

You put a F-35A with internal Air to Air Missiles vs a Combat Loaded Eagle and the Lightning will eat it for lunch.... :twisted:
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron