F-15X or F-15SE, F-35, F-22 as air fighter

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

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1654
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 01:22

A person who's been almost a year still dominates conversations. Let's look at the impact of McCain & gang keeping the A-10.

If the A-10 isn't retired yet, then other aircraft gets retired first when the F-35 comes online. It may or may not be as effective as other aircraft but that's irrelevant where costs is concerned. Since A-10 sustainment costs are probably lower than other costs, that's offset against keeping an added type in service which was the USAF's contention for retiring the type. The reality is that the USAF can't keep the A-10 forever and the actions merely mean a slower retirement.

If the USAF intended to retire the A-10 without a replacement, thus saving the $4.2billion that the USAF had previously argued for, then I think there is merit in spending a bit more just to keep the plane especially in the context today of an expanded and targeted 386 sqn USAF.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 774
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 04:18

In the midst of a deep maintainer's crisis, adding an unneccesary new type (F-15X) and retaining
an old type (A-10) where the OEM vanished 32 years ago makes little sense.

Since you have to add T-X anyway, the straightforward (T-50 -> F/A-50) F/A derivative should be prioritized.
That solves the cheap and cheerful attack and ANG CONUS gap in one fell swoop.

And you do the $10 M/airframe longeron/fuselage/wing SLEP for the F-15C/D fleet enabling it to go out to 2045.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1654
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 06:58

Agreed in part. The USAF original argument was that the A-10 maintainers could be converted to the F-35.

Heather Wilson highlighted USAF has already fixed its maintainer shortage as of today for active duty units even with the A-10 still flying. GAO claimed the 4000 gap dropped to 745 in FY 2017 so that's a consistent trend but of course new hire are less experienced so that's a function of retention.
https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2019/0 ... -says.html
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696747.pdf

The USAF is also claiming that the F-15EX using mostly the same ground equipment as the F-15C so its only a matter of weeks for the maintainers to convert.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3349
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 16:44

blain wrote:
mixelflick wrote:It was flat out sad to watch McCain defend the A-10, when the USAF was right there with data showing how most CAS was done by B-1B's, F-16's, Strike Eagles etc..

I'm not sure if he really believed what he was saying or his faculties were failing, but it was a pathetic moment. The poor woman trying to explain these things to him was browbeaten into submission. It probably is a good idea to have a few A-10's around for low intensity conflicts, but McCain wouldn't have even entertained that.

His hatred for the F-35 was palpable, as he was seemingly unable to discern teething problems all new weapons systems go through from what an effective warplane it has matured into. I wonder what he'd think today of what the pilots say, the 20-1 kill ratio's coming back from Red Flag, etc..


McCain was erratic (as evidenced by his presidential campaign), volatile, and was unconcerned by fact, or really dumb. Taken together it made for a very bad combination.


I would agree with this, 'cept for the really dumb part. But he was erratic at times in his thought process and verbage. He was certainly volatile, that much was evident. And yes, at times he was unconcerned by facts. Seeing him go out the way he did was sad, but we all die from something.

He would have probably better served his nation as a pilot vs. a Senator..
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 723
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post29 Jun 2019, 15:47

Corsair1963 wrote:Weak argument as the F-35 is much more versatile and cheaper to both own and operate. In addition it has "no" serious threat within the foreseeable future.

Those are easily supportable facts...


For air superiority role, the F-22 is overall better. General Hostage even said that for air to air, 2 F-22s can do what 8 F-35s do. F-22 is much more suitable to replace the F-15C.

https://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/acc ... and-syria/
https://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-1 ... whos-best/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Jul 2019, 00:50

disconnectedradical wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Weak argument as the F-35 is much more versatile and cheaper to both own and operate. In addition it has "no" serious threat within the foreseeable future.

Those are easily supportable facts...


For air superiority role, the F-22 is overall better. General Hostage even said that for air to air, 2 F-22s can do what 8 F-35s do. F-22 is much more suitable to replace the F-15C.

https://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/acc ... and-syria/
https://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-1 ... whos-best/



In some aspects (high and fast) the F-22 clearly has an advantage over the F-35. Yet, that doesn't change the fact the F-35 is Cheaper, much more Versatile, and just as capable "overall" in the Air Superiority Role. (vs known threats)

Also, that is an old quote from General Hostage. I personally doubt many today believe 2- F-22's can do the job of 8- F-35's today. Even in the Air Superiority Role.... :roll:

Nonetheless, my original point was when production was stopped on the F-22. The concern was it could threaten orders for the F-35. Which, was far more critical for the US and the Western Alliance.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 723
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post01 Jul 2019, 01:08

Corsair1963 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Weak argument as the F-35 is much more versatile and cheaper to both own and operate. In addition it has "no" serious threat within the foreseeable future.

Those are easily supportable facts...


For air superiority role, the F-22 is overall better. General Hostage even said that for air to air, 2 F-22s can do what 8 F-35s do. F-22 is much more suitable to replace the F-15C.

https://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/acc ... and-syria/
https://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-1 ... whos-best/



In some aspects (high and fast) the F-22 clearly has an advantage over the F-35. Yet, that doesn't change the fact the F-35 is Cheaper, much more Versatile, and just as capable "overall" in the Air Superiority Role. (vs known threats)

Also, that is an old quote from General Hostage. I personally doubt many today believe 2- F-22's can do the job of 8- F-35's today. Even in the Air Superiority Role.... :roll:

Nonetheless, my original point was when production was stopped on the F-22. The concern was it could threaten orders for the F-35. Which, was far more critical for the US and the Western Alliance.


Your opinion of F-35 is way inflated. As good as it is, it's NOT as good for air superiority as F-22. F-35 isn't even getting 6 internal AAMs until Block 4 at the earliest. How does F-22 threaten F-35? F-22 can't be exported anyways, and USAF still needs F-35 because F-22 can't do strike and it doesn't replace all the F-16s. You need to stop being such an F-35 and think it's the end all be all.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Jul 2019, 03:42

disconnectedradical wrote:
Your opinion of F-35 is way inflated. As good as it is, it's NOT as good for air superiority as F-22. F-35 isn't even getting 6 internal AAMs until Block 4 at the earliest. How does F-22 threaten F-35? F-22 can't be exported anyways, and USAF still needs F-35 because F-22 can't do strike and it doesn't replace all the F-16s. You need to stop being such an F-35 and think it's the end all be all.


Really, so what fighter possess a serious threat to the F-35 today or even in the next ten to twenty years??? (please enlighten us)


The issue with the F-22 at the time was really two fold. First, the cost was unbelievably high. (during an economic recession) Second, while technically banned from export. It was becoming politically harder and harder to make that case. As the F-35 would be more capable and advanced in several respects. (newer design by same company) That said, a number of nations wanted the F-22 over the F-35. Including nations like Australia and Japan...

Yet, to make the F-35 a viable program. We needed as many partners and orders as possible! The concern was additional orders (export) for F-22's. Could have snowballed at the expense of the Lightning II. As the Raptor was in production and a known product. The F-35 on the other hand was still early in development with many "unknowns".

In short additional F-22's could have impacted the viability of the F-35 Program. Meaning fewer partners and less orders. This was something the US Government couldn't allow to happen. As the F-35 like the F-16 was the foundation of NATO/Western Air Power. Which, has been proven by history....It was the right choice then and the right choice now.

Lastly, I would love to see additional F-22's both then and now. Yet, not at the expense of F-35's. Which, is what this whole debate is about.

"IMHO"
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1024
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post02 Jul 2019, 17:29

Corsair1963 wrote:
Really, so what fighter possess a serious threat to the F-35 today or even in the next ten to twenty years??? (please enlighten us)


The issue with the F-22 at the time was really two fold. First, the cost was unbelievably high. (during an economic recession) Second, while technically banned from export. It was becoming politically harder and harder to make that case. As the F-35 would be more capable and advanced in several respects. (newer design by same company) That said, a number of nations wanted the F-22 over the F-35. Including nations like Australia and Japan...

Yet, to make the F-35 a viable program. We needed as many partners and orders as possible! The concern was additional orders (export) for F-22's. Could have snowballed at the expense of the Lightning II. As the Raptor was in production and a known product. The F-35 on the other hand was still early in development with many "unknowns".

In short additional F-22's could have impacted the viability of the F-35 Program. Meaning fewer partners and less orders. This was something the US Government couldn't allow to happen. As the F-35 like the F-16 was the foundation of NATO/Western Air Power. Which, has been proven by history....It was the right choice then and the right choice now.

Lastly, I would love to see additional F-22's both then and now. Yet, not at the expense of F-35's. Which, is what this whole debate is about.

"IMHO"


I dont know what foreseeable aircraft will pose a "serious threat" to the F-35 but Chinese and Russian designs are definitely looking to at least compete against it... PAKFA, J-20, and FC-31. I dont know how much of a competition these aircraft will be but the US and other F-35 users aren't completely dismissing them either.

As i see it the F-22 was more of a victim of bad timing. Many saw the F-22 as a relic of the Cold War. Changing military strategy and priorities (OEF and OIF) was definitely a factor. Up armored HMMWVs and more ISR as well as Reaper drones was more relevant than a supersonic stealthy air dominance platform. Of course there was the politics and public perception of the times as well.

The F-22 was always gonna be a pricey aircraft no matter how much was built. The price (even if it dropped to $125mil in current year dollars) of the aircraft would have been off putting to most other nations unless they really wanted it that badly. Other than Japan and Australia wanting it, I think for a time Israel was also taking a serious look at the F-22 as well. So even if Australia, Japan, and Israel were to acquire F-22s, there would still be a market for other nations to have the more flexible/capable and affordable F-35.

I dont believe the F-22 if it had been produced in greater numbers for the US (381) and for 3 other nations (lets just throw out 40 Raptors for each of the 3) would have greatly impacted the F-35 program in a negative way. It would have pushed the F-35 further back for sure but i dont believe it would be a decade pass the 2011 rebaseline. Maybe if there were more F-22s, the F-35 program would have had better progression rather then it being rushed to make such lofty promises that in recent years is just now starting to be realized.

How much less F-35s would be produced? For sure the USAF wouldn't be looking at the current 1763 (remember F-22 was supposed to be the replacement for the F-15C). However to keep the high-low mix the USAF would still need to eventually replace the F-16 and A-10. USN would still need to replace their Hornets and USMC will still need to replace their Hornets, Harriers, and Prowlers. Also there would still be other nations that want a multi-role 5th generation fighter to phase out their aging Falcons, Tornandos, Hornets, etc. There would still be a larger market for the F-35 than the F-22.

I'm sure all of us here at F-16.net all wish and fantasize that there are more F-22s, so this is all in the realm of hypothetical and just mental gymnastics.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3349
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post02 Jul 2019, 19:52

I agree 300+ Raptors would have been ideal, even if it came at the expense of say, a few hundred F-35's.

The more robust F-22 force would have enabled us to avoid more conflicts vs. fight in them, and if we had to fight they'd be over a lot faster. The aircraft simply has the "intimidation" factor far in excess of even the F-35. That may not be your reality, but among our enemies - the F-22 is the big dog. Perception as they say is reality, and the F-22 in Syria sends a strong message to the Russians: We have an overwhelmingly superior aircraft. We're talking about extreme overkill, so don't even think about it.

The F-35 has (yet) to display that kind of intimidation, although I'll concede that's a chapter perhaps to be written later.
Offline

wooster

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2019, 19:10

Unread post02 Jul 2019, 21:22

mixelflick wrote:I agree 300+ Raptors would have been ideal, even if it came at the expense of say, a few hundred F-35's.

The more robust F-22 force would have enabled us to avoid more conflicts vs. fight in them, and if we had to fight they'd be over a lot faster. The aircraft simply has the "intimidation" factor far in excess of even the F-35. That may not be your reality, but among our enemies - the F-22 is the big dog. Perception as they say is reality, and the F-22 in Syria sends a strong message to the Russians: We have an overwhelmingly superior aircraft. We're talking about extreme overkill, so don't even think about it.

The F-35 has (yet) to display that kind of intimidation, although I'll concede that's a chapter perhaps to be written later.


"You really ought to go home," the F-22 pilot radioed the Iranian F-4. The reason the USAF could send the F-22 to within arms reach of the Iranian F-4 is because even by giving away stealth and revealing itself, the F-22 would have won the engagement, a kinematic engagement, against the Iranian. Yes his wingman would have also launched a few slammers at the F-4 as well.

I doubt the USAF will ever pull that same trick again with F-35. Can one imagine sending in a lone F-35 to do that to a J-11 or SU-30? Kinematically and without stealth, I doubt those lopsided RF victories would be occuring. Sure the F-35 wingman would end up winning the engagement from a distance with AAMs, but the F-35 as close range might not do so well. Especially given it wouldn't be carrying the winders under the wings and give up stealth to approach.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8387
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 Jul 2019, 21:36

Why not?

A combat configured F-35 regularly beats "clean" F-16s & F-15s in BFM and that's not even taking into account HOBS SLAMMER shots. Imagine what it would do to an armed 4th gen fighter.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Jul 2019, 02:52

mixelflick wrote:I agree 300+ Raptors would have been ideal, even if it came at the expense of say, a few hundred F-35's.

The more robust F-22 force would have enabled us to avoid more conflicts vs. fight in them, and if we had to fight they'd be over a lot faster. The aircraft simply has the "intimidation" factor far in excess of even the F-35. That may not be your reality, but among our enemies - the F-22 is the big dog. Perception as they say is reality, and the F-22 in Syria sends a strong message to the Russians: We have an overwhelmingly superior aircraft. We're talking about extreme overkill, so don't even think about it.

The F-35 has (yet) to display that kind of intimidation, although I'll concede that's a chapter perhaps to be written later.



You would be wrong....
Offline

wooster

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2019, 19:10

Unread post03 Jul 2019, 03:02

SpudmanWP wrote:Why not?

A combat configured F-35 regularly beats "clean" F-16s & F-15s in BFM and that's not even taking into account HOBS SLAMMER shots. Imagine what it would do to an armed 4th gen fighter.


Because the raptor is so overkill close-in and has the 9x which is the most lethal aam in the inventory minus range restrictions. Just my opinion they would not try that with the F-35. Its a fine ac but kinetically not in the same league as raptor. The prize not worth the risk. Opinion of course.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Jul 2019, 03:06

mixelflick wrote:I agree 300+ Raptors would have been ideal, even if it came at the expense of say, a few hundred F-35's.

The more robust F-22 force would have enabled us to avoid more conflicts vs. fight in them, and if we had to fight they'd be over a lot faster. The aircraft simply has the "intimidation" factor far in excess of even the F-35. That may not be your reality, but among our enemies - the F-22 is the big dog. Perception as they say is reality, and the F-22 in Syria sends a strong message to the Russians: We have an overwhelmingly superior aircraft. We're talking about extreme overkill, so don't even think about it.

The F-35 has (yet) to display that kind of intimidation, although I'll concede that's a chapter perhaps to be written later.


We've been fighting for over a decade against the naysayers of the F-35. Fighting myth after myth. Now you say cutting "500" F-35's....for just 300 F-22's is a better deal. Man guess what the critics would say. If, the USAF cut "500" F-35's and order additional F-22's. (Price would balloon and export orders would be cut!)

This when the Lightning has no credible air threat and is much more capable in the Strike Role. We "need" large numbers of Tactical "Strike Fighters" not "Air Superiority Fighters".
:roll:

Sorry, that "dog" just doesn't hunt... :doh:
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 21 guests