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

[Corsair1963]

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.

Vast majority of "kills" are at BVR. Plus, even WVR the F-35 is more than capable on taking care of itself. Sorry, this isn't WWI with slow turning "dogfights". Hell, that rarely happen in the last 30 years of Air Combat. So, don't expect that trend to somehow change in the coming decade. (i.e. post 2030)

Really, how many times do we have to spell this out??? Some still think of Pilots with Red Scarves and getting Gun Kills close range as being the norm.

[SpudmanWP]

Its a fine ac but kinetically not in the same league as raptor.

The Raptor' kinematics is not what makes it intimidating.

Don't take my word, take the work of an F-22 & F-35 pilot.

The F-22 is a very fast and maneuverable aircraft, but that is not where it excels. It is an information dominant aircraft, a characteristic that the F-35 takes to another level.

“The F-22 is the fastest, the most powerful fighter ever built.

The least impressive thing about the Raptor is how fast it is, and it is really fast; the least impressive thing about the Raptor is its speed and maneuverability.

[weasel1962]

The F-15's suite 9 is only 8.5 times faster than the F-22s and "only" double that of the F-35. Redefines information dominance.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Until the F-35s TR3 hits in the next year.

[Corsair1963]

Its a fine ac but kinetically not in the same league as raptor.

The Raptor' kinematics is not what makes it intimidating.

Don't take my word, take the work of an F-22 & F-35 pilot.

The F-22 is a very fast and maneuverable aircraft, but that is not where it excels. It is an information dominant aircraft, a characteristic that the F-35 takes to another level.

“The F-22 is the fastest, the most powerful fighter ever built.

The least impressive thing about the Raptor is how fast it is, and it is really fast; the least impressive thing about the Raptor is its speed and maneuverability.

Plus, high speed has it's own trade offs....

[zero-one]

Vast majority of "kills" are at BVR. Plus, even WVR the F-35 is more than capable on taking care of itself. Sorry, this isn't WWI with slow turning "dogfights".

Just a nitpick,
Only the majority of kills after Vietnam are BVR but if I may add the majority of kills very recently were WVR.
-Turkish downing of Russian Su-24
-USN downing of Su-22
-I believe the Pakistani Mig-21 kill was also WVR as claimed by the Indians. They claim they were able to retaliate against another F-16 with their R-73 equipped Mig-21.
-IIRC, the numerous UAVs shot down are also WVR.

I'm not saying dog fights will be the norm, I still believe BVR will be more common. What I'm saying is, just because certain ROEs allowed for BVR to make up most of the kills in the past, we shouldn't treat WVR as an anomaly in air combat. Recent history shows that it can still be common depending on the situation. Specially when you consider the fact that BVR scenarios can turn into WVR in seconds

[mixelflick]

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".


Sorry, that "dog" just doesn't hunt...

Correction if I may: I said "a few hundred", not 500 F-35's. A few hundred is 200, to be more specific.I agree 500 would be way too much.

I was also thinking more along the lines of not cancelling it in 2009, vs. re-starting Raptor production now. It's clear that would be prohibitely expensive.

Also, I think your presumption that we need large numbers of strike fighters vs. air superiority fighters is flawed. The USAF and USN are LOADED with "strike fighters". 200+ F-15E's, almost 1,000 F-16's and 400+ Hornets/Super Hornets, plus ever growing numbes of F-35's. That, vs. a backdrop of just 125 or so combat coaded Raptors and around 200 elderly F-15C's. Had we funded 340 - 380 Raptors, we'd be in great shape and the F-15C could have been properly retired.

I can't see how an air superiority fleet of just 325 jets (more than half of which are elderly) and only at best, at parity with the enemy is justified, vs. 1,700 or so strike fighters.

We've had air superiority for so long, I worry that it's been taken for granted...

[wrightwing]

Also, I think your presumption that we need large numbers of strike fighters vs. air superiority fighters is flawed. The USAF and USN are LOADED with "strike fighters". 200+ F-15E's, almost 1,000 F-16's and 400+ Hornets/Super Hornets, plus ever growing numbes of F-35's. That, vs. a backdrop of just 125 or so combat coaded Raptors and around 200 elderly F-15C's. Had we funded 340 - 380 Raptors, we'd be in great shape and the F-15C could have been properly retired.

I can't see how an air superiority fleet of just 325 jets (more than half of which are elderly) and only at best, at parity with the enemy is justified, vs. 1,700 or so strike fighters.

We've had air superiority for so long, I worry that it's been taken for granted...

You have to look at what the primary function of tactical aircraft are, in the context of aerial warfare. Far more missions involve hitting enemy ground forces, which is why we'll always have a very lopsided mix of multi-role jets vs pure A2A. F-15E, F-16, F-18, and F-35 are all very capable A2A jets, which minimizes the requirements for the numbers of escorts. Sure, 381 F-22s would've been preferable to the F-15C/F-22 mix, but 300-400 aircraft performing OCA/DCA is a good number vs thousands of multi-role.

[quicksilver]

“We've had air superiority for so long, I worry that it's been taken for granted...”

Versus who?

[weasel1962]

Until the F-35s TR3 hits in the next year.

The official date is 2023 from lot 15 onwards. Possibly using the 1 THZ chips which is 25 times the 40 GHZ ones currently used. Lightning speeds.

[weasel1962]

I can't see how an air superiority fleet of just 325 jets (more than half of which are elderly) and only at best, at parity with the enemy is justified, vs. 1,700 or so strike fighters.

Consider the following factors:

(a) potential aggressor sortie rates
(b) the capability of 180 F-22s + x number of F-35s to affect aggressor attrition rates
(c) the A2G impact 3400 minus above fighters (don't forget the navy) on enemy air bases and the impact to those aggressor sortie rates.

One would then realise that the real constraints would be:

(d) How many and how fast fighters can be deployed to the fight
(e) the A2G impact of aggressor that actually get thru the F-22s, F-35s, F-16s, F-15s and F-18s on air bases.

Think about it. How many sorties would an aggressor aircraft be able to launch if there are always "only" 100 F-22s in between. 2... 3....max? That would be halved just by adding 100 F-35s. Then add in USMC F-35Bs that shoots and scoots which reduces any impact from (e). That's not even counting Allied airpower. People worried in 2003 when US used less than half the combat forces in Iraqi Freedom. No worries after that.

What's the aggressor doing about it, knowing that? In China's case, they try to develop asymmetric combat capabilities e.g. ASBMs to take out carriers. TBMs to take out air bases. Stealth fighter to take out tankers, AEW i.e. reduced and less effective sortie rates. Defence dollars then goes to missile defence, stealth detection and a PCA that may not need to rely on tankers. Smart!

[Corsair1963]

Correction if I may: I said "a few hundred", not 500 F-35's. A few hundred is 200, to be more specific.I agree 500 would be way too much.

I was also thinking more along the lines of not cancelling it in 2009, vs. re-starting Raptor production now. It's clear that would be prohibitely expensive.

Also, I think your presumption that we need large numbers of strike fighters vs. air superiority fighters is flawed. The USAF and USN are LOADED with "strike fighters". 200+ F-15E's, almost 1,000 F-16's and 400+ Hornets/Super Hornets, plus ever growing numbes of F-35's. That, vs. a backdrop of just 125 or so combat coaded Raptors and around 200 elderly F-15C's. Had we funded 340 - 380 Raptors, we'd be in great shape and the F-15C could have been properly retired.

I can't see how an air superiority fleet of just 325 jets (more than half of which are elderly) and only at best, at parity with the enemy is justified, vs. 1,700 or so strike fighters.

We've had air superiority for so long, I worry that it's been taken for granted...

Most would consider ~200 as a couple hundred. While, ~500 would be a few hundred....Nonetheless, as for Strike Fighters that is "exactly" what we need. As they can perform multiple missions. Which, provides the US Military with considerable flexibility. This is critical even more today than in the past. As we don't have the large numbers of tactical aircraft that we did in the previous generation of fighters. In addition a "Strike Fighter" can and often is a Air Superiority Fighter equipped to perform multiple missions. A good example is the F-15C/F-15E. Hell, Israel has given it's single seat F-15A/C's a strike role and it can perform either mission with ease.

Honestly, what we should have done with the F-22. ("IMHO") Was just to produce a modest number past the 187 that we ended up with. This would likely not have threaten F-35 production. Maybe another 75-100 Raptors. Then end production quietly and pursue the F-35 with vigor. Yet, hindsight is always 20/20. Which, I believe we could agree on....

My point was what was going on during the period when F-22 production was stopped and the reasons behind it. (according to the decision makers of the time)

[mixelflick]

“We've had air superiority for so long, I worry that it's been taken for granted...”

Versus who?

Say, China..

But that needs context, and in my example we're stretched thin in the SCS and/or defending Taiwan.

[quicksilver]

“We've had air superiority for so long, I worry that it's been taken for granted...”

Versus who?

Say, China..

But that needs context, and in my example we're stretched thin in the SCS and/or defending Taiwan.

The probabilities of the US going to war w China are microscopic. The economic consequences are too great for either player. However, US would retain air superiority for as long as the missile inventory lasted.

Not sure what suggests to you that ‘...its been taken for granted.’ There are places on the planet that are always going to present difficult choices; that doesn’t necessarily mean something has been taken for granted. Strategic choices necessarily involve conscious decisions to assume different levels of risk, because you can’t be everywhere all the time. That’s the fundamental reality that doesn’t change.

[wrightwing]

“We've had air superiority for so long, I worry that it's been taken for granted...”

Versus who?

Say, China..

But that needs context, and in my example we're stretched thin in the SCS and/or defending Taiwan.

In that eventuality, the Chinese won't be able to generate high sortie rates, as their airfields will be smouldering, and the aircraft that survive will have to fly from more distant bases/rely heavily on tanking. Additionally, in addition to USAF/USN/USMC aircraft, you'd have to add in aircraft from Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore, etc... as it's doubtful they'd sit on their hands.