Air Force announces Guard locations for F-35A, F-15EX

F-35 unit & base selection, delivery, activation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7546
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Jun 2021, 23:00

mixelflick wrote:As much as I'd like to see the F-35 flying around here in MA, I'm not so sure that's the right decision. If the 104th's primary mission is really to defend the Northeast/25% of the population, I would say the F-15EX is probably the most appropriate choice. In that mission, it's large RCS is a non issue and it can carry far more AMRAAM's than the F-35. It's radar is more than up to the task, and its greater speed would allow it to CAP over NYC or intercept a barrage of cruise missiles faster. It should have really good legs too, even assuming no in flight refueling assets are available.

Besides, we have F-35's already flying out of VT, the Green Mountain Boys. Fast planes and small states mean they could be here quickly if the need arises...



What??? The F-35A offers better range and performance than the F-15EX. While, being both cheaper to own and operate than the Eagle!


So, your logic totally escapes me........ :?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7546
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Jun 2021, 23:05

doge wrote:5 out of 6 ANG F-15C/D users are clamoring for the F-35A, not the F-15EX !? :shock: (What!?) :doh:
https://www.defensedaily.com/u-s-air-fo ... air-force/



Really, can't see the 44th and 67th Fighter Squadrons with the 18th Wing at Kadena Air Base, Japan and the 493rd Fighter Squadron with the 48th Fighter Wing at RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom not getting the F-35A's.


While, clearly the ANG would prefer it too! So, again why we're buying the F-15EX???


Honestly, I expect they will shift to selling the F-15EX as a supplement to the existing F-15E Strike Fighter Fleet or maybe even a replacement!
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7546
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Jun 2021, 23:19

If, the three USAF F-15C Units end up with the F-35A. Which, I consider likely.......Then many of the ANG maybe forced to except the F-15EX instead. (like it or not)


The real question of course. Is of the remaining ANG F-15C Units. What will be the ultimate mix of F-35A's or F-15EX's???


Anybody care to make a prediction???
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4441
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Jun 2021, 15:57

Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:As much as I'd like to see the F-35 flying around here in MA, I'm not so sure that's the right decision. If the 104th's primary mission is really to defend the Northeast/25% of the population, I would say the F-15EX is probably the most appropriate choice. In that mission, it's large RCS is a non issue and it can carry far more AMRAAM's than the F-35. It's radar is more than up to the task, and its greater speed would allow it to CAP over NYC or intercept a barrage of cruise missiles faster. It should have really good legs too, even assuming no in flight refueling assets are available.

Besides, we have F-35's already flying out of VT, the Green Mountain Boys. Fast planes and small states mean they could be here quickly if the need arises...



What??? The F-35A offers better range and performance than the F-15EX. While, being both cheaper to own and operate than the Eagle!

So, your logic totally escapes me........ :?


If you read what I said carefully, I did not say the EX had better range than the F-35A. I said, "it should have really good legs too, even assuming no in flight refueling assets are available". As far as performance goes, overall I'd agree with you. However, I'd bet a combat configured F-15EX can get higher and faster than a similarly configured F-35. But there's no way of knowing for certain, as I doubt USAF will be releasing either of those figures anytime soon.

The point is, these F-15EX's have to go somewhere. And I'd rather have them in the homeland defense mission than on the front line somewhere. That will be the F-35's domain, where its stealth/SA can be put to best use..
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3784
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Jun 2021, 00:05

Corsair1963 wrote:



What??? The F-35A offers better range and performance than the F-15EX. While, being both cheaper to own and operate than the Eagle!


So, your logic totally escapes me........ :?

The F-35 certainly offers a lot of capabilities well beyond what the F-15EX can do, but let's stick to empirically demonstrable evidence.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2793
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Jun 2021, 02:36

mixelflick wrote:As much as I'd like to see the F-35 flying around here in MA, I'm not so sure that's the right decision. If the 104th's primary mission is really to defend the Northeast/25% of the population, I would say the F-15EX is probably the most appropriate choice. In that mission, it's large RCS is a non issue and it can carry far more AMRAAM's than the F-35. It's radar is more than up to the task, and its greater speed would allow it to CAP over NYC or intercept a barrage of cruise missiles faster. It should have really good legs too, even assuming no in flight refueling assets are available.


I hope Barnes gets the Shiny EX so that you can feel good about Eagles flying around the Northeast.

But stating "the F-15EX is probably the most appropriate choice" is arguable at best, mocking-inducing folly at worst. Feelings and any requirement to haul hypersonic air-to-air missiles aside, pray tell where the Shiny EX bests the F-35?

So from an argumentative standpoint, point by point:

  1. "it's large RCS is a non issue"... says you. In another thread around here, within the last day or so, a former F-16 driver (now a LM manager / exec) stated that as a defensive counter-air guy, he "really likes" offensive counter-air not knowing where he is. Can't really argue that point if you're dragging a barn door radar reflector around the sky in your Shiny EX.
  2. "it can carry far more AMRAAM's than the F-35." Really? How many can the EX carry? Eight? Twelve? I saw one graphic posted by numnutz on The Drive that showed a hypothetical Eagle with 16 AMRAAMs. Boy, they sure were packed together tight on the inboard station. Bet that would take a bunch of flight testing for stores sep. But I do believe LM could easily get those fourteen (14) plus two 'winders on an F-35. Eight is not "far more" than fourteen. Twelve is not "far more" than fourteen. Now sixteen, if Boing could pull it off, is more than fourteen. But "far more"? Surely you must be joking.
  3. I agree the EX radar is probably adequate for the task of air defense of the Northeast. But how's the sensor fusion and inter-flight fusion going on the EX? It's up and running operationally -- proven on the Lightning. Put a fourship of those velociraptors up, and they can spread out and cover all of New England. Heck, spread some Patriots around the Northeast and the Lightnings can cue them. Can the EX do that? Gimme a break.
  4. "its greater speed would allow it to..." Greater speed? What are you smoking? Last I knew that stuff is still illegal in the New England states. In a later post you state "However, I'd bet a combat configured F-15EX can get higher and faster than a similarly configured F-35." I'll take that bet. Whaddya want to wager? "Combat configured F-15EX"... so... three bags of gas, six AIM-120's and a pair of 'winders? You do recall that your vaunted Eagles only reached 1.2 Mach (maybe 1.4) when they went buster on their own volition on 9/11/2001, don't you? (And not anywhere near 50k feet altitude.) Surely you recall reading around here that an F-35A with full gas, and full internal missiles, now four AIM-120's, within a few years to be six, can hit 1.6 Mach in a no-sh*t, for real, combat configuration. Beasley or Flynn I do believe stated that configuration gets to 50,000ft no problem. (You're going to CAP NYC @ 50grand? Really?) So what is it... you wanna claim higher end top speed for your Shiny EX of 2.5 Mach (or 2.3 or whatever), but then switch around, move the goalposts, and argue "combat configuration" in your next sentence? Fer real?
The Shiny EX had better have great legs. But it's best feature might be the extra seat in back so the AF or ANG can give rides to the fuddy duddies from The Hill.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but try not to state them or your feelings as facts.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7546
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Jun 2021, 06:14

steve2267 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:As much as I'd like to see the F-35 flying around here in MA, I'm not so sure that's the right decision. If the 104th's primary mission is really to defend the Northeast/25% of the population, I would say the F-15EX is probably the most appropriate choice. In that mission, it's large RCS is a non issue and it can carry far more AMRAAM's than the F-35. It's radar is more than up to the task, and its greater speed would allow it to CAP over NYC or intercept a barrage of cruise missiles faster. It should have really good legs too, even assuming no in flight refueling assets are available.


I hope Barnes gets the Shiny EX so that you can feel good about Eagles flying around the Northeast.

But stating "the F-15EX is probably the most appropriate choice" is arguable at best, mocking-inducing folly at worst. Feelings and any requirement to haul hypersonic air-to-air missiles aside, pray tell where the Shiny EX bests the F-35?

So from an argumentative standpoint, point by point:

  1. "it's large RCS is a non issue"... says you. In another thread around here, within the last day or so, a former F-16 driver (now a LM manager / exec) stated that as a defensive counter-air guy, he "really likes" offensive counter-air not knowing where he is. Can't really argue that point if you're dragging a barn door radar reflector around the sky in your Shiny EX.
  2. "it can carry far more AMRAAM's than the F-35." Really? How many can the EX carry? Eight? Twelve? I saw one graphic posted by numnutz on The Drive that showed a hypothetical Eagle with 16 AMRAAMs. Boy, they sure were packed together tight on the inboard station. Bet that would take a bunch of flight testing for stores sep. But I do believe LM could easily get those fourteen (14) plus two 'winders on an F-35. Eight is not "far more" than fourteen. Twelve is not "far more" than fourteen. Now sixteen, if Boing could pull it off, is more than fourteen. But "far more"? Surely you must be joking.
  3. I agree the EX radar is probably adequate for the task of air defense of the Northeast. But how's the sensor fusion and inter-flight fusion going on the EX? It's up and running operationally -- proven on the Lightning. Put a fourship of those velociraptors up, and they can spread out and cover all of New England. Heck, spread some Patriots around the Northeast and the Lightnings can cue them. Can the EX do that? Gimme a break.
  4. "its greater speed would allow it to..." Greater speed? What are you smoking? Last I knew that stuff is still illegal in the New England states. In a later post you state "However, I'd bet a combat configured F-15EX can get higher and faster than a similarly configured F-35." I'll take that bet. Whaddya want to wager? "Combat configured F-15EX"... so... three bags of gas, six AIM-120's and a pair of 'winders? You do recall that your vaunted Eagles only reached 1.2 Mach (maybe 1.4) when they went buster on their own volition on 9/11/2001, don't you? (And not anywhere near 50k feet altitude.) Surely you recall reading around here that an F-35A with full gas, and full internal missiles, now four AIM-120's, within a few years to be six, can hit 1.6 Mach in a no-sh*t, for real, combat configuration. Beasley or Flynn I do believe stated that configuration gets to 50,000ft no problem. (You're going to CAP NYC @ 50grand? Really?) So what is it... you wanna claim higher end top speed for your Shiny EX of 2.5 Mach (or 2.3 or whatever), but then switch around, move the goalposts, and argue "combat configuration" in your next sentence? Fer real?
The Shiny EX had better have great legs. But it's best feature might be the extra seat in back so the AF or ANG can give rides to the fuddy duddies from The Hill.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but try not to state them or your feelings as facts.


A side by side fighter competition between the F-15EX and F-35A would easily settle it. Yet, that will never happen as the former would just be crushed! Which, would be followed shortly by the cancellation of the remaining new built F-15EX's.

Hell, they may even demand an inquiry on why the F-15EX was even selected in the first place???
:bang:
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 543
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post10 Jun 2021, 06:41

mixelflick wrote:The point is, these F-15EX's have to go somewhere. And I'd rather have them in the homeland defense mission than on the front line somewhere. That will be the F-35's domain, where its stealth/SA can be put to best use..


The irony is that it will be somewhat more survivable with EPAWSS than the F-15E's that will be on the front line, at least until the legacy fleet is retrofit. I expect this will take years.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7546
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Jun 2021, 07:15

durahawk wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The point is, these F-15EX's have to go somewhere. And I'd rather have them in the homeland defense mission than on the front line somewhere. That will be the F-35's domain, where its stealth/SA can be put to best use..


The irony is that it will be somewhat more survivable with EPAWSS than the F-15E's that will be on the front line, at least until the legacy fleet is retrofit. I expect this will take years.



My guess is the F-15EX will either supplement or replace the F-15E Strike Eagles. That would make sense.....at least a better solution then trying to replace the F-15C in the Air Defense Role.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 844
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post10 Jun 2021, 08:13

steve2267 wrote:[*]"it's large RCS is a non issue"... says you. In another thread around here, within the last day or so, a former F-16 driver (now a LM manager / exec) stated that as a defensive counter-air guy, he "really likes" offensive counter-air not knowing where he is

Here: viewtopic.php?p=454882#p454882
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 543
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post10 Jun 2021, 15:56

Corsair1963 wrote:My guess is the F-15EX will either supplement or replace the F-15E Strike Eagles. That would make sense.....at least a better solution then trying to replace the F-15C in the Air Defense Role.


You're right it would make sense, but this entire acquisition really only makes sense if you're a Washington bean counter. They are replacing a tactically irrelevant counterair aircraft with a slightly less tactically irrelevant aircraft, especially without near term JATM integration. This was pitched as an F-15C replacement. I fully expect to these things to go to the guard who will utilize them with empty back seats.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4441
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Jun 2021, 16:50

steve2267 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:As much as I'd like to see the F-35 flying around here in MA, I'm not so sure that's the right decision. If the 104th's primary mission is really to defend the Northeast/25% of the population, I would say the F-15EX is probably the most appropriate choice. In that mission, it's large RCS is a non issue and it can carry far more AMRAAM's than the F-35. It's radar is more than up to the task, and its greater speed would allow it to CAP over NYC or intercept a barrage of cruise missiles faster. It should have really good legs too, even assuming no in flight refueling assets are available.


I hope Barnes gets the Shiny EX so that you can feel good about Eagles flying around the Northeast.

But stating "the F-15EX is probably the most appropriate choice" is arguable at best, mocking-inducing folly at worst. Feelings and any requirement to haul hypersonic air-to-air missiles aside, pray tell where the Shiny EX bests the F-35?

So from an argumentative standpoint, point by point:

  1. "it's large RCS is a non issue"... says you. In another thread around here, within the last day or so, a former F-16 driver (now a LM manager / exec) stated that as a defensive counter-air guy, he "really likes" offensive counter-air not knowing where he is. Can't really argue that point if you're dragging a barn door radar reflector around the sky in your Shiny EX.
  2. "it can carry far more AMRAAM's than the F-35." Really? How many can the EX carry? Eight? Twelve? I saw one graphic posted by numnutz on The Drive that showed a hypothetical Eagle with 16 AMRAAMs. Boy, they sure were packed together tight on the inboard station. Bet that would take a bunch of flight testing for stores sep. But I do believe LM could easily get those fourteen (14) plus two 'winders on an F-35. Eight is not "far more" than fourteen. Twelve is not "far more" than fourteen. Now sixteen, if Boing could pull it off, is more than fourteen. But "far more"? Surely you must be joking.
  3. I agree the EX radar is probably adequate for the task of air defense of the Northeast. But how's the sensor fusion and inter-flight fusion going on the EX? It's up and running operationally -- proven on the Lightning. Put a fourship of those velociraptors up, and they can spread out and cover all of New England. Heck, spread some Patriots around the Northeast and the Lightnings can cue them. Can the EX do that? Gimme a break.
  4. "its greater speed would allow it to..." Greater speed? What are you smoking? Last I knew that stuff is still illegal in the New England states. In a later post you state "However, I'd bet a combat configured F-15EX can get higher and faster than a similarly configured F-35." I'll take that bet. Whaddya want to wager? "Combat configured F-15EX"... so... three bags of gas, six AIM-120's and a pair of 'winders? You do recall that your vaunted Eagles only reached 1.2 Mach (maybe 1.4) when they went buster on their own volition on 9/11/2001, don't you? (And not anywhere near 50k feet altitude.) Surely you recall reading around here that an F-35A with full gas, and full internal missiles, now four AIM-120's, within a few years to be six, can hit 1.6 Mach in a no-sh*t, for real, combat configuration. Beasley or Flynn I do believe stated that configuration gets to 50,000ft no problem. (You're going to CAP NYC @ 50grand? Really?) So what is it... you wanna claim higher end top speed for your Shiny EX of 2.5 Mach (or 2.3 or whatever), but then switch around, move the goalposts, and argue "combat configuration" in your next sentence? Fer real?
The Shiny EX had better have great legs. But it's best feature might be the extra seat in back so the AF or ANG can give rides to the fuddy duddies from The Hill.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but try not to state them or your feelings as facts.


Feel better now that you got that out of your system champ?

Relax.

We're talking fighter jets, not politics or religion. I didn't get testy with you (as you have with me), so no need for the temper tantrum. I could debate you point for point but having done so in the past, I know your type. Last word Larry, kicking and screaming all the way so your favorite plane can "win" the day. Amusing at first, tiresome after the first paragraph.

Fun watching your blood pressure go up though..
Previous

Return to F-35 Units

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests