Barnes ANG: F-15EX or F-35s?

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8716
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 May 2022, 03:02

charlielima223 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Technically speaking, the B-1B and B-52 are "obsolete" yet still provide a lot of functionality and usefulness.



There are really no alternatives to either type (B-1 - B-52) until the B-21s come online later this decade. Plus, they have a very different mission set than fighters. Really, that is a very apples and oranges comparison.


Yet according to your logic those aircraft shouldnt be in operation because they are obsolete because of the B-2 exists. By your logic the Buff will be obsolete the moment the B-21 enters service and yet the old mighty Buff is said to continue service all the way to and through 2050.


According to your logic in 1942, the Allied Powers should have still been operating Bi-Plane fighters. Because they still offer some capability........


:roll:
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1569
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post12 May 2022, 04:08

Corsair1963 wrote:
According to your logic in 1942, the Allied Powers should have still been operating Bi-Plane fighters. Because they still offer some capability........


:roll:


Im no military aviation major but what British bi-plane was largely seen as "obsolete" at the outbreak of WW2 yet in 1940 was able to damage and sink Italian battleships in port. Then again in 1941 was instrumental in defeating Germany's famous and latest battleship the Bismark? Oh yeah... this, the Fairey Swordfish.

Image

What large single prop aircraft designed during WW2 saw service and combat use through Korea and Vietnam? Wasnt retired from active use until the 1973 when pretty much all aircraft were jet powered? I think it also credited with the first air-to-air kill on behalf of the US in Vietnam. It served both the USN and USAF and at the time was the preferred Sandy aircraft.

Oh yeah this rugged old beast...
Image

Both these aircraft were seen by many as "obsolete".
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8716
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 May 2022, 04:35

charlielima223 wrote:
Both these aircraft were seen by many as "obsolete".



What honestly don't you get???

Ok you bring up the Swordfish..........in 1944 if anyone had the choice to fly into combat and say attack the Imperial Japanese Fleet. Which, aircraft would you want to risk your life with?


The Swordfish....

SFB.jpg


....or the Avenger?

TBM69A.jpg


:shock:

Do I also have to make similar comparisons between the P-51 and F-86 or F-35 and F-15EX??? :roll:
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1569
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post12 May 2022, 05:10

Corsair1963 wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:
Both these aircraft were seen by many as "obsolete".



What honestly don't you get???

Ok you bring up the Swordfish..........in 1944 if anyone had the choice to fly into combat and say attack the Imperial Japanese Fleet. Which, aircraft would you want to risk your life with?


The Swordfish....

SFB.jpg


....or the Avenger?

TBM69A.jpg


:shock:

Do I also have to make similar comparisons between the P-51 and F-86 or F-35 and F-15EX??? :roll:


You said...
The F-15EXs would be fine for the next few years. Yet, after 2030 they don't offer much......(obsolete)


I said...
old but not obsolete


Down the line after you responded to others calling out your "obsolete argument". I expanded and clarified my position on what is considered obsolete in your point of view... pay attention to what I stated as it seemed to have flown pass you (no pun intended)
Being obsolete means being superseded to the point of no longer having function or purpose. Will F-16V and F-15EX be as effective in current or near future conflicts as F-35 or F-22? No. Will F-16V or F-15EX still be used to fill a certain capacity or role? Most likely and/or yes. Then there is the FACT that not all nations will be flying F-35 or similar for some time. Until then aircraft like Rafale, Super Hornet, variations of Eagles, and Viper will still be in service.


I am stating these aircraft were not obsolete in accordance to the definition provided in context with military operations and application. If every aircraft before the F-35 is considered obsolete because the F-35 is operational, then we should stop flying these aircraft tomorrow because they serve no function or purpose. I think one time you even went so far as to claim the F-22 was obsolete in its air dominance mission/role because of the F-35... :doh:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8716
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 May 2022, 05:15

charlielima223 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:
Both these aircraft were seen by many as "obsolete".



What honestly don't you get???

Ok you bring up the Swordfish..........in 1944 if anyone had the choice to fly into combat and say attack the Imperial Japanese Fleet. Which, aircraft would you want to risk your life with?


The Swordfish....

SFB.jpg


....or the Avenger?

TBM69A.jpg


:shock:

Do I also have to make similar comparisons between the P-51 and F-86 or F-35 and F-15EX??? :roll:


You said...
The F-15EXs would be fine for the next few years. Yet, after 2030 they don't offer much......(obsolete)


I said...
old but not obsolete


Down the line after you responded to others calling out your "obsolete argument". I expanded and clarified my position on what is considered obsolete in your point of view... pay attention to what I stated as it seemed to have flown pass you (no pun intended)
Being obsolete means being superseded to the point of no longer having function or purpose. Will F-16V and F-15EX be as effective in current or near future conflicts as F-35 or F-22? No. Will F-16V or F-15EX still be used to fill a certain capacity or role? Most likely and/or yes. Then there is the FACT that not all nations will be flying F-35 or similar for some time. Until then aircraft like Rafale, Super Hornet, variations of Eagles, and Viper will still be in service.


I am stating these aircraft were not obsolete in accordance to the definition provided in context with military operations and application. If every aircraft before the F-35 is considered obsolete because the F-35 is operational, then we should stop flying these aircraft tomorrow because they serve no function or purpose. I think one time you even went so far as to claim the F-22 was obsolete in its air dominance mission/role because of the F-35... :doh:


Honestly, you just look foolish......
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1569
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post12 May 2022, 22:46

Corsair1963 wrote:
Honestly, you just look foolish......


Dont be mad that your fanboi bs was called out and that you dont know how to properly use the word "obsolete" in proper context. So then your recourse was to try and deflect to, "oh well it all depends on what aircraft the pilot would choose".

Well if a fighter pilot had a choice between a block 5 F-35 and a super duper uber fighter aircraft with a combat range of 3000km, tops out at mach 5, is armed with a phased plasma cannon in the 100GW range fires as fast as a GAU-8, and manuevers via an inertial dampening field... what aircraft do you think that pilot will pick?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8716
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 May 2022, 01:56

charlielima223 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Honestly, you just look foolish......


Dont be mad that your fanboi bs was called out and that you dont know how to properly use the word "obsolete" in proper context. So then your recourse was to try and deflect to, "oh well it all depends on what aircraft the pilot would choose".

Well if a fighter pilot had a choice between a block 5 F-35 and a super duper uber fighter aircraft with a combat range of 3000km, tops out at mach 5, is armed with a phased plasma cannon in the 100GW range fires as fast as a GAU-8, and manuevers via an inertial dampening field... what aircraft do you think that pilot will pick?



Again you look foolish....Honestly, go waste someone else's time!
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4138
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 May 2022, 14:12

charlielima223 wrote:Im no military aviation major but what British bi-plane was largely seen as "obsolete" at the outbreak of WW2 yet in 1940 was able to damage and sink Italian battleships in port. Then again in 1941 was instrumental in defeating Germany's famous and latest battleship the Bismark? Oh yeah... this, the Fairey Swordfish.


Don't get me wrong but your Swordfish example/argument is severely and totally flawed and here's why:
The Fairey Swordfish is actually an example that proves that old tech aircraft are instantly obsolete when they go to war (and not the other way around like you say). While it's a fact that the Fairey Swordfish had its moment of glory during the sinking of Bismark and the Battle of Taranto in 1941 but this doesn't tell the whole story! Lets look at each case individually:
1- Lets' start with the Bismark: The battleship was attacked in the middle of the Atlantic and thus it didn't have any air cover (for instance note that Germany didn't have carriers) and Bismark wasn't even protected by other ships. So basically the Swordfish Torpedo Bombers didn't have any opposition apart from the Bismark's own AAA guns.
2- The Battle of Taranto: The Swordfish Torpedo Bombers were attacking an enemy - Italy - whose air force was also mainly composed by old and outdated fighter aircraft such as this:
Image
and with some rarer examples of this:
Image

The Battle of Taranto was also a surprise attack which the Italians simply didn't expect and as such weren't prepared for and so and again the Swordfish Torpedo Bombers were again, basically unopposed!
Apart from these two exceptions/"oddities" the Fairey Swordfish was completely outdated and wasn't able to accomplish any meaningful success elsewhere.
For example later in 1944 and in order to be able to attack the Tirpitz battleship (Bismark's sister ship) while docked in Norway the Royal Navy had to use more modern and advanced Fairey Barracuda torpedo bombers:
Image

On top of this the Royal Navy needed to hastily procure Grumman Avenger torpedo bombers from the Americans in order to effective conduct warfare in both the Pacific and Atlantic.

Bottom line: Imagine how much more effective the Royal Navy would have been if for example it used the Fairey Barracuda torpedo bomber from the very beginning instead of the outdated and obsolete Swordfish?!


charlielima223 wrote:What large single prop aircraft designed during WW2 saw service and combat use through Korea and Vietnam? Wasnt retired from active use until the 1973 when pretty much all aircraft were jet powered? I think it also credited with the first air-to-air kill on behalf of the US in Vietnam. It served both the USN and USAF and at the time was the preferred Sandy aircraft.

Oh yeah this rugged old beast...

Both these aircraft were seen by many as "obsolete".


Which again proves what we've been saying! The A-1 was used in a secondary role as well as all those old aircraft. Or resuming, they weren't used as frontline fighter/combat aircraft in those wars. And even in those secondary roles aircraft like the A-1 were deemed obsolete to the point that replacements were hastily developed. For example the A-10 was hastily developed as a replacement for the A-1.

What you say are just very small examples that the exception confirms the rule!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4887
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 Jun 2022, 13:10

Well, another week goes by - and nothing. First we heard it would be by the end of the year (2021), nothing doin'. Then it was "by the end of March, 2022, nothin'. Now it's "by the end of June". What could be taking them so long?

Perhaps there won't be enough F-15EX to go around, if the buy is capped at 80. Then you have the F-35 still not being built in the numbers originally planned so..... I wonder. Something is going to have to replace our geriatric old F-15C's. I sure hope USAF learns from this (and the F-22 debacle, which precipitated this). It looks really, really bad IMO from the outside looking in.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1673
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post18 Jun 2022, 13:57

It looks like they are getting an extra 7 more F-35a to 40 and 6 less f-15ex to 18 in the budget.
https://www.airforcemag.com/house-panel ... ugh-funds/
Aussie fanboy
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4887
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Jun 2022, 15:31

optimist wrote:It looks like they are getting an extra 7 more F-35a to 40 and 6 less f-15ex to 18 in the budget.
https://www.airforcemag.com/house-panel ... ugh-funds/


40 more F-35's are quite welcome, though still far short IMO of what's needed to modernized the fleet quickly. 6 less F-15EX... I dunno. 18 is still a fair number to be buying, especially considering it costs MORE than an F-35 (unit price, anyway). It never made any sense to me, procuring it in the first place. But limiting the buy to 80 makes even less sense, especially if you believe what USAF has said about how fast it can re-capitalize the F-15C fleet, carry very large/outsize hypersonic weapons, don't always need full up stealth etc..

The F-15EX is still early enough to kill outright (all or nothing kinda guy here, LOL). It's either kill it now and accelerate NGAD/other priorties or buy enough of them to recapitalize the F-15C guard units and replace the strike Eagle's (which I suspect will be the real "end game", considering how in demand that platform is).
Previous

Return to F-35 Units

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests