This is a discussion on Will the F-35 replace the F-15 in the USAF? within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; The current 2010 QDR calls for 6 air superiority wings. My assumption is that will includes 2 wings of F-22s ...
The current 2010 QDR calls for 6 air superiority wings. My assumption is that will includes 2 wings of F-22s with 144 out of 187 aircraft and 4 wings of F-35s to replace the F-15 C/D, each wing of 72 aircraft a peace.
Supposedly just 1 F-35 has the air to air capability of 6 F-15s.
So what do you think, will the F-35 actually replace the F-15? If so then the 1763 number will be justified.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
Supposedly just 1 F-35 has the air to air capability of 6 F-15s.
how can this be? the lone f-35 (for sake of argument, even though it would rarely if-ever happen) - can only be in one location at a time ... where as six f-15s (depending on flight pattern/formation, could cover a larger geographical area and react to threats in it's sector quicker
how can this be? the lone f-35 (for sake of argument, even though it would rarely if-ever happen) - can only be in one location at a time ... where as six f-15s (depending on flight pattern/formation, could cover a larger geographical area and react to threats in it's sector quicker
Why do they need to cover a much larger area? A battlespace will be covered by AWACS and or ground or sea radar, the co-ordinates of any potential adversaries can be sent in a secure data stream to aircraft flying in that area so they can intercept. The 6 to 1 ratio then comes into effect where the F-35 is more effective against current threats.
We have come a long way from flying around the skies looking for adversaries using the Mk1 eyeball (hell even at the start of WWII the poms were using radar and radio vectoring), and with LO airframes, you'd normally not have them spread out announcing their locations to the world by using their radars (that's very 1960's).
The F-35's a capable platform, and it can get the job done. I wonder if the ex-F-15 wings which end up getting the F-35 will train multi-role or if they will focus more heavily on air superiority?
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 10,631
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc 1
Why do they need to cover a much larger area? A battlespace will be covered by AWACS and or ground or sea radar, the co-ordinates of any potential adversaries can be sent in a secure data stream to aircraft flying in that area so they can intercept. The 6 to 1 ratio then comes into effect where the F-35 is more effective against current threats.
We have come a long way from flying around the skies looking for adversaries using the Mk1 eyeball (hell even at the start of WWII the poms were using radar and radio vectoring), and with LO airframes, you'd normally not have them spread out announcing their locations to the world by using their radars (that's very 1960's).
That comes into play when instead of 6 squadrons deployed to 6 airbases you have one. And lets imagine those airbases are in different countries around the globe. Maintaining a presence still matters. Maybe not as much on the tactical level but certainly on the strategic.
That comes into play when instead of 6 squadrons deployed to 6 airbases you have one. And lets imagine those airbases are in different countries around the globe. Maintaining a presence still matters. Maybe not as much on the tactical level but certainly on the strategic.
"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that
the first question that comes to everyone's lips is:
'Where's the nearest carrier?'"
President Bill Clinton
March 12, 1993
My guess is that the reducing numbers of Air Force tactical aircraft is going to place a growing amount of extra responsibility on the Navy's carrier battle groups. With overseas bases being closed and the aircraft numbers in given potential trouble spots decreasing, mobile airfields are going to mean more than ever. Ideally the Navy's going to have the F-35C and the Super Hornet to help bridge the gap somewhat. Still, it's not an ideal situation at all, especially if any cuts are made to the purchase of the Ford Class or SLEPs for the Nimitezs.
It's also going to place more and more demands on the USAF to hone and expand its expeditionary capabilities. Of course this capability is heavily influenced by the tanker situation and the need for more airlifters,both of which will hopefully be sorted out by the time the JSF enters service.
Last edited by Kilo 2-3; February 5th, 2010 at 01:14 AM.
Reason: syntax revision
Why do they need to cover a much larger area? A battlespace will be covered by AWACS and or ground or sea radar, the co-ordinates of any potential adversaries can be sent in a secure data stream to aircraft flying in that area so they can intercept. The 6 to 1 ratio then comes into effect where the F-35 is more effective against current threats.
We have come a long way from flying around the skies looking for adversaries using the Mk1 eyeball (hell even at the start of WWII the poms were using radar and radio vectoring), and with LO airframes, you'd normally not have them spread out announcing their locations to the world by using their radars (that's very 1960's).
i didnt mean to give the impression that the fighters would be flying dumb flight-paths looking for adversaries ... but it still takes time and fuel to make an interception - much along the lines that Feanor responded.
I say, procure 5,000 AT-6B prop strike aircraft and arm them with new short, medium, and long range air to air missiles. Let's see an enemy take out 5,000 fighters coming at them. Are the aircraft really as important as the missiles?
I say, procure 5,000 AT-6B prop strike aircraft and arm them with new short, medium, and long range air to air missiles. Let's see an enemy take out 5,000 fighters coming at them. Are the aircraft really as important as the missiles?
What you're proposing would be, by virtue of the platform's lack of survivability and the massed deployment required to be effective, attritional warfare. In an increasingly casualty-averse political climate (to say nothing of the immense cost of training combat pilots) I doubt such a model would ever be adopted.
Additionally these aircraft would be found lacking not only in terms of avionics and electronic systems, but would also suffer from inferior range, response time, service ceiling, payload, etc.
On the other hand, if a simple "spear thrower" type platform is what you're after, something to carry missiles and direct launches with data handed off from a sensor platform (as would most likely be the case with the AT-6), then I think you're rapidly headed into UCAV territory...
The F-35's a capable platform, and it can get the job done. I wonder if the ex-F-15 wings which end up getting the F-35 will train multi-role or if they will focus more heavily on air superiority?
I think the F-15 pilots will stick to air to air only in their shinny new F-35s.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
how can this be? the lone f-35 (for sake of argument, even though it would rarely if-ever happen) - can only be in one location at a time ... where as six f-15s (depending on flight pattern/formation, could cover a larger geographical area and react to threats in it's sector quicker
LM says the F-35 can, AWACS will cover the large geographical area.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
My guess is that the reducing numbers of Air Force tactical aircraft is going to place a growing amount of extra responsibility on the Navy's carrier battle groups.
Not sure they are really reducing, 187 F-22s and 1763 F-35s plus large numbers of unmanned combat drones that will fill the gap of manned fighters, so by 2020 and now the only difference will be 40 aircraft.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
Keeping up basically the same structure, F-15 units will re-equip with the F-35.
Perhaps some joint missions flown by small numbers of F-22 and larger number of F-35 will achieve the same missions objectives as current F-15 missions
Keeping up basically the same structure, F-15 units will re-equip with the F-35.
Perhaps some joint missions flown by small numbers of F-22 and larger number of F-35 will achieve the same missions objectives as current F-15 missions
Doctrine's going to change a bit with the advent of more and more LO aircraft in the US order of battle. Add to this the growing focus on BVR combat and I think there's a very good chance of many nations, especially, the USAF switching to smaller two-ship CAPs.
In my opinion, the currently (relatively) low numbers of F-22s would favor these smaller tactical formations.
Any thoughts on these points from those with fighter background?
And lets imagine those airbases are in different countries around the globe. Maintaining a presence still matters. Maybe not as much on the tactical level but certainly on the strategic.
