F-15 to stay in service until at least 2025.

[F-15 Eagle]

The U.S. Air Force said it will keep 178 F-15C and 224 F-15E in service until 2025 because the F-22 Raptor program was cut to just 183 aircraft even though the air force says it needs 381 F-22s. F-15s that the air force will keep is called the Golden Eagles and they will get upgrades to there radar, aveonics and structural improvements.:ar15

[rjmaz1]

Big mistake in my opinion.

The USAF worked out that it is getting nearly 200 fewer F-22 than it requires and that it would need a total of 400 F-15's to perform that role. The USAF originally worked out that it needed 4 F-15's to do the role of a single F-15.

So really 800 F-15's would be required, though the debate of quality versus quantity is popular as one aircraft can only be at one spot at once. So 4 to 1 may be a little too high.

The "anti-F22" party then revised this to require only 2 F-15's per F-22. This then made the F-15 a more attractive option as 200 F-22's would cost too much and only 400 F-15's would be required. This effectively capped the F-22 at only 183 aircraft.

The USAF knows that 400 F-15's will not be as superior as 200 F-22's. In fact as few as 100 F-22's may well do the job better. The USAF needs to play nicely and admit that it is willing to exchange the 400 F-15's for only 100 F-22's. This would then make the F-22 the more attractive option. 100 F-22's would mean atleast 300 fewer pilots would be required compared to the F-15 option. Thats a massive dollar saving in operational costs. Within 10 years the F-22 option would have paid for itself.

Of course you'd all of a sudden have heaps of spare pilots.. You'd transfer them to the F-16 and F-35 and reduce the intake for new pilots to let the total number of pilots naturally fall due to pilots retiring etc.

If it was me i would exchange all 400 F-15's for any amount of F-22's. If they would only give me 50 more F-22's i'd still take that option! The money saved every year in operational costs would free up so much money that if all else fails you could buy F-35's instead which is also better than the F-15 option.

I dont see any advantage of operating the F-15's the only argument is to keep the quantity of aircraft up.. Quanity is the role of the F-16 and F-35 as they are cheap to buy and operate. In the case of the F35 its also far superior as well.

The idea of "radar, aveonics and structural improvements" to the current eagle fleet is just throwing more money down the drain. If anything you'd not spend a cent on the eagle fleet and just use them for daily patrolling duties. But again thats what the F-16's are for!!!!!

From what i've seen most people on here agree with retiring the F-15's. As we are a smart bunch.

Die Eagle Die

[F-15 Eagle]

Big mistake in my opinion.

The USAF worked out that it is getting nearly 200 fewer F-22 than it requires and that it would need a total of 400 F-15's to perform that role. The USAF originally worked out that it needed 4 F-15's to do the role of a single F-15.

So really 800 F-15's would be required, though the debate of quality versus quantity is popular as one aircraft can only be at one spot at once. So 4 to 1 may be a little too high.

The "anti-F22" party then revised this to require only 2 F-15's per F-22. This then made the F-15 a more attractive option as 200 F-22's would cost too much and only 400 F-15's would be required. This effectively capped the F-22 at only 183 aircraft.

The USAF knows that 400 F-15's will not be as superior as 200 F-22's. In fact as few as 100 F-22's may well do the job better. The USAF needs to play nicely and admit that it is willing to exchange the 400 F-15's for only 100 F-22's. This would then make the F-22 the more attractive option. 100 F-22's would mean atleast 300 fewer pilots would be required compared to the F-15 option. Thats a massive dollar saving in operational costs. Within 10 years the F-22 option would have paid for itself.

Of course you'd all of a sudden have heaps of spare pilots.. You'd transfer them to the F-16 and F-35 and reduce the intake for new pilots to let the total number of pilots naturally fall due to pilots retiring etc.

If it was me i would exchange all 400 F-15's for any amount of F-22's. If they would only give me 50 more F-22's i'd still take that option! The money saved every year in operational costs would free up so much money that if all else fails you could buy F-35's instead which is also better than the F-15 option.

I dont see any advantage of operating the F-15's the only argument is to keep the quantity of aircraft up.. Quanity is the role of the F-16 and F-35 as they are cheap to buy and operate. In the case of the F35 its also far superior as well.

The idea of "radar, aveonics and structural improvements" to the current eagle fleet is just throwing more money down the drain. If anything you'd not spend a cent on the eagle fleet and just use them for daily patrolling duties. But again thats what the F-16's are for!!!!!

From what i've seen most people on here agree with retiring the F-15's. As we are a smart bunch.

Die Eagle Die

Yeah but since there only allowed to get 183 F-22s that means the Air Force has to keep around 400 F-15 to meet all the services obligations. And I don't think your are a smart bunch, no offense.

[icelord]

Lets be serious bout this, would the USAF want to deploy the F-22 to go up against SU27 or F-15? You'd want the one that has the best chance of beating the opposition, so F22 obviously.
Do they not realise that by not ordering now or proposing future purchase, they risk the same problem of the C17 line, transport aircraft becoming obsolete and the only capable aircraft's production line closing.
I think its beyond stupid to even hold these back, do they jack up the prices, seeing how these F22s will be rare aircraft in the world, with only 180 available anywhere much like you would with a Ferrari.
Can someone explain why you would really build so few, refuse sale overseas to allied countries and then extend the life of an aircraft to be obsolete 5-10 years before you retire it.

[rjmaz1]

Yeah but since there only allowed to get 183 F-22s that means the Air Force has to keep around 400 F-15 to meet all the services obligations. And I don't think your are a smart bunch, no offense.
No offence taken, i didn't expect you to understand.

Yes if only 183 F-22's were ordered then yes 400 F-15's are required to meet all the service obligations. You are correct in stating that. That does not mean a total of 583 aircraft is required.. If 250 F-22's were ordered then for instance only 200 F-15's may be required to meet all service obligations. If 300 F-22's were ordered the F-15's may not be required at all as 300 F-22 can meet all perceived and current threats.

The F-22 can elimate more enemy aircraft compared to the F-15.
Less F-22's are needed to eliminate a given number of enemy aircraft.
The F-22 can cover a larger area due to its speed.
It requires less support assets due to stealth and speed.
Less support assets require less escorts for those assets.

The service obligation has no set quanitity or quality for that matter. This is directly related to the capability of the fighter. If the enemy has four SU-30's and an AWAC then the USAF may need eight F-15's to eliminate the enemy. Where as with the F-22 only two aircraft would be needed to elimate the enemy with similar level of risk.

The 183 F-22's ordered is not set in stone. For all we know the F-35 may turn out so good that the USAF may not require more F-22's. Or the 400 F-15's may end up getting retired early not to be replaced by additional F-22's but F-35's.

The F-35's are stated to replace the second tier F-16's first up the F-15's second up and the A-10's towards the end of the production line. However if the F-35 turns out so good that it is much better than the F-15 first tier aircraft then the USAF may well replace the F-15's first and the F-16's second. Considering the F-16's are much cheaper to operate and have more life left this would be a good option.

Again nothing is set in stone.

If budgets are cut then you cant just reduce the number of aircraft purchased as it dramatcally increases the purchase price. You have to operate or purchase fewer aircraft types. The F-22 has gone ahead and teh F-35 cant be stopped. If the F-35 requires additional funding the F-15 will be the first on the chopping block.

Just look how quickly the F-117 was axed. As soon as they worked out the F-22 could do the job it was shelved. The USAF stated it was going to keep the F-117's for a long time just like this articles states about the F-15's.

If the F-35 can perform air to air duties better than the F-15.
If the F-35 can perform strike missions better than the F-15E.
If the F-35 can travel further with more endurance than the F-15.
If the F-35 is significantly cheaper to operate than the F-35.

If these are true (which they should be) the F-15 will start being retired as soon as the F-35 becomes operational. Or even sooner if additional F-22 gets ordered.

[FiredForEffect]

"If the F-35 can perform air to air duties better than the F-15."

Is that just speculation or have there been competititons?

[f-22fan12]

The U.S. Air Force said it will keep 178 F-15C and 224 F-15E in service until 2025 because the F-22 Raptor program was cut to just 183 aircraft even though the air force says it needs 381 F-22s. F-15s that the air force will keep is called the Golden Eagles and they will get upgrades to there radar, aveonics and structural improvements.:ar15

I think it is a good thing for the USAF. I do think however that the Eagles will need upgrades. (as mentioned) They should receive new engines,avionics, and new maintenence. (like the F-15K) Congress should okay funding for at least 100 more F-22s to bring the total to around 280. The F-22s are needed to perform all kinds of missions that are vital to our ability to wage and win war. It is the F-22 that will maintain U.S. air superiority for decades to come. NOT the F-15. I do not think the air force should get 381 F-22s. That would be faaaaar to expensive to fund. 280 is a reasonable and more affordable number. The Cold War is over, they don't need 381 F-22A Raptors.

The F-22A rules the sky. :)

[Scorpion82]

I have some doubts that the F-35 will be such a capable fighter. I don't think it would be bad, but its payload capability is very limited when full LO is required and its flight performance is not going to be incredible. I'm sure the F-35 will provide a robust and capable AA platform, but I have some serious doubts that it is fully suited to the requirements to fill the gap of the F-15. Reducing the number of types in service would save a lot of money, which could be used for further F-22 purchases. The F-35's price is still uncertain and the USAF has already cut the total number making it increasingly more difficult to replace all F-16s and A-10s, if the F-35 should be required to replace the F-15 as well the situation won't be bettered.

[shimmy]

Although [I] am a big fan of the f-22, lets consider some possibilities:What is the real likelihood that ASAF fighters would be attacked by Su-24,25,27,30 ?Dosn't that low probability say that we can get alonng with fewer f-22's that originally were asked for?
I believe that the chance of an attack by Russia, Belarus, Ukraine , etc is extremely low for the next five-seven years.
The same would be true, i feel for any other nation except for possibly North Korea and/or Iran. For either of these nations we could send in multiple fighters ,be they f-15's,f-16's,f-18's; for each attacking plane.
The f-22 is a great(probably the best) fighter/intc but it is expensive. Bush/Cheney spent so much on Iraq that we have a short fall for several years.
The f-15 still is a great plane and, I believe , has never been downed.I am sure that sending 2 X F-15's or 2XF-16's or 2Xf-18s ,with American pilots can easily down any Sukhoi or Mig manned by North Koreans or Persian pilots. I feel that that statement is true even if the pilots were trained in either PRC or any of the Russias.

[Scorpion82]

Although [I] am a big fan of the f-22, lets consider some possibilities:What is the real likelihood that ASAF fighters would be attacked by Su-24,25,27,30 ?Dosn't that low probability say that we can get alonng with fewer f-22's that originally were asked for?
I believe that the chance of an attack by Russia, Belarus, Ukraine , etc is extremely low for the next five-seven years.
The same would be true, i feel for any other nation except for possibly North Korea and/or Iran. For either of these nations we could send in multiple fighters ,be they f-15's,f-16's,f-18's; for each attacking plane.
The f-22 is a great(probably the best) fighter/intc but it is expensive. Bush/Cheney spent so much on Iraq that we have a short fall for several years.
The f-15 still is a great plane and, I believe , has never been downed.I am sure that sending 2 X F-15's or 2XF-16's or 2Xf-18s ,with American pilots can easily down any Sukhoi or Mig manned by North Koreans or Persian pilots. I feel that that statement is true even if the pilots were trained in either PRC or any of the Russias.

Next 5-7 years? You know that this isn't much time. The F-22 is designed to fullfil the USAFs needs for the next 30-40 years or more. Therefore a larger number is desirable. Thinking that the well trained US pilots will down everything with their legacy jets is quite optimistic and unrealistic. Advanced fighters such as new Su-30MK, MiG-29SMT/M/35 are sold abroad and an increasing number of airforces acquires these advanced fighters. Having a superior fighter like the F-22 is a must to ensure you have something to counter the enemies best planes. And you have to take into account that a smaller number of Raptors is quickly used up and needs replace. Assuming the Raptor will be as heavily tasked as the USAFs current fleet they are not going to serve as long as intended. This means you need a replacement earlier what increases costs. Now procuring a larger number of Raptors would safe money in the long terms and assure the required capabilities for a given period of time.

[F-15 Eagle]

I have some doubts that the F-35 will be such a capable fighter. I don't think it would be bad, but its payload capability is very limited when full LO is required and its flight performance is not going to be incredible. I'm sure the F-35 will provide a robust and capable AA platform, but I have some serious doubts that it is fully suited to the requirements to fill the gap of the F-15. Reducing the number of types in service would save a lot of money, which could be used for further F-22 purchases. The F-35's price is still uncertain and the USAF has already cut the total number making it increasingly more difficult to replace all F-16s and A-10s, if the F-35 should be required to replace the F-15 as well the situation won't be bettered.

The F-35's payload is not limited, using both internal and external weapons it can carry 10 air to air missiles or 4 air to air missiles and 6 2000lbs bombs. Thats 2 more missiles than the F-15, though it can't carry as much bombs as the F-15E.

[Scorpion82]

The F-35's payload is not limited, using both internal and external weapons it can carry 10 air to air missiles or 4 air to air missiles and 6 2000lbs bombs. Thats 2 more missiles than the F-15, though it can't carry as much bombs as the F-15E.

Using weapons externally would compromise the aircraft's stealth capabilities. With reduced stealth the aircraft would more rely on traditional countermeasures and good flight performance. Though I wouldn't say that there will be no ECM, I have never heared about it and I have some doubts that the aircraft will receive a comprehensive suite including TRDs. Some might argue that the APG-81 provides an electronic attack/jamming capability, but that is limited to the flight direction. Flight performance will get even worth either, if AAMs are carried externally. These are the limitations. The F-35 is no real adequate replacement for any F-15 in m opinion. Of course it is possible to replace a type with a new less optimised type as long as the aircraft is able to perform the role, but if it suits the requirements is another question.

[F-15 Eagle]

Using weapons externally would compromise the aircraft's stealth capabilities. With reduced stealth the aircraft would more rely on traditional countermeasures and good flight performance. Though I wouldn't say that there will be no ECM, I have never heared about it and I have some doubts that the aircraft will receive a comprehensive suite including TRDs. Some might argue that the APG-81 provides an electronic attack/jamming capability, but that is limited to the flight direction. Flight performance will get even worth either, if AAMs are carried externally. These are the limitations. The F-35 is no real adequate replacement for any F-15 in m opinion. Of course it is possible to replace a type with a new less optimised type as long as the aircraft is able to perform the role, but if it suits the requirements is another question.

Even using external weapons, the F-35 is still a lot stealthier than any other fighter jet out there with the exception of the F-22.

[Scorpion82]

Even using external weapons, the F-35 is still a lot stealthier than any other fighter jet out there with the exception of the F-22.

That's right, but the question is, will the F-35 still be effective enough.

[F-15 Eagle]

That's right, but the question is, will the F-35 still be effective enough.

It performed well in flight testing.

[Scorpion82]

It performed well in flight testing.

In some 2 or 3 dozen flights? Lol sorry but performing well in early test flights doesn't say much about the final product. I don't doubt that the F-35 will be a capable aircraft with sufficient, but not ground breaking performance.

[shimmy]

I still do not understand why" a large number" of raptors are needed NOW. I think the USAF is quite well prepared for the next 5 years at least.By adding "smallish" numbers of F-22's each year we will be able to develop a strong force and stay within the boundaries of the next military budgets-ones that must be smaller each year because of the useless spending in Iraq.(buying Suburbans by the hundreds does not protect the USA.)
Of course everyone here would love to have an air force of 500 f-22's and 500 F-35's but the money for that force can now be found in Cayman Island accounts of Iraqi bigwigs and in American accounts of Cheney and Republican supporters.
As an American ,I feel safe with a comparatively small number of Raptors now to supplement the 16's,15's and 18's . As the bill for Iraq lessens , more Raptors can be purchased.

[F-15 Eagle]

In some 2 or 3 dozen flights? Lol sorry but performing well in early test flights doesn't say much about the final product. I don't doubt that the F-35 will be a capable aircraft with sufficient, but not ground breaking performance.

You don't know that, you will just have to wait and see.

[Scorpion82]

You don't know that, you will just have to wait and see.

I know because the important steps were reported. But F-35 isn't certified for max g, aoa etc.. The aircraft hasn't even been flown very high or with supersonic speed. The avionics are still very much under development and comprehensive tests for validate its stealthiness hasn't been conducted. All this will take time and we can only wait and see what will happen.

[tphuang]

Big mistake in my opinion.

The USAF worked out that it is getting nearly 200 fewer F-22 than it requires and that it would need a total of 400 F-15's to perform that role. The USAF originally worked out that it needed 4 F-15's to do the role of a single F-15.

So really 800 F-15's would be required, though the debate of quality versus quantity is popular as one aircraft can only be at one spot at once. So 4 to 1 may be a little too high.

The "anti-F22" party then revised this to require only 2 F-15's per F-22. This then made the F-15 a more attractive option as 200 F-22's would cost too much and only 400 F-15's would be required. This effectively capped the F-22 at only 183 aircraft.

The USAF knows that 400 F-15's will not be as superior as 200 F-22's. In fact as few as 100 F-22's may well do the job better. The USAF needs to play nicely and admit that it is willing to exchange the 400 F-15's for only 100 F-22's. This would then make the F-22 the more attractive option. 100 F-22's would mean atleast 300 fewer pilots would be required compared to the F-15 option. Thats a massive dollar saving in operational costs. Within 10 years the F-22 option would have paid for itself.

Of course you'd all of a sudden have heaps of spare pilots.. You'd transfer them to the F-16 and F-35 and reduce the intake for new pilots to let the total number of pilots naturally fall due to pilots retiring etc.

If it was me i would exchange all 400 F-15's for any amount of F-22's. If they would only give me 50 more F-22's i'd still take that option! The money saved every year in operational costs would free up so much money that if all else fails you could buy F-35's instead which is also better than the F-15 option.

I dont see any advantage of operating the F-15's the only argument is to keep the quantity of aircraft up.. Quanity is the role of the F-16 and F-35 as they are cheap to buy and operate. In the case of the F35 its also far superior as well.

The idea of "radar, aveonics and structural improvements" to the current eagle fleet is just throwing more money down the drain. If anything you'd not spend a cent on the eagle fleet and just use them for daily patrolling duties. But again thats what the F-16's are for!!!!!

From what i've seen most people on here agree with retiring the F-15's. As we are a smart bunch.

Die Eagle Die

don't think about this singularly. They are operating in a system. F-15E with updated avionics is probably still the best fighter out there for the strike role.

In terms of A2A with all the supporting USAF assets, F-15C still has superiority against everything else.

[Satorian]

What are the latest official statements on the (V)2 and (V)3 integration schedule / road map? Can somebody link me to an article or press release? I'd like to have some more details on it.

[Aussie Digger]

What are the latest official statements on the (V)2 and (V)3 integration schedule / road map? Can somebody link me to an article or press release? I'd like to have some more details on it.

http://www.pacaf.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123061452

[Satorian]

Thank you for the link!

I have to say the content sounds a bit odd and different from the general assumptions here.

To me it reads like only two squads (Elmendorf and Kadena) will get the v2 ("and that's all there will ever be in the inventory for the Air Force"), with the Elmendorf units being moved to Kadena once the F-22 goes to Alaska, and the rest of the F-15C squads getting other miscellaneous upgrades only.

And no v3 is being mentioned at all. What gives?

[swerve]

Thank you for the link!

I have to say the content sounds a bit odd and different from the general assumptions here.

To me it reads like only two squads (Elmendorf and Kadena) will get the v2 ("and that's all there will ever be in the inventory for the Air Force"), with the Elmendorf units being moved to Kadena once the F-22 goes to Alaska, and the rest of the F-15C squads getting other miscellaneous upgrades only.

And no v3 is being mentioned at all. What gives?

Raytheon says plenty about V3, e.g.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=742575&TICK=RTNB&STORY=/www/story/08-07-2006/0004411412

And I found this -
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/execution/reprogramming/fy2006/prior1415s/06-22%20PA%20Omnibus%202006-Final-Implementation-9-30-06.pdf
See page 47 - APG-63(V)3 for 12 ANG F-15C - HAC DENIED. I think that means funding not approved.

(courtesy of your friendly neighbourhood search engine)

[Aussie Digger]

Thank you for the link!

I have to say the content sounds a bit odd and different from the general assumptions here.

To me it reads like only two squads (Elmendorf and Kadena) will get the v2 ("and that's all there will ever be in the inventory for the Air Force"), with the Elmendorf units being moved to Kadena once the F-22 goes to Alaska, and the rest of the F-15C squads getting other miscellaneous upgrades only.

And no v3 is being mentioned at all. What gives?

178x aircraft is a tad more than 2x squadrons.

Elmendorf and Kadena are air bases, not squadrons.

178 aircraft should be enough to equip 6x operational squadrons, add this to 6x F-22 Squadrons and maybe 17-18 F-35 Squadrons and the USAF will maintain it's formidable status quite nicely I should think...

[swerve]

Thank you for the link!

I have to say the content sounds a bit odd and different from the general assumptions here.

To me it reads like only two squads (Elmendorf and Kadena) will get the v2 ("and that's all there will ever be in the inventory for the Air Force"), with the Elmendorf units being moved to Kadena once the F-22 goes to Alaska, and the rest of the F-15C squads getting other miscellaneous upgrades only.

And no v3 is being mentioned at all. What gives?

I've just re-read it. It doesn't say anything about any more (v)2 uprgrades.

"Under this program 178 F-15's will receive a wide variety of upgrades over the next 10 years, which will allow the jet to stay up-to-date. The v2 AESA radar system was part of this program"
and
'"Congress funded [a specific number of] systems and that's all there will ever be in the inventory for the Air Force," said Staff Sgt. Joseph Romero, 18th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron avionics specialist. "We will receive all of the [v2 AESA-equipped] jets. The remaining aircraft are currently assigned to Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. As Alaska receives the F-22's to replace the F-15C's Kadena will get the remaining [aircraft]."'

To me, that says
(1) 178 F-15s will be (or have been) upgraded. The APG-63(v)2 upgrade was part of the upgrade programme.
(2) The (v)2 F-15s at Elmendorf will all go to Kadena. F-22 will be stationed at Elmendorf in their place.
(3) There will be no more (v)2 F-15 upgrades (well, duuh!)

This does not preclude (v)3 upgrades being done to others from the 178. AFAIK, the (v)3 upgrade has not yet been funded.

[F-15 Eagle]

I know because the important steps were reported. But F-35 isn't certified for max g, aoa etc.. The aircraft hasn't even been flown very high or with supersonic speed. The avionics are still very much under development and comprehensive tests for validate its stealthiness hasn't been conducted. All this will take time and we can only wait and see what will happen.

For your information the F-35 can fly at 1200mph or close to mach 2 and can pull up to 9g in a tight turn, they already done that in the F-35. They already flew at 40,000 ft well the F-35 can go higher it is a start, they already tested the stealth and the avionics have been developed or they would'nt be able to fly the F-35. I like to know were you got that information.

[Scorpion82]

For your information the F-35 can fly at 1200mph or close to mach 2 and can pull up to 9g in a tight turn, they already done that in the F-35. They already flew at 40,000 ft well the F-35 can go higher it is a start, they already tested the stealth and the avionics have been developed or they would'nt be able to fly the F-35. I like to know were you got that information.

The other way round prove that the F-35 has done it. They have developed parts of the avionics, but you have no mission critical systems onboard the current AA-1. Stealth has been tested to a limited degree but not in a complex environment. You seem not to be aware about the complexity and process of testing. There is a reason why the entire test programme is set up for 10000 flight hours. You can't expect that the aircraft has already demonstrated it within some 3 dozen or so flights. There is a difference between what is planned and what has been demonstrated so far. If all that would be that easy and the aircraft being as developed as you suggest (which is out of any reality) it would enter service next year or so, but that isn't going to happen!

[Satorian]

Didn't the 04/2007 Code One issue say (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2007/articles/apr_07/flighttest/index.html) that the AA-1 they are flying is a pre-weight shave model mainly for preliminary aero studies and systems integration and other miscellaneous testing?

I would find it hard to believe that they did any kind of stress testing like pulling 9g, because the data would not seem to be very conclusive for the real model and might only endanger their schedule with other testing work that can already be done on the AA-1.

Or was there a change since April? Did they introduce another test bed?




As for the F-15, I stand corrected on the number that is planned to receive the (V)3 as well as have to say that I misread the article. With Aussie Digger's and swerve's explanation it certainly makes sense. (Although I would still claim that the article wasn't written with a very high degree of semantic precision. :p: )

[Scorpion82]

I would find it hard to believe that they did any kind of stress testing like pulling 9g, because the data would not seem to be very conclusive for the real model and might only endanger their schedule with other testing work that can already be done on the AA-1.

Or was there a change since April? Did they introduce another test bed?


You are right on that ;)

[gf0012-aust]

And I don't think your are a smart bunch, no offense.

Well, considering the fact that there are a couple of Defence Journos registered on the site, a few pilots, test engineers, service personnel and a number industry professionals - then I'm curious as to your expertise.

Perhaps you can go top the members introductory area and fill us all in on your level of professional expertise.

While you are at it, read the Forum Rules before passing any more similar comments.

Take this as an official warning.

[F-15 Eagle]

The other way round prove that the F-35 has done it. They have developed parts of the avionics, but you have no mission critical systems onboard the current AA-1. Stealth has been tested to a limited degree but not in a complex environment. You seem not to be aware about the complexity and process of testing. There is a reason why the entire test programme is set up for 10000 flight hours. You can't expect that the aircraft has already demonstrated it within some 3 dozen or so flights. There is a difference between what is planned and what has been demonstrated so far. If all that would be that easy and the aircraft being as developed as you suggest (which is out of any reality) it would enter service next year or so, but that isn't going to happen!

Whatever I am done arguing with you.:o

[F-15 Eagle]

Well, considering the fact that there are a couple of Defence Journos registered on the site, a few pilots, test engineers, service personnel and a number industry professionals - then I'm curious as to your expertise.

Perhaps you can go top the members introductory area and fill us all in on your level of professional expertise.

While you are at it, read the Forum Rules before passing any more similar comments.

Take this as an official warning.
Are you questioning my expertise? And fine I will not say comments like that again so please get off my back about my posts, no offense but you are starting to annoy me.

Admin: The fact that you've ignored directives from various Mods and have failed to heed civilised warnings means that you are annoying us - so much so that you've earnt yourself 30 days in the sin bin.

[F-15 Eagle]

Admin: Congratulations. You've earnt yourself 30 days in the sin bin for being a troll and ignoring directives from a number of Mods

[Scorpius]

could there be a strike version of the Raptor?Like the strike eagle concept to replace the strike eagle fleet?

[oldsoak]

If you mean is it possible in the future, then the answer is yes. However, will there be a need for a strike F22 given the F35 and developments in stand off weapons and ucavs ?

[rjmaz1]

Of course everyone here would love to have an air force of 500 f-22's and 500 F-35's but the money for that force...
Thats the thing the USAF CAN afford 500 F-22's and 500 F-35's!!!!!

They operate over 2000 F-16's, A-10's and F-15's!! The running costs and traning costs of over 2000 pilots would be FAR greater than 500 F-22's and 500 F-35's.

The only problem with this as you'll now have far fewer aircraft but they will be much better overall. If you wanted an aircraft just to make up numbers you would not use the F-15 as its very expensive to run. The F-16 should be kept just to make up the numbers.
In terms of A2A with all the supporting USAF assets, F-15C still has superiority against everything else.
An F-16 with supporting assets would probably have superiority against everything else.. That doesn't make the F-16 the best fighter in the world.

I am 100% certain that both sides being equal the F-35 will defeat an F-15C even if it has the V3 radar.

[rjmaz1]

could there be a strike version of the Raptor?Like the strike eagle concept to replace the strike eagle fleet?
The F-22 can already perform most missions performed by the F-15E. The F-22 has already official replaced the F-117 "bomber".

The F-35 can perform every single mission that the F-15E can.

This is why i believe the F-15 should be put out to pasture. If money runs thin you cannot cut orders to the F-35 as the death spiral will begin. If you cut the number of aircraft you may end up getting half the aircraft and each aircraft will cost nearly twice as much. You wont save much.

It is much smarter to buy the F-35 in full quantity so they remain as cheap as possible and retire old equipment to get as much money as possible.

Cutting the F-35 order is not an option, you'd be better off ending the program completely if money was not available. Then with all the money available you could order the full 381 F-22's and keep your F-15's and F-16's with money to spare.

If the F-15C and F-15E offered a capability that could not be provided by the F-22 or F-35 then you would have an argument to keep them in service. As the F-22 and F-35 can perform every mission of the F-15 there is your solution to the funding issues.

[swerve]

...This is why i believe the F-15 should be put out to pasture. If money runs thin you cannot cut orders to the F-35 as the death spiral will begin. If you cut the number of aircraft you may end up getting half the aircraft and each aircraft will cost nearly twice as much. You wont save much.....

The forecast breakdown of F-35 costs for the USA is ca 15% fixed, 85% variable. Cut USAF numbers by half & you reduce variable costs by 33%, total costs by 28%, & numbers by 36%. That works out at 12.5% increase in average cost. Even loading it all on the USAF purchase gives <25% unit cost increase.

Not quite the same as double. :D

[rjmaz1]

Not quite the same as double. :D
I suppose you are right the original order would have to drop below a quarter of the original number of aircraft for the individual price to double.

I still dont think the estimates would be true to real life. Atleast if its anything like the F-22 program.

If the USAF halves its order of the F-35 at the very least i would expect the price to go up 25% for the A version atleast. You would be correct in stating the price would go up only a slight amount. This is only the start.

Going up 25% has already started the death spiral. Australia for instance would have bought 100 aircraft, now the updated price is 25% more so it will buy only 80 aircraft instead. Theres another 20 less aircraft. The same will apply to every other country with a set budget. You'll then have 500 less aircraft being purchased just because of a price increase of 25%.

Now that another 500 aircraft that aren't being produced. So the price goes up again another 10%. Australia might cut back its order to 70 aircraft or it might try and find more money.. The US Navy might then decide to purchase more super Hornets cutting its F-35 order by 100 aircraft. Countries like Turkey might now decide to buy the Eurofighter.

Now another 500 aircraft aren't being produced and the chance of even 2000 aircraft being produced including international orders appears very slim. The price goes up again 15%.... then you get more cuts and the government will be under pressure to cancel the program just like the F-22.

We then end up with a small quantity of aircraft for a large price and have to result to using older aircraft to make up the numbers.

Everytime you cut 500 aircraft off the total aircraft buy the price goes up more than the previous 500 aircraft.

So in summary the USAF cant cut its orders as it will cause international customer to cut its orders due to the slight price increase.

The F-15 would be easy pickings, retire them and the F-35 can be purchased in the original quantities.

[swerve]

Sorry, but that's wrong. Firstly, the export price is not linked to the average cost to the USA. It's manufacturing cost plus a margin. So if the USAF buys fewer aircraft that increases average price to the USA, but doesn't affect export price, not even the price to the development partners.

Increasing the export price to reduce the unit price to the USA, when the unit price has gone up because number ordered - and hence total price - has been cut makes no sense at all. You charge more, thus risking losing profitable sales, to make up for spending less money on buying aircraft?

You seem to be forgetting that the fixed costs are FIXED. They don't go up because someone buys fewer aircraft. They're just divided between fewer, so the average unit cost goes up.

BTW, for the (US, not export) unit price to double requires total (not just USAF) US orders to be cut by 80%. That would reduce total US costs by 69%, not increase costs.

As for the accuracy of the predicted costs - well, as you say, history suggests they're likely to go up, but we'll have to wait and see.

[neil]

Hi everyone.. I'm a new member..

I find this to be a very interesting discussion.. the whole issue of declining inventories and rising costs of replacement equipment is not a new one.. but it is certainly gaining in prominence..

I believe that the USAF is correct in its decision to try and keep its fighter numbers up.. how it goes about this is another matter alltogether..

The US army and the navy has realised that it cannot keep on getting smaller and smaller, even with superior technology.. hence the US navy 313 ship fleet plan.. and the increase in army end strength.

But of all the services the USAF is hardest hit by a declining inventory..
Also the USAF has played an integral part in US military superiority in the past..

The USAF argument that one plane, no matter how advanced it is, can only be in one place at a time, is a valid one.

That the air force is facing a budget crunch, is a given, especially if you take into account high military inflation and the expected decline or flatting of defence spending after the US forces Iraq draw down..

The point a few of others have made that spending on the F 15, an old airframe, is a waste is also valid. One other fact a lot of people forget is the fact that every country is faced with the above problems not just the US. So inevitably the Russian and Chinese air forces have and will shrink too.

Keeping that in mind, I also believe that the USAF force of 183 Raptors will be sufficient to deal with any high end war fighting, especially if supplemented by the F 35.

However what a waste it would be to bomb a terrorist on a camel in Afghanistan with hundred and fifty million dollar Raptor. A simpler aircraft is needed here. Some might say this is where the legacy jets come in. F 15 and A 10 etc.

Fair enough.. but like a lot of you said.. upgrading these decades old planes is a waste..

It is my belief that when the Americans talk of a high end, low end mix.. they should really go high end, low end.

So what am I saying? The current USAF fighter fleet numbers 2000+. The Raptor and F 35 programmes are already well on the way.. so keep them, but the F 35 programme should be ajusted downwards as far as numbers are concerned.

Further more.. I would replace the legacy jets(F 15, F 16 etc.) with a relatively large number of very low cost, medium technology lightweight fighters in the class of the Hawk MK 120 or the Czech L 159 ALCA.

These planes should be adapted to act solely as presicion bomb trucks in the close air support role in low threat areas like Afghanistan and Iraq. I know factors like range etc. comes into play here, but that's what air to air refueling is for.

This is then then the USAF force mix I would go for by 2030.

High end:
200 F 22 Raptors
500 F 35 Lightning II

low end:
1200 low cost light weight planes like the British Hawk.

All legacy fighters should be retired as quickly as possible to save as much as possible.

I know this is a radical idea.. just some food for thought.. :-)

the whole programme can even be integrated into one large programme for the purchase of the three platforms.. like the US Coastguards Integrated deepwater fleet replacement programme..

any of you number crunchers out there can help me calculate wether such a programme would indeed be affordable..

thanx

[rjmaz1]

low end:
1200 low cost light weight planes like the British Hawk.
Standard F-16, with conformal tanks and a pair of underwing tanks has exceptional endurance and range and is quite cheap. Its the perfect low end bomb truck that the USAF already has.

I too agree about the High-low mix. I believe the JSF should have be a budget fighter like the F-16 though more advanced, it woul dhave flooded the international market. With the F-22 as the high and the JSF as the low it woul dhave insured the F-22 had dominance over all allies.

The USAF has quite a few F-16's already. They are cheap to operate compared to the F-15. Using the F-15 as a low end option is unrealistic. I suggested that they keep the F-16's to make up the numbers. Eventually u may as well replace the F-16's with F-35's when the production line is open and they are cheap.

[neil]

Standard F-16, with conformal tanks and a pair of underwing tanks has exceptional endurance and range and is quite cheap. Its the perfect low end bomb truck that the USAF already has.

I too agree about the High-low mix. I believe the JSF should have be a budget fighter like the F-16 though more advanced, it woul dhave flooded the international market. With the F-22 as the high and the JSF as the low it woul dhave insured the F-22 had dominance over all allies.

The USAF has quite a few F-16's already. They are cheap to operate compared to the F-15. Using the F-15 as a low end option is unrealistic. I suggested that they keep the F-16's to make up the numbers. Eventually u may as well replace the F-16's with F-35's when the production line is open and they are cheap.

thanx for the reply..
I do agree with you..


however.. one problem is that the current USAF F 16 fleet is ageing fast.. with current predictions that the service will have to retire 200 airframes in the next couple of years up to 2013..

That is why only 650 odd airframes of the 1200 active, are going through the CCIP update programme.. and apparently since the F 16 was one of the first planes to built largely from composite materials, performing a structulral strengthening upgrade is quite difficult since these composites were designed with a fixed life span.. It is planned to take the last F 16 out of service round about 2025..

Second problem.. the current F 35 programme is unaffordable in my opinion.. and in the opinion of some others too.. I read an article this morning that the USAF is facing a huge budget crunch for FY 2009.. (up to $100 billion!!)

further more the USAF plans on retireing two to three F 16's for every one F 35 purchased.. so even if they were able to afford to replace the F 16 with F 35 on a one for one basis(wich they are not)..the maximun rate at wich they would be able to buy F 35's at, would be far less than the minimum rate they retire F 16's at.. apparently the USAF can only afford 40 or so F 35's per year maximum(at series production level) - they purchased 200 F 16's per year during the cold war..

thats why I say a new affordable platform is needed.. otherwise they are looking at a 25% reduction in their fighter fleet by 2025..

[XaNDeR]

This is then then the USAF force mix I would go for by 2030.

High end:
200 F 22 Raptors
500 F 35 Lightning II




I find it rather odd how you choose to not have any bombers / transports / tankers / AWACS / Reconnaissance / Attack and Transport Helicopters ..
In your USAF force mix in 2030.

?

[rjmaz1]

thats why I say a new affordable platform is needed.. otherwise they are looking at a 25% reduction in their fighter fleet by 2025..
A 25% reduction is extremely good. Looking at China (the main threat) and they are well on their way to a 50% reduction in numbers. Gone are the days when they had vast numbers of cheap Mig-21's. Fewer more advanced fighters are being purchased. Now that China may end up having half as many fighters the USAF could very well have a 50% reduction as well providing they have a technical advantage which they do.

I find it rather odd how you choose to not have any bombers / transports / tankers / AWACS / Reconnaissance / Attack and Transport Helicopters ..
In your USAF force mix in 2030.

?
I think he just meant his combat "fighters"

[swerve]

A 25% reduction is extremely good. Looking at China (the main threat) and they are well on their way to a 50% reduction in numbers. Gone are the days when they had vast numbers of cheap Mig-21's. Fewer more advanced fighters are being purchased. Now that China may end up having half as many fighters the USAF could very well have a 50% reduction as well providing they have a technical advantage which they do.


I think he just meant his combat "fighters"

I don't think China ever had vast numbers of MiG-21s. The PLAAF consisted mainly of Chinese-built MiG-19s for a few decades. Didn't stop building the J-6 until about 1980, IIRC.

[neil]

thanx rjmaz1 for the thoughts..

..and yes, I was alluding only to the USAF 2030 fighter force..

[funtz]

Here is my opinion on this thing, if the f-22 raptors are as good as they say(I think every one has seen the figures) coupled with the experience that USAF has with stealth technologies, there is no air force (which the USA is likely to face) which in a conflict will be able to operate for more than a week.

with such air dominance capability F-15E can operate in its role as a Strike fighter with the USAF for as long as needed and the F-16, F15 & F18 are good enough till they are replaced by the f 35 which will be a long process in itself. 80 to 100 F22’s are good enough to completely suppress air defense and destroy the infrastructure of most of the AF’s out there.

This will be so until a credible way to detect and destroy combat aircrafts with RCS as low as the F22 is developed (not even considering the steps taken to disguise its infra-red emissions).