Military Aviation > Air Forces

USAF Problems with Congress and the Pentagon

<< < (3/3)

iluveagles:
The Eurofighter, as you say, came out to late to actually be used extensively. Everyone wants US fighters not European built fighters, why? Because we have the best..............

The point of having the minimum of 300 is to be able to adequately protect the US while fighting two major wars. The fact of the matter is that we must replace the F-15 fleet and the F-16 fleet. It is one thing to have a bomber, such as the B-52 in service for over 30 years, but a fighter has to stand up to more g's for longer periods of time, and more often. The airframes are beginning to show this. Plus in war we don't want to lose anyone, or even chance losing anyone(it happens, but we want to reduce the amount as much as possible). Along with that, Russia is planning to build a newer fighter. Called the Sukhoi T-50 or PAK FA. Whether the aircraft will come out to compete with the F-22 as it was designed to do or not, we must be prepared simple as that. In reality that is why we should have AT LEAST 300 F-22s. To be prepared for everything and anything that comes our way.

Why should the F-22 take over the F-15E role if those aircraft are still viable and will be for another 20 years.

The F-35 is not my favorite aircraft. I've never been a fan of single engined aircraft of the modern era. They end up ugly and are MRF's which really annoy me. Specialty aircraft get the job done much better, but its all about money.................

You're just talking about having a smaller amount of explosives that pack a bigger punch. In other words, HE or fuel-to-air bombs..................but smaller and newer..............

I really, at this point, don't see any need to improve the weapons we use to the extent that you are talking about, we need to focus on the delivery systems first.............

tigershark:

--- Quote ---The Eurofighter, as you say, came out to late to actually be used extensively. Everyone wants US fighters not European built fighters, why? Because we have the best..
--- End quote ---
I'm proud of what my country produces too but the Eurofighter is a solid platform.


--- Quote ---The point of having the minimum of 300 is to be able to adequately protect the US while fighting two major wars.
--- End quote ---
Some valid points I didn't want to quote the whole section but think about it for a second.  If 1 F-22 can can take on 8-15C and beat them soundly why would 300 be needed to replace 450 mixed F-15?   The Sukhoi T-50 or PAK FA is vapor ware not a single piece of proof can be shown except for some test done on some sub-systems planed to be on the Russian 5th generation aircraft.  Russian aircraft industry is full of if's, maybe, planned too, can easily be done, coming out in three months, and so on.  The only facts I see is there making hop up heavy Flanker type aircraft while the F-35 will be going into Block-II and the US is basically going into third generation stealth.  It's not that I don't want them to produce the F-22 it's just I want it to do more then cutting through the sky nicely.  The days of the great F-15C are sadly over any war the skies are cleared then the fighting takes place.  I don't think the US Air Force can afford to have hundreds of aircraft just designed to clear those skies, it's only one part of modern air warfare.


--- Quote ---Why should the F-22 take over the F-15E role if those aircraft are still viable and will be for another 20 years.
--- End quote ---
The F-15E is one of my favorite but I'll explain.  The purpose of using the F-22 in a strike or F-15E role would be taking out one of those S-300 batteries on the other thread.  The F-15E is a target because it can be seen and tracked the F-22 might get to within ten miles of it and drop a little something nasty on it.  The battery might have minutes or seconds to react compared to tracking the F-15E for twenty minutes.   Now go a little further and imagine a stealth weapons coming out of a stealth aircraft from even a greater distance.   


--- Quote ---The F-35 is not my favorite aircraft. I've never been a fan of single engined aircraft of the modern era.

--- End quote ---
The F-35 isn't even in full production yet so it's not my favorite aircraft either, to early.   Single engine aircraft have perform very well over years people knock the Viper but forget about how many thousands of sorties it flew and is a very safe aircraft overall.   The two most produced fighters 80s/90s at least from a western makers are both single engine F-16 and Mirage 2000 series.   Both have done very well and flying in large numbers.  Its hard trying to even buy a second hand Mirage 2000 nobody wants to part with them.  I know the Mig-21 is a basic 2nd maybe early 3rd generation design but still a very successful aircraft overall and it's proven in battle.  The F-35 engine is going to have 40,000 lbs of thrust and for a single engine that's not bad.  I think in numbers made over the next ten years most likely the F-35 and J-10 might be the most produced fighter overall and both are single engines.  I think that says a lot for single engine platforms and remember a F-15s has more then double the manpower needed to keep them flying.   Spread that out between 20,30, or 40 squadrons and you'll see why the USAF has a high/low setup F-15/16.   

Can you list the specialty aircraft you like?  Sounds like a good post.

iluveagles:
Oh I'm not saying the Eurofighter is not a solid platform, in fact I like the aircraft very much, however if you can get an American made aircraft that is more advanced than the Eurofighter why would you buy the Typhoon instead? Thats my point.

Well actually it would be replacing a little over 500 F-15s total. Why? Again the USAF buys aircraft on the basis of being able to protect, more or less, North America and fight two major conflicts. The whole idea is being prepared, the US is a big place that has to be patrolled 24/7 365 days a year. Why do you think we haven't started deploying 22s to other places in the world. 183 is not enough to do so. It may be true that the Russian aircraft are just concepts or it might not be. Either way we must be prepared for at least a newer generation of Sukhoi's like the Su-35 and 37 along with any of the newer variants. The job of the F-15 is not gone though. The countries that are major threats to us, or could become major threats, have good sized air forces. Though old and not the best trained they still have a good size force to deal with. Having a bunch of F-22s, as the USAF envisions, sweeping in an destroying all aircraft at one time would be a huge feat and would allow for the almost immediate invasion after a few days bombing of strategic targets.

But even then, why would you put a pilot in harms way, if you can launch a cruise missile from hundreds of miles away to destroy it. Not only that, but then the aircraft can focus on the destruction of enemy aircraft. Why would you need stealth weapons? A missile is already tiny on radar and besides its pretty streamline anyhow. Along with that, what are they going to do? Shoot down a bomb or a HARM for that matter?

I don't disagree that aircraft w/one engine are quite potent. When I said I'm not a big fan of such aircraft it was an opinion. The aircraft that are small, such as the 16 and the 35 have just never appealed to me. With most produced, you also have most sold. In my opinion, having more produced and more sold just means you have produced a capable and cheap aircraft. Along with that, the government obviously realizes that selling the 16 for instance is not going to be a huge threat to us, if a country were to decide it no longer liked us. Versus selling an F-15 to some other country. The F-15 is the greatest fighter, next to the P-51D, that was ever built. Selling that to different countries is not a smart. Plus its not as affordable for some other countries. As for the high to low step up, that is because the F-15 is a specialized aircraft(C-Ds). It is specifically designed to patrol the skies and shoot down all enemy aircraft. The F-16 on the other hand has a dogfighting capability, but was designed more to the side of air to ground attack and close air support. You don't need as many F-15s as you need F-16s, plus one is more expensive than the other.

F-15
F-106
A-10(If there is an aircraft that best shows specialty, its the A-10 this plane kicks some major a$$)
B-1B
Mirage 2000
Su-35/37

Raptor:
Actually i thought the F-16 was designed primarily as a fighter then used for multi-role purposes when they found it was potent enough. Which is probably why the Gripen is a so much-better multi-role fighter than the F-16. In most respects.  :P

I think there's a favourite aircraft list thread somewhere, iluveagles.  ;)

There's something to be said about working WITHIN technology. We can't just say "oh this is the ULTIMATE fighter jet so we don't need to replace it cos it can shoot down any other plane out of the skies." The F-15 is about air superiority. If it can no longer be the top dog-that is, take on another plane and always come out on top no matter how good the other pilot is. (Well, maybe not that extreme but you get the picture.  ;)) Then there's no point using it any longer you'll just build up casualties. So maybe we should start getting over the Eagle. When it goes down, it's going hard.

Selling the F-15 can be both a good and a bad decision. Say they have an ally that flies the F-15 in a war-zone. That ally would have the facilities and parts to maintain and repair any broken '15s that they happen to use in the area. (as well as other jets, but since we're on '15s here...) Which is a bonus, of course. Unfortunately, if that same country chooses to turn against you... Well you Americans have the Raptor to ruin the F-15's perfect record, don't you.  ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page