Why bother with this hot garbage that doesn't have stealth when you can get more f-35s? What the frick is going on?

Why bother with this hot garbage that doesn't have stealth when you can get more f-35s? What the frick is going on?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't you Google it?

    Oh, that's right, it's blocked where you are

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      All I get are articles about how this is made because F-35 is delayed. F-35s are everywhere now and youre telling me the air force is going to get these things instead of slowly retiring their fleet of obsoletes and replacing them with f35s? What fricking for?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Congress loves fricking with the USAF budget for some reason, and this allows a shitload of F-15s to be useful instead of just collecting dust.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >All I get are articles about how this is made because F-35 is delayed
        Yes and no.
        The fact of the matter is that F-15Cs are reaching the end of the line as they've been augmenting the F-22. The F-22 was supposed to have 700 units built but it was shut down at around 180. The St. Louis plant also needs contracts or else it closes. So the USAF ordered extra F-15 airframes to make up for the inability of the F-22 to replace F-15s and to avoid losing manufacturing capacity.

        >There aren't going to be less F-35s because of the F-15EX.
        Not if Congress has anything to say about that. A dollar spent on getting an eagle 2 is a dollar not spend on getting a lightning 2. With budget constraints, every dollar counts and its being spent on the wrong thing.

        The constraint isn't budget but capacity.
        Boeing isn't going to manufacture F-35s at the St. Louis plant which could become inactive as the Super Hornet failed a few international bids.

        Because ANG F-15Cs are being retired. Airspace policing doesn't require stealth so you get the F-15EX.

        It's a slightly complicated situation, and I'm not sure if this isn't a troll thread, so I'll summarize.
        1) Obama canned F-22 production very early. Not enough were built to replace the F-15C 1:1. Or even 1:2. So, a lot of *very* old F-15Cs are still flying, used by squadrons dedicated to air-to-air and interception duties (which is a specialized form of air-to-air that requires higher thrust than most missions).
        2) Those F-15Cs aren't going to make it until NGAD, and even if they could, it's looking very likely that NGAD will have a small production run just like F-22, because it's expected to cost a lot.
        3) F-35 production is pretty much spoken for for the next several years. Trying to rob planes already marked for allies or F-16 units would really mess things up. Plus, while the F-35 can certainly dogfight (or more likely, club baby seals with its stealth), it's not optimized for air-to-air, and in particular isn't designed to perform the interception role (the one time it's slower top speed actually matters).
        4) F-15C production ended a long time ago, and it's not really possible to re-start it. Mudhen production, however, is still ongoing, and Es, while heavier and slightly less maneuverable than Cs, are still comparable. Better yet, minimal re-training is required to move C pilots, many of whom are AFNG, into the new plane.

        So, essentially, you have a confluence of events that led to it making the most sense to replace the remaining Cs with EXs (which are themselves derived from the F-15QA, the latest version of the Mudhen). There are also the more conspiratorial justifications, such as a need to keep Boeing in the fighter market long enough to compete for NGAD, because nobody wants to see what happens if LockMart gets a monopoly.

        These anons also get it.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because it turns out that all our potential adversaries suck shit, and so does their hardware, future conflicts are expected to a messy brawly melee frickfrick circus, more planes = more pilots = more institutional knowledge to spread down the line, it's available right the frick now and does what it needs to do, is intended to be a supplemental program to the F-22 and F-35, bomb/missile trucks are so in queen, not every aircraft needs to have stealth after already achieving air dominance/supremacy, and probably some other shit I'm forgetting about.
    But mostly because it's a supplemental program that was started when we weren't entirely sure what we were going to do with the F-22, with everything else being a side benefit. It wouldn't surprise me at all that it's Congress once again telling the Pentagon they know better than the Pentagon about what the Pentagon needs while sticking them with the bill.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One can carry a frickton of missiles. The other can't. Can you name which is which?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You dont need a gorillion missles. All you need is a plane that can bomb the frick out of the enemy and then fly back to rearm and refuel without being taken out. Im not so sure an unstealthy eagle is going to survive the SAM spam like a lightning can

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You don't send the F-15EX into SAM spam. That's what the stealth planes are for

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That whats the use of the F-15EX? Exactly my point. Just retire these boomer planes holy shit.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            SUPPLEMENTAL ROLES/TASKS
            If you send an F-22 or F-35 to handle tasks below them, you might make them unavailable if a task or target of opportunity presents itself. Would you take a hypercar grocery shopping?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I would if I have nothing but efficient hypercars. I rather have a fleet of 50 F-35s than a fleet of 200 F15s and only 10 F-35s.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Holy shit the third world mindset kills me, you think we have to compromise when we don't, we can have both.
                Guess all other planes but the f35 should be removed then regardless of role and purpose huh? Fricking moron lmao

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A plane that's stealthy but whose armament is limited by the size of its internal weapons bays
            >A plane that isn't as stealthy but can carry much more ordnance
            If you can't see the advantages in having both of these, I can't help you.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's cheaper to operate and not every task requires stealth. It's less moronic than spending 3/4 of the cost of a Zumwalt on a Flight III Burke.

              >Guys, this plane isn't obsolete. You dont need a F190, they serve different roles guys!!!
              Seriously come on you guys.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is a completely disingenuous comparison and you know it, and even then it'd be valid if the Fw190s are still rolling off production lines. Availability is always relevant.

                >There aren't going to be less F-35s because of the F-15EX.
                Not if Congress has anything to say about that. A dollar spent on getting an eagle 2 is a dollar not spend on getting a lightning 2. With budget constraints, every dollar counts and its being spent on the wrong thing.

                I don't think you realize just how much of the USAF budget was relieved with the creation of the Space Force. This is not a case of taking away from the F-35. It's a case of "We don't have as many F-35s as we'd like yet, but we can upgrade the F-15s right this minute."
                There's not much that can match the F-15 as is, let alone the EX. Why throw away potentially useful tools instead of keeping them in good, modern condition and tucked away in your toolbox? Why be less prepared on purpose?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There's not much that can match the F-15 as is
                You dont need a plane to shoot down another plane. All you need is a missile. Radar and missile tech have improved a lot over the years. An f-15ex cannot serve on the front lines and for that reason, its pretty useless.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is currently only true for the US, and there's nothing stopping the F-15EX from doing frontline things after SEAD, but that's assuming we're up to date on Air Force magic, and it's a safe bet we're not.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We have no idea the capabilities of China and its only wise to assume they are peer. To assume they are not is like Lee marching his men up that hill thinking his boys will carry the day. If the F-35s fail in their mission to completely destroy enemy AA capabilities, then the entire fleet of non stealth jets are grounded. Thats risky as frick. The enemy could also always just hide their SAM batteries until they detect planes they are capable of targeting. The air force is only getting them as a stop gap, that means even the air force knows they are dogshit. They will drop like flies in a peer conflict. Thats valuable airmen wasted.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but I'm willing to bet you can Growlerise the 15EX by hanging a couple of NGJ pods off it and meshing that with the EPAWSS and the APG-82
                however it needs contractor development work and they will have to choose between funding that and funding Lockmart to unfrick the TR-3.
                as it is, they are cutting the projected 15EX buy because the F-35 is looking better.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Growler F-15s would be rad. Thanks for the extra scoop.
                Now I'm imagining the F-15 as a character being asked to hold peoples' bags and wondering what the frick happened to "not a pound for air to ground."

                We have no idea the capabilities of China and its only wise to assume they are peer. To assume they are not is like Lee marching his men up that hill thinking his boys will carry the day. If the F-35s fail in their mission to completely destroy enemy AA capabilities, then the entire fleet of non stealth jets are grounded. Thats risky as frick. The enemy could also always just hide their SAM batteries until they detect planes they are capable of targeting. The air force is only getting them as a stop gap, that means even the air force knows they are dogshit. They will drop like flies in a peer conflict. Thats valuable airmen wasted.

                Okay, what you still don't seem to be realizing is that an F-15 does not take away an F-35 or slow down F-35 production, the factories, tooling, expertise to build and maintain, and fly them are still good to go and you'll get a lot more out of keeping that already-invested capital, resources, and manpower going and relevant than you would building an additional plant for F-35s - which is still probably going to happen anyway.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >an F-15 does not take away an F-35 or slow down F-35 production
                Also worth mentioning that Boeing had already done all the development, and was building upgraded F-15s for export. The Air Force basically just said "we'll have whatever they're having."

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm imagining the F-15 as a character being asked to hold peoples' bags and wondering what the frick happened to "not a pound for air to ground."
                heh
                the "not a pound" 15C is the one being retired
                his brother, the bomber 15E is the one being built
                kinda ironic, yes

                >an F-15 does not take away an F-35 or slow down F-35 production
                it takes away both capital and operational funds, aircrew and ground crew

                >an F-15 does not take away an F-35 or slow down F-35 production
                Also worth mentioning that Boeing had already done all the development, and was building upgraded F-15s for export. The Air Force basically just said "we'll have whatever they're having."

                >The Air Force basically just said "we'll have whatever they're having."
                the 15EX has a number of specific improvements such as EPAWSS and the new APG-82 AESA, which if they want to make full use of will require even more funding

                https://i.imgur.com/FR9v1fa.png

                There is also another (smaller) angle to this that might have gone into USAF thinking: Sortie rate and mechanical reliability.

                While the F-35 isn't exactly a hangar queen, it is a brand new, very complicated aircraft, and a stealth one, to boot. There have been a fair number of articles complaining about only X number of airframes available at given time, of low percentages available for mission.

                While I believe in the F-35 and that it is both needed and will get better with age, the Eagle is a proven airframe with all the kinks worked out. I don't know what its average flight-readiness percentages are, but I GUARANTEE you they are better than the F-35's at the present time. That matters for air-policing and intercept, where a bird has to be ready as soon as an enemy aircraft is detected heading for where it shouldn't be, and to a lesser degree for any bombing campaigns the future may require, where total sorties matter also.

                >low percentages available for mission
                while higher maintenance requirements contributes to this, the effect is reduced after the adoption / conversion phase when enough parts and trained personnel are available to sort out the F-35s, after which their availability rates have come back up.
                in FY21, the F-15 fleet had mission capable rates of around 67%; this number was 60% for F-35s. It's not good but not terrible.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                An actual comparison would be something like the P-51 and the P-47. One was a better high-altitude air-superiority fighter, the other a better low-level fighter-bomber. Could the P-51 drop bombs? Sure, but it couldn't carry as much ordnance as the P-47. Was the P-47 effective against other fighters? Kind of, but it wasn't ideal. But they were both excellent in their respective niches and combined were more effective than they would have been separately.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                While I agree with the sentiment, the comparison is wrong. The '47 was better in just about every way than the 51 except that it was a thirsty b***h with short legs until they upgraded it like 6 months before the war ended. The only reason why they pushed it into the fighter bomber role is because the luftwaffe was basically gone and they had a ton of planes that wouldnt be doing anything otherwise.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The P-47 could be outclimbed and outturned by the Me-109 and FW-190. It wasn't useless by any means, but it was outshined in the air-to-air role by the P-51.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So could the P-51, its only real advantage over anything built in that era is that it was more fuel efficient than most other fighters at the time.

                Not that sea level climb rate really mattered because when the Luftwaffe was actually a thing air to air engagements happened at high altitude (an area where the P-47 excelled due to it's xbox hueg turbocharger)

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The P-47 could be outclimbed and outturned by the Me-109
                some later models
                the 1941 Hurricane models could outturn the 1941 Bf109 models, but not the later ones
                >it was outshined in the air-to-air role by the P-51.
                keyword: outshined
                P-38s, P-47s and Spitfires did the heavy lifting of chopping down the Luftwaffe, which is in 1943 and the first half of 1944, over Italy and France. Conversion from the P-47 to the P-51 happened over the course of 1944, and was still not complete by the end of the year.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And that could be fixed by carrying a larger drop tank, but Arnold didn't want fighters to carry drop tanks, because then he might get less funding for his bombers...

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well they did fix that issue with the N model where they gave it bigger internal tanks, some aerodynamic refinements, an autopilot, and most importantly folding foot pedals so you can get comfy while escorting B-29s on milk runs over Japan.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >One was a better high-altitude air-superiority fighter
                Yes, the 47

                >the other a better low-level fighter-bomber.
                Neither of them were great at it, they just existed and could carry ordnance, that's all

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why bother
            because you cannot, in fact, get more f-35s
            at least not the TR-3 ones

            think of it as "buying Halo Infinite even though it's not what you really want to play, but you're waiting for Cyberpunk 2077 to get unfricked before you buy that"

            >hot garbage
            it's actually quite a decent plane

            >whats the use of the F-15EX
            you need (let's say) 2,000 fighters
            you're retiring old fighters at a rate of 100 a year
            you're SUPPOSED to build new fighters at a rate of 100 a year
            the arsehole in charge of building your new fighters says "we got a problem here, we can't build this year's batch"
            so in order to avoid your overall fighter force dropping to 1,900 for one year, and maybe even 1,800 if the twat fricks up again next year, you arrange to have your older fighter upgraded as best as it can, and buy those to cover that frickup
            that is the 15EX

            Congress loves fricking with the USAF budget for some reason, and this allows a shitload of F-15s to be useful instead of just collecting dust.

            EXs are new builds, moron

            That's only true for one very specific mission profile, anon. The F-15EX is a supplemental rear-echelon and/or "we'd like a bit more ordnance over here, please."
            It isn't about comparisons in a vacuum, especially with the networked sensors and battlespace the US has. We already have "I see, you shoot" so you can effectively double the volume of F-22s and F-35s available by pairing them with an F-15EX to do the radiating. Or, more to the point, have the ability to dedicate one squad of each to the task.
            Once you have air supremacy then any of your aircraft can pretty much do whatever the frick they want when they want.

            >A plane that's stealthy but whose armament is limited by the size of its internal weapons bays
            >A plane that isn't as stealthy but can carry much more ordnance
            If you can't see the advantages in having both of these, I can't help you.

            >the advantages in having both of these
            are mainly cope, like it or loathe it, for TR-3 being delayed

            >Once you have air supremacy then any of your aircraft can pretty much do whatever the frick they want when they want.
            And what if you don't get air supremacy? I don't like the idea of the air force assuming they will just win by default even if true. Such complacency is disgusting.

            >what if you don't get air supremacy?
            you keep trying to achieve it
            >air force assuming they will just win by default
            they're not assuming

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's only true for one very specific mission profile, anon. The F-15EX is a supplemental rear-echelon and/or "we'd like a bit more ordnance over here, please."
        It isn't about comparisons in a vacuum, especially with the networked sensors and battlespace the US has. We already have "I see, you shoot" so you can effectively double the volume of F-22s and F-35s available by pairing them with an F-15EX to do the radiating. Or, more to the point, have the ability to dedicate one squad of each to the task.
        Once you have air supremacy then any of your aircraft can pretty much do whatever the frick they want when they want.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Once you have air supremacy then any of your aircraft can pretty much do whatever the frick they want when they want.
          And what if you don't get air supremacy? I don't like the idea of the air force assuming they will just win by default even if true. Such complacency is disgusting.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you don't get air supremacy, you're fricked. That means the enemy has air power, which means whatever you have on the ground is standing by to get fricked.
            It's not an assumption that the USAF/Naval aviators will win, it's considered a mandatory, crucial, important part of their jobs so that the Navy-Navy, Army, and Marines can do their jobs. The minimum accepted state of the skies is air superiority.

            I would if I have nothing but efficient hypercars. I rather have a fleet of 50 F-35s than a fleet of 200 F15s and only 10 F-35s.

            Except this isn't zero-sum. There aren't going to be less F-35s because of the F-15EX. The F-15EX is a thing because replacing every single aircraft with an F-35 takes time. It's not an issue of resource allocation, but scheduling, plus the added side benefits already mentioned.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >There aren't going to be less F-35s because of the F-15EX.
              Not if Congress has anything to say about that. A dollar spent on getting an eagle 2 is a dollar not spend on getting a lightning 2. With budget constraints, every dollar counts and its being spent on the wrong thing.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You dont need a gorillion missles.
        Therein lies your misconception.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's cheaper to operate and not every task requires stealth. It's less moronic than spending 3/4 of the cost of a Zumwalt on a Flight III Burke.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The F-15 is simply a better craft. The F-15 has a 104:0 air-to-air kill ratio, the F-35 has 0:0.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because ANG F-15Cs are being retired. Airspace policing doesn't require stealth so you get the F-15EX.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a slightly complicated situation, and I'm not sure if this isn't a troll thread, so I'll summarize.
    1) Obama canned F-22 production very early. Not enough were built to replace the F-15C 1:1. Or even 1:2. So, a lot of *very* old F-15Cs are still flying, used by squadrons dedicated to air-to-air and interception duties (which is a specialized form of air-to-air that requires higher thrust than most missions).
    2) Those F-15Cs aren't going to make it until NGAD, and even if they could, it's looking very likely that NGAD will have a small production run just like F-22, because it's expected to cost a lot.
    3) F-35 production is pretty much spoken for for the next several years. Trying to rob planes already marked for allies or F-16 units would really mess things up. Plus, while the F-35 can certainly dogfight (or more likely, club baby seals with its stealth), it's not optimized for air-to-air, and in particular isn't designed to perform the interception role (the one time it's slower top speed actually matters).
    4) F-15C production ended a long time ago, and it's not really possible to re-start it. Mudhen production, however, is still ongoing, and Es, while heavier and slightly less maneuverable than Cs, are still comparable. Better yet, minimal re-training is required to move C pilots, many of whom are AFNG, into the new plane.

    So, essentially, you have a confluence of events that led to it making the most sense to replace the remaining Cs with EXs (which are themselves derived from the F-15QA, the latest version of the Mudhen). There are also the more conspiratorial justifications, such as a need to keep Boeing in the fighter market long enough to compete for NGAD, because nobody wants to see what happens if LockMart gets a monopoly.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nitpicking a bit, but the F-22 program's death isn't attributable to any president. Rather, it died a death by a thousand budget cuts.

      Funding instability nearly killed the program several times over its course, going back to its start during the clinton admin (when the congress tried to kill it), multiple times during bush admin (when rumsfeld & co decided that the age of peer wars is over and slashed the order to less than half the original), and finally coming to an ungraceful end during the obama admin, when house politics snuffed out any remaining hope of properly funding continued procurement (this one's on mccain and the other house republicans). When the plug was finally pulled, the program had no budget left to its name and additional money had to be spirited out of... somewhere? by the obama admin to pay for properly mothballing the production line and tooling in case of future need.

      This is honestly a running theme with US jet procurement:
      1) the govt orders a new jet; demanding it be cutting edge to meet all possible threats
      2) cutting edge jet has teething issues
      3) govt calls the program problematic, slashes its budget
      4) cutting edge jet has more teething issues and less money to fix them, causing further delays and cost overruns
      5) govt calls the program a waste of money, slashes the order size
      6) cutting edge jet goes into service in fewer numbers than needed, govt angry when the military says they don't have enough jets now
      7) the govt orders new a jet; demanding it be cutting edge to meet all possible threats...

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >This is honestly a running theme
        every single major US defence project has been called weak, underpowered, MIC fodder, and the death of US military superiority, bar none
        you name it, people were against it
        US military procurement generally has an uphill task with virtually every single project

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I remember reading some old articles written around the time the M1 Garand was introduced calling for it to be withdrawn from service, as it was inferior in every way to the M1903.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            well, I was talking about post-Vietnam equipment actually
            When WW2 began in 1939 the US was irrelevant. its army was ranked #22 in the world and comparable with Portugal's. the USAAF had shit fighters and bombers, and fewer combat aircraft than the RAF had fighters. they were the second strongest Navy in the world and that's it. the US Army only got big in the 1941-42 buildup.

            as for the Garand, there's actually good reason for it.
            most WW2 armies were happy with their bolt action rifles. the British post-WW2 AAR declared the SMLE fine and dandy.
            the reason for this is that aimed fire with a semiauto rifle was only 25% faster than aimed fire with a bolt action. and there are ways of narrowing that gap, such as by learning to work the bolt fast. and in the big scheme of things rifles weren't that important to winning battles.
            AARs showed people asking for AT weapons, artillery, CAS, etc but "a semiauto rifle, please sir" was very low down in priority.
            what everyone DID ask for was more light automatic weapons, i.e. SMGs and LMGs.
            so a US Army equipped with an M1903 with expanded magazine capacity would have done just as well really.

            consider the expense of equipping everyone with Garands, and consider if, say, sticking to Springfields but issuing four BARs per squad might have been a better use of resources.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >well, I was talking about post-Vietnam equipment actually
              I know, but it's always interesting to go back and look at older examples. As for the artice the article it did not make any of those arguments. It simply claimed that the rifle was an inferior choice to it's predecessor on the basis that it was inaccurate, unreliable, and 'wasted ammunition'.

              However while we're on the subject I doubt the financial or materiel cost of the Garand was significantly more than the M1903, and either way we were going to have to produce millions of new rifles to meet wartime needs, so why not the Garand?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                in the 1930s the Springfield cost $30, the Garand $90, and the BAR probably $300
                equipping 10 soldiers with Garands and 2 with BARs = $1500
                equipping 8 soldiers with Springfields and 4 with BARs = $$1440

                >the article it did not make any of those arguments. It simply claimed that the rifle was an inferior choice to it's predecessor on the basis that it was inaccurate, unreliable, and 'wasted ammunition'.
                I guessed as much
                but I don't find that argument reasonable so I ignored it lol

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What the frick is going on?
    Corruption

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In other news, the B-52 will be flying for over 100 years.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ITT: Manufactured drama/arguing for the sake of it

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You've already got tons of pilots trained on the F-15, and you don't need stealth fighters for air sovereignty, especially when your airspace is as vast as the North American continent. You need high speed missile trucks with a long combat range. Why would you outfit the Air National Guard with stealth fighters that suck for their mission, instead of just getting an updated version of the same jet they're already using?

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    people don't understand just how useful it is for a product to be at an extremely high level of development. There's a reason why most of the world's weapons and vehicles and even consumer products draw their lineage from something made in the previous century.
    The F-15 is one of the most tested, most tightly-designed airframes in existence. Every single thing a pilot might want, the F-15 has, including an ecosystem of veteran pilots and crewmen and their living culture of knowledge.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    2/3 of American f35's are currently nonfunctional

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is also another (smaller) angle to this that might have gone into USAF thinking: Sortie rate and mechanical reliability.

    While the F-35 isn't exactly a hangar queen, it is a brand new, very complicated aircraft, and a stealth one, to boot. There have been a fair number of articles complaining about only X number of airframes available at given time, of low percentages available for mission.

    While I believe in the F-35 and that it is both needed and will get better with age, the Eagle is a proven airframe with all the kinks worked out. I don't know what its average flight-readiness percentages are, but I GUARANTEE you they are better than the F-35's at the present time. That matters for air-policing and intercept, where a bird has to be ready as soon as an enemy aircraft is detected heading for where it shouldn't be, and to a lesser degree for any bombing campaigns the future may require, where total sorties matter also.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Sortie rate and mechanical reliability

      https://i.imgur.com/hGo0AJp.jpeg

      people don't understand just how useful it is for a product to be at an extremely high level of development. There's a reason why most of the world's weapons and vehicles and even consumer products draw their lineage from something made in the previous century.
      The F-15 is one of the most tested, most tightly-designed airframes in existence. Every single thing a pilot might want, the F-15 has, including an ecosystem of veteran pilots and crewmen and their living culture of knowledge.

      >just how useful it is for a product to be at an extremely high level of development.

      We have no idea the capabilities of China and its only wise to assume they are peer. To assume they are not is like Lee marching his men up that hill thinking his boys will carry the day. If the F-35s fail in their mission to completely destroy enemy AA capabilities, then the entire fleet of non stealth jets are grounded. Thats risky as frick. The enemy could also always just hide their SAM batteries until they detect planes they are capable of targeting. The air force is only getting them as a stop gap, that means even the air force knows they are dogshit. They will drop like flies in a peer conflict. Thats valuable airmen wasted.

      >If the F-35s fail in their mission to completely destroy enemy AA capabilities, then the entire fleet of non stealth jets are grounded.

      https://i.imgur.com/VXxgYdy.jpeg

      [...]
      >Guys, this plane isn't obsolete. You dont need a F190, they serve different roles guys!!!
      Seriously come on you guys.

      Correct but not the way you think.

      You dont need a gorillion missles. All you need is a plane that can bomb the frick out of the enemy and then fly back to rearm and refuel without being taken out. Im not so sure an unstealthy eagle is going to survive the SAM spam like a lightning can

      All you need is a plane that can bomb the frick out of the enemy and then fly back to rearm and refuel without being taken out. Im not so sure an unstealthy eagle is going to survive the SAM spam

      Thank you all, i promise to misquote everyone of you as noted experts when i am done concocting my theory as to how no real airforce can compete unless at least 25% of their budget is devoted to Po-2 variants taking up every role from attack, interception, cargo, medevac to AWACs. My reforms shall put Mike Sparks to to shame because mine will work.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can any F-15anons explain the purpose of the ALQ-128 is? If the ALR-56 is an RWR and the ALQ-135 is the bus controller/jammer, I don't see what other detection equipment there should be.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Both F-22 and F-35 werent able to carry AGM-183 before its cancellation, its very likely they will not be able to carry the HACM in internal weapon bays either due to the length requirements for scramjets

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Someone post the K:D ratio image

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i don't have the original but here's the 2nd derivative

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is a missile truck that can carry 13 tons of brown erasers and it was never shot down.
    What is there not to like?

    In general, 4th gens like Rafale and F15 carry much more than 5th gens like the F35 so they can be used against oponents with cucked air defenses to destroy them en masse.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The USAF has ran "high / low" procurement for decades, one expensive plane for the hardest missions and one cheaper plane for everything else.
    The F-15 is making a comeback as the new "low" to the F-35s "high". Funny thing is when it was introduced the F-15 was a "high" with the F-16 being it's "low".

    As for why the F-15 it's because it's fast, carries a lot of weight and the production line never ended. This makes it a great bomb truck, missile platform and it can yeet a JDAM or JSOW further than the F-35 thanks to being faster.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stop being moronic, anon.
      The F-15 is a twin engine air superiority fighter. The flyaway cost of the F-15EX is actually higher than the F-35. You'll never have the F-15 as a "low" aircraft because of cost.
      >can yeet a JDAM or JSOW further than the F-35 thanks to being faster
      The point of standoff release is getting distance between you and the threat.
      Stealth allows you to get closer to the enemy without being threatened.
      The actual reasons for the F-15EX purchase have been posted on this thread already and here you go making shit up that makes no sense.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    stealth materials are expensive and flight time damages them

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *