It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Meet the Proposed F-15X, carrier of 24 AAM or SDB

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bfirez

We're going to need something with range, and deep magazines. You don't want to tie up bombers, because you get into all kinds of interesting things with weight and numbers. So you need something smaller.

If you don’t use a very long range platform for an AtA arsenal you just end up congesting Andersen with tacair and tankers. Kadena won’t be usable in a conflict with China, neither will the southern Japanese or Koreans airbases if the US starts flying combat missions from there.
The US should be able to keep the airbases and civilian airports in the Second Island Chain open, maybe even bases in the Philippines but anything inside the First Island Chain won’t survive an all out Chinese strike. This means your air assets need to come in from way far out, it’s some 1500 miles from Guam to Taiwan.
The US won’t be able to generate a relevant sortie rate at or inside the Chinese exclusion zones without a lot of tanker support as is. Adding an arsenal plane based on a tactical fighter exacerbate the problem.
There is only so much space at Andersen and the US has only so many tankers to send over.

In an ideal world you have some sort of high endurance UCAV loitering outside the Engagement Zone hauling long range missiles for the air superiority fighters as they come in. Failing that you get a bomber, load it up with dozens of long range missiles and sent it in behind some Raptors. Maybe at some point the PCA will get this done, combining the necessary combat range and a large enough payload in VLO airframe.
Just about the last thing to do is have an arsenal fighter aircraft that is not stealthy at all and probably needs even more tanker support than the air superiority fighters.

Generally speaking with the Chinese ability to attack airbases even in the Second Island Chain increasing every year, the US needs less platforms with longer range and greater payloads, not just more tacair. Fighter Jets are the wrong tools to use in a war in the Pacific period. Give it ten or twenty years and the US might even be forced to look beyond the Second Island Chain for truly survivable airbases in a war against China. How do you fight them if the Air Force is forced to fly out of Australia and Hawaii?
This is not a premature question to ask. Not if this F-15X is supposed to be around for decades.




posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Problem with loading up on AAMs is maneuverability goes to hell.What is the engagement range they are looking at?
Sidewinder,Sparrow or beyond AMRAAM range?



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bfirez

Eggs meet basket. Would you use F-35s in Afghanistan? Because we're heading that way. The Chinese have the right idea. Build an effective really long range missile, and sling it on your less survivable platforms and let them stay back out of range. Send your more effective platforms forward and hunt.


Why use a F-15 for that? Why not a P-8?



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel
A Navy plane providing AtA capabilities for the Air Force? What heresy is this?



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I believe this is the answer to the problem encountered when they wargamed all out air war with China. Our stealths were simply overwhelmed eventually. Overwhelmed by China's vast number of Gen4 and 4.5 fighter craft.

I think some of the idea was to have stealth aircraft quarterback the fight with the missile ships doing all the standoff firing.


Please do not forget that it has been a very long time since a fighter pilot has killed any other aircraft with a gun, let alone in a classic dogfight.

This is not Vietnam era anymore. The air to air missiles work, and they work really well.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel
Because last I heard a P-8 (or USAF equivalent) cant dash past Mach 1 let alone Mach 2, doesn't carry an AESA, cant pull 9G, and cant fly at 50-60,000 ft. All of which is really helpful in combat situations. If you want a true missile truck then you would modify 777's or 747's or possibly 767's derived from the KC tankers. The 737 doesn't have ideal ground clearance with regards to an internal bay which the others do. Its not that you cant do it, its just that the others make more sense if you really want to get the party started like that. This proposal is a vast improvement even on legacy F-15's, but particularly if the USAF does go with this F-15X idea.




top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join