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.



posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 12:17 AM
link   
The description of a "missile truck" is silly. The Air Force doesn't have "missile trucks". It has solid tech with solid tactics. Having more missiles on any airframe allows a higher probability of the threat going away...that's all. A new Eagle with some extra gas and a metric ton more of thrust will be ridiculous to sling those missiles and follow on ones. "Kicking down the door" speak is also silly. If there is integration of forces they just work together. Each problem is unique and may require a different way to handle it. It's not like "you kick the door down I will do the rest". Problems to solve are way more complex for this one-sided mentality. Also, the talk about F-35 being more stealthy, more endurance, etc may have some validity with huge caveats. It's like saying put an SR-71 with internal missiles and let em rip. It'll still have a fifty mile wide turn radius. Bye Felicia. I will defeat your first lob of missiles and once you start turning start chucking them back while you are turning and you are toast. Each aircraft has strengths and weaknesses. Integrating multiple types 4th/5th gen mitigates those weaknesses by providing an extremely challenging problem for the enemy. Buying more 35s in lieu of the X doesn't solve the problem. It has inherent characteristics that just aren't as dominant the 15 can do or can bring to the fight. Let me caveat this with I absolutely am a huge fan of the 35 and a bigger fan of the 22. Also, let me caveat that with I could be convinced a stop gap instead of a pricey X could also be a super hornet. Those guys have some game. Not as much as an Eagle in the air-to-air world but some decent game.



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackfinger
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?


Not as bad as you think. Also, why care about maneuverability if the plan is to fire those bastards off? Dudes wont be merging with 24 air to air missiles. Come on now.



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 12:33 AM
link   
But...But...Missiles...



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

I like your style. Haha!



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: glib2

originally posted by: Blackfinger
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?


Not as bad as you think. Also, why care about maneuverability if the plan is to fire those bastards off? Dudes wont be merging with 24 air to air missiles. Come on now.





It'll still have a fifty mile wide turn radius. Bye Felicia. I will defeat your first lob of missiles and once you start turning start chucking them back while you are turning and you are toast



Your entire argument for the Eagle is based on the idea that it is superior in ACM to the F-35, which is questionable, as is the premise that the Eagle survives the merge into ACM in the first place.

And now, who cares if it's maneuverable?

SH would be an even worse choice than the Eagle, btw.
edit on 8-9-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I was being facetious with maneuverability. I do care about it. Either reading comprehension is inop or my writing. Probably the latter.

The Eagle is better at ACM. Among a few other things.

The eagle doesn’t need to merge. The fifth gem will. Hence integration.

The SH isn’t a bad jet. Not as good as Eagle I agree but if people were pissed at price I just threw it out there.



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: glib2

SH would cost even more and require an entire dedicated line of logistics and training for a boutique run of airframes. It does nothing better than an Eagle other than low-speed, high-alpha nose-pointing which is mostly irrelevant, but kind of a plus for it since it has awful acceleration rates.


Please do list the things the Eagle is better than the F-35.


The Eagle is great, but the money makes zero sense. And the only reasons to recap with an F-15 at the expense of F-35 procurement would be saving money and to keep Boeing's line open. Since it doesn't save money, and they've already admitted to "industrial base concerns" influencing the decision, it's pretty clear why this is being proposed.



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Word on the logistics. I didn’t think of that.

The Eagle is better at killing dudes at range. It’s better at complex sweeps and DCA also to name a few. It’s better at providing the ability for fifth gen to do its thing. The 35 doesn’t compare.

The SH does a few things better than the Eagle. Or I’ll say does a few things CModels would like. The X will close and surpass that gap.

Again I think people hear stealth and look at top speeds and endurance and get stuck on how things actually work in air combat. A fighting falcon is fast but it’s itty bitty wings don’t let it get high and fast with a normal load out. So apply that same logic to the 35vX argument in air to air. It’s night and day.



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: glib2




The Eagle is better at killing dudes at range. It’s better at complex sweeps and DCA also to name a few


In what way?





A fighting falcon is fast but it’s itty bitty wings don’t let it get high and fast with a normal load out. 


Wing-size isn't terribly relevant in this context. A loaded out F-104S with it's tiny-wing goes higher and faster than anything in front-line service today. Lift has a linear relationship to Cl and wing area, but is a function of the square of the velocity of the air over the wing. A C-130 has a low wing-loading and giant wing. It doesn't fly anywhere close to as high as most tactical combat aircraft.



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

In what way? Nice try but no. You asked examples I gave. You ask specifics not going to happen.

You missed the point of my itty bitty wings analogy. Thanks for the lesson on aerodynamics. My point I thought I made clearly is how “the 35 is stealth, it can loiter, it’s pretty fast” is never the complete picture. The 16 is faster than the Eagle but can’t get get high and fast unless clean. Jets are designed to do certain tasks well or a lot of tasks pretty good. Comparing individual items on a jet misses the big picture of what they actually do well.



posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I didn't know that asking you to support your vague blanket statements was unreasonable.

Then to answer in equal depth and precision, the F-35 is better at ranged combat, DCA, and "complex sweeps".



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: glib2

SH would cost even more and require an entire dedicated line of logistics and training for a boutique run of airframes. It does nothing better than an Eagle other than low-speed, high-alpha nose-pointing which is mostly irrelevant, but kind of a plus for it since it has awful acceleration rates.


Please do list the things the Eagle is better than the F-35.


The Eagle is great, but the money makes zero sense. And the only reasons to recap with an F-15 at the expense of F-35 procurement would be saving money and to keep Boeing's line open. Since it doesn't save money, and they've already admitted to "industrial base concerns" influencing the decision, it's pretty clear why this is being proposed.


The only advantage it has is the ability to carry a bucketload of missile and has the AESA radar and links to make use of them. I don' think the Viper or Super Bug have the hardpoint capability. They can also see behind themselves without the fancy helmet. If we had the super long range AIM 12xx they can loiter behind the better planes and work just like a Paladin or MLRS does for our troops up front.

The F35 is a good aircraft and will only get better. I am just listing what the Eagle can do the Lightning cannot (at this point).



new topics




 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join