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.

 

USAF Actually Buying F-15Xs?

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I like the Osprey. Had a ride in one a few years ago. As a tanker, I have my doubts. The Navy is being stupid, doing that while the perfect airframes for what they need are just sitting there. There are a whole bunch of low air time S-3B Vikings just sitting in storage.




posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

A droned up conversion of the S-3B would have been a better MQ-25A than what the Navy finally selected. However, I don't think any offered to do that...sooo...



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
If China launches a surprise attack against bases on Guam, Kadena, SK, etc, it won't matter a damn what type of aircraft is sitting on the ramps.


If China does that they better be concerned where the OMFG class SSGNs are.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

That would require the Navy to admit they were stupid to get rid of them when they did. That whole thing stank honestly.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

I love that acronym. It's so appropriate for them too.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499
In ten years they wont have to.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I worked on the B conversions at Cecil Field in the 80's. They are a solid bird. It wasn't the Navy as much as it was Clinton's "Peace Dividend".



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Why is that?



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499
The Navy will retire the 4 Ohios til 2030. Maybe they'll get some of the launch capacity back on the newer Virginias but probably not enough.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

There is an intent to keep converting the later Ohio class SSBNs to the SSGN configuration as they retire the older boats.

We are getting a bit off subject here. Maybe if I have time tomorrow I'll start a thread on this subject.
edit on 31-12-2018 by JIMC5499 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

Yeah, but the Navy didn't even try to prevent it. They just said "ok, sure".



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   
If USAF does end up getting F-15X I can see an interesting F-15 vs Su-27 match up for the next decade or two. Su-35SM should be getting N036 AESA, making it the most advanced Su-27 type. F-15X is getting APG-82 AESA. Overall, a good match up. If Boeing is to save money, they probably won't bother with the brake like Sukhoi did with Su-35 replacing Su-27's flip brake with a new tail brake.

If ordered, F-15X prototype should be ready by 2022 and enter service by 2026.
edit on 2-1-2019 by tinse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499


"There was a slow transition in the makeup of the air wing, as well as a slow transition in the changeover in the leadership of the air-wing community," Hendrix, now a vice president at Telemus Group, told Business Insider. As a naval aviator, Hendrix spent over a decade in P-3 patrol squadrons that routinely conducted maritime patrols looking for foreign submarines.

"By the time we got ... to replace the S-3, essentially the leadership totally turned over to the short-range, light-attack community, led by the F/A-18 Hornet pilots, and also they've been operating for the better part of 20 years in permissive environments," Hendrix said, referring to areas such as the Persian Gulf, where threats like enemy subs are almost nonexistent.

Because of the lack of other threats, the S-3 was relegated largely to a refueling role during its final years, mainly as a recovery tanker for aircraft returning to the carrier.

"When it came time to make a decision, they said, 'Well, we really don't need the recovery tanker. I can do recovery tanking with other Hornets, and this anti-submarine warfare doesn't seem all that important to us because there's not submarines around us,'" Hendrix said. "So they made a decision to get rid of the S-3."

www.businessinsider.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Stupendously dumb attitude and decision when you consider the proliferation of submarines in general around the world and specifically in the Asia/Pacific sphere. Even more so given the projections for the size and capability of the PLAN sub fleet. It just leaves you shaking your head.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

Considering how frugal they have to be with flight hours, why waste them as flying tankers on super hornets.

As far as cargo, an F35 engine doesn't fit into smaller carrier based cargo planes and helicopters.

I swear they want planes for magazine covers and not military operations.

The 100 Vikings sitting in the desert still have over 9000 flight hours on their frames.

We could use the already paid Vikings for cargo and fuel. It would be better than the proposed replacements.

Or you could get some new and cool looking props for Hollywood movies and recruitment videos.

Sheesh
edit on 1 3 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   


Considering how frugal they have to be with flight hours, why waste them as flying tankers on super hornets. 




There is a very strong argument to be made about factoring unit procurement cost/service life hours when factoring cost per flight hour. If you buy a $80M F-18E that has a 30k hr service life, beyond the operating cost you're also burning hours off that airframe's life when using it to tank.

It really is a colossal waste the way they are using them. Offloads are tiny, as well.


The F135 power module would fit in a Greyhound with no problem. I just doesn't fit in the cargo door!
No sense redesigning the door or designing a pallet for it when its on its way out. It'll squeeze into an Osprey on a tailored pallet, so they've decide to just wait for it.



Little known fact on the Hoovers was that after they (foolishly) stripped all the ASW/MAD gear they were using their endurance to good effect as a bombtruck, ISR, and target designator in addition to ASuW and tanking. It really was a jack of all trades.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
It really was a jack of all trades.


It was also really good at being a pain in the ass to ground handle. As soon as we got them parked, we were loading a couple boxes of absorbent pads into the back of the truck. Run 18 psi or less on the fuel hose and you're fine. Run 18.1, and the vents are wide open and there's fuel all over the ramp.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

This. If anything, given the growth in China's sub fleet they should be chomping at the bit for a B-52 style midlife rebuild and update of the S-3 fleet so that they can have another few decades of ASW cover, and if the USN wants to rebuild a dozen or two of them into jet greyhounds, that's even better.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They had a fix for that, they just grounded them before it could be installed. The Navy just thinks that they can cover outer zone ASW with the P-8 and their helos can cover the inner zone. They just haven't trained heavy in ASW for almost 20 years. I was a non- ASW aircrewman in the early 80's and I had to learn enough ASW that I could help out if I was on a flight and an incident happened. The picture on the left on my posts is me riding the rescue hoist with a dummy in 1984.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Shanahan reportedly called the F-35 stealth fighter "f---ed up,' saying that Lockheed "doesn't know how to run a program."

[…] "'If it had gone to Boeing, it would be done much better,'" a former official recalled Shanahan saying, Politico reported.
He is said to have "dumped" on the aircraft regularly, with a former Trump administration official noting that he kind of "went off" on the program last year. "He would complain about Lockheed's timing and their inability to deliver, and from a Boeing point of view, say things like, 'We would never do that,'" the former official revealed.

In other private meetings, Shanahan has reportedly called the program "unsustainable," complaining about the cost in particular of the stealth fighters, with separate versions built for the Navy, Marines and Air Force. The F-35 is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the life of the program, making it the most expensive weapon in US military history.

[…]

www.businessinsider.de...

this wont end well



new topics




 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join