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.

 

Forget the F-22 upgrade the F-15

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Typhoons are a lightweight, where even the "One of everything" F-16 is a medium weight. Frankly, there's no need to buy Typhoons, as F-16-60+ can do everything they can, and quite a few things better.

The F-15 was arguably one of the best 3 fighter aircraft in the world during the Gulf war. The problem is, it's not 1991 anymore, and hopefully, by the time we get into another major war, it won't even be 2006. Even ignoring the fact that individual airframes get old and need to be retired, there are other areas where the F-15 will soon be obsolete just because it is no longer as far ahead as the F-22.

Stuff F-119s in them though, and you decrease the variety of spare parts you need to keep. F-119s for everyone!



(I need a confettii smiley)




posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
Typhoons are a lightweight, where even the "One of everything" F-16 is a medium weight. Frankly, there's no need to buy Typhoons, as F-16-60+ can do everything they can, and quite a few things better.



If typhoon is a light weight I d love to see your definition of a heavy weight, I agree that f16 block 60 is a great step up from previous generations of the f-16 family I frankly cant think of an area save perhaps qualified air to ground munitions that the block 60 can possibly beat typhoon and even then give a few years and our typhoons will be carrying stormshadow,brimstone etc.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
Typhoons are a lightweight, where even the "One of everything" F-16 is a medium weight. Frankly, there's no need to buy Typhoons, as F-16-60+ can do everything they can, and quite a few things better.


Hmmmm dunno about that one. The F-16 Block 60 is a great evolution of a lightweight fighter design, but better than the Typhoon? Not a chance


Also in regards to weight:
The F16 has a max takeoff weight of 16875 kg.
The Typhoon has a MTOW of 21000 kg.


THought i shudder to even suggest it. Perhaps its time for the USAF to look at picking up some Typhoons to backstop the F-15's while the JSF ramps up.? Im sure that offsets and local production agreements could be arranges and most would be produced here in the US.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Yeah I'm pretty share thats not going to happen. Typhoon is a great plane but outside of the Harrier I can't think of another aircraft we've gotten from across the pond.


Well, off the top of my head (so probably not a comprehensive list) since 1940 the US has bought (military only) the Spitfire, Mosquito, Canberra, T-45 and C-23 from Blighty


On the commercial side you can add into that sales of the Viscount and BAC One Eleven (it should never be written 1-11 or 111 - said BAC) that were not well recieved by the US industry AT ALL. The final (in every sense) success of the UK industry in the USA was the BAe 146 which sold in fairly large numbers (for a British airliner, not a Boeing)

Thankis foe beating me to it Fred, I wouldn't want anyone to think I was being rosey eyed


I think it is true that the F-16 outperforms the Typhoon in A2G, but it is also true that this is a transient advantage and due to the current stage of Typhoon development rather than any intrinsic superiority, this advantage will have disappeared by the time the Typhoon is declared fully operational.



[edit on 6-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I think you can't do a real comparison betwewen the F-16B60 and the EF T.

We should wait for the F-35 to compare it to the F16...

As for the F-15 you can upgraded it all that you want but that doesn't make it new.
In fact this is what the Russians do with the MIG 29 and the Su-27. They created tons of upgrades for the planes probably because they can't afford a new plane.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Ok well what if we built entirely new airframes. Put the F-119 and all new avionics and radar systems. We can even incorporate a bit of stealth into the new F-15X Super Eagle
And here is the best part we could sell it to other nations and won't be tearing our hair out worrying about technology transfer.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
But i thought that the USAF was struggling to pay for its f-22s where would you get the funding for a project like this? scrap some more tankers maybe? it would cost millions to put together a project like this and by the time it was finished and ready to sell to other countrys every body would probably either have or would be getting typhoon, f-35 ,grippen and sukhoi s latest offerings.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Gah, I've really got to learn to proofread!

I was not trying to call the Typhoon a sissy aircraft! I was (trying to) point out that the F-16 was not designed to fit into the same niche as say, the F-5. A quick look at the Eurofighter Typhoon homepage shows it to also be in what I understand to be "medium fighter" catergory. Hence my entire previous post amounts to so much bs. oops.
(also, I am fully aware that the earliest F-16s were armed at a light fighter level, being really little more than high performance stunt planes with a pair of missiles compared to thier current incarnation)

That said, The F-22's primary role is to be better than everyone at everything. Thirty years ago this was the role of the F-15. In both cases, the aircraft is simply too expensive to field as our sole asset, hence the job of the F-35 is similar to that of the F-16, and try to supplement the other aircraft's limited numbers.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by buckaroo
But i thought that the USAF was struggling to pay for its f-22s where would you get the funding for a project like this? scrap some more tankers maybe? it would cost millions to put together a project like this and by the time it was finished and ready to sell to other countrys every body would probably either have or would be getting typhoon, f-35 ,grippen and sukhoi s latest offerings.


Well your right its to late to do this. But had we done this back in 1998 when the raptors funding was cut or back in the early 1990's when the pentagon had its bottom up review the situation would have been very different.

Instead we've opted for what amounts to little more than a very expensive cold war legacy program that should've been canceled after the fall of the soviet union. One of the primary reasons its so expensive is that its design had to be modified to fullfill an A2G role instead of just an air-superiority role. In my mind this could have been accomplished much quicker and for alot less money with an upgraded F-15 rather than trying to modify an entire new aircraft that we had virtually no experience with.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
As much as I'm impressed by the Eagle, and as much as the threats out there have changed, we NEED a program like the Raptor. Even if they upgraded the Eagle instead of going with the Raptor, it's STILL just an Eagle. There is only so much upgrading you can do before someone catches up and passes you. That's happening with the Eagle. Even if they upgraded it, sooner or later it's gonna get passed up, and as long as it takes to get a new design in the air anymore (Love live Kelley Johnson), if we didn't have something in the works already, it would be 20 more years of the Eagle, and by that point there would be new planes (like the Typhoon) flying circles around it.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Ok well what if we built entirely new airframes. Put the F-119 and all new avionics and radar systems. We can even incorporate a bit of stealth into the new F-15X Super Eagle


You could reduce the RCS a bit (The did that to the F-18 E/F, and the AESA radar actually reduces the RCS as well by eliminating that huge radar dish) but you would never get a huge reduction from it. Perhaps if you went to a tailess design.

However, even with the upgrades suggested in the intial post, you would have a great fighter for sure, but one that would still be unable to operate at the FEBA.

Now give it the AESA and a long range A2A missile then you have the ideal a/c for continental defence, crusie missile defence etc. Load it up with A2A's and you have a flying missile platform as mentioned above.

Waynos I would be interested in a flyoff between the F-15E and the Typhoon with its full air to ground set (Tranch 3 has it integrated right?). You would never be able to pitch it to the USAF as a air superiority fighter less it take $$$$ away from the Raptor, but perhaps as a JOAT like the F-18 to fill the strike/Interdiction role? as the F-15's fatigue life creeps up. At the very least, aquire a squadron to serve as the Red Flag agressor squad.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Zaphod,

>>
I find it interesting that the Golden Eagles, which are just F-15Cs with the AESA would suddenly have nose gear problems, when they didn't BEFORE AESA. The Golden Eagle is simply a REFIT of existing F-15Cs from what I read, which means they're exactly the same as was shown in those pics, except for the radar. But now suddenly they have weak nose gears?
>>

The APG-63V(2) is heavy, being based on largely similar 'brick' technology to that on the APG-77. As I recall they had to add 300-400lbs of ballast in the back end to keep the jet in trim.

That said, the same general kind of (save our program!) thing happened with sudden structural cracks in the primary wingspars and rear fuselage longerons of A-7's being 'discovered' when the 7F looked suitable to re-supplant the A-10 and most Guard Ds while 'allowing' for the actives F-16 fleet to upgrade to 229 engines (i.e. no new LGPOS production).

At under 4 million dollars for all airframes.

"We just lost the A-12, now they're after our Bread And Butter, quick, find a problem!!" sayeth the All-For-Texas lobby. And suddenly GD had economic security for another decades worth of F-16C.50s. Despite the fact that they couldn't drop bombs (no SAR mapping, no ATP-as-Sniper, no IAMs) any better than a C.25/.30 could in 1991.

All our smart-weapon capability continuing to be vested in tiny fleets of F-16CG (.40) and F-15E whose SALH-only capabilities were /also/ underbought 'for cost' (oink, oink), at the same time the bomber folk were looking to save their existence by demanding that all JDAM be CMUP'd first 'as a roadmap' to their own future.

Switch things around a little:

1. F-22 (when it still /was/ the F-22) gets JDAM during EMD for service intro in 1998 as originally planned. Purchases get reduced to a 550 but in trade, a multiyear contract is undertaken, similar to the F/A-18E/F effort. There is no 'trainwreck' of overlapping rampup to 4th generation airframe production.
2. F-15E and all F-16C get JDAM and improved Radar _by 1994 at the latest_. Becoming frontline assets in time for Deny Flight and ONW/OSW where they can bomb through weather and with or without targeting pods.
3. F-16C.50 production stops after 100-150 airframes are built, to replace the F-4G SEAD capability as originally intended. All recieve IDM so that they can perform cooperative range-known hunting, either with each other or with the RC-135. All use AGM-154 as 'SHARK' alternatives to HARM in attacking radar-silent threats from 40nm standoffs.
3. B-1B gets canned as it should have been by the late 80's. And the B-52 is reroled back to (semismart CBU) iron dropper with a first-day-of-war mod for AGM-158B whose development supercedes that of AGM-86C conversions and even the BGM-109 tomahawk. BUFF-G is retired while BUFF-H also trades half the inventory (50 aircraft remaining, tops) for new Trent engines and a 'de-man' program to pull all but 2 or perhaps 3 people from the cockpit. B-2 stays a SIOP platform (the only thing it's really good for) and gets AGM-131 to augment the B-83 along with perhaps the GBU-37 as an alternative WMD HDBT buster.
4. F-16A's get rewinged rather than ADF'd as a CUPID/MLU prequel alternative to the A-7F if there really is a problem with the latter's upgrade. Contingent upon this 'CAS Force' requirement is the provision of IDM and LITENING pods as the principle effectors by which _Smart Interdiction_ can also be undertaken.
5. All F-15A's are pulled from the fleet by 1995. All F-15Cs by 2002. All F-15Es by 2005.
6. All AV-8B's are removed by 1995
7. All A-10s are removed by 2000.
8. All F/A-18A-D are removed by 2005
9. Marines are told to stop aggitating for an all-STOVL force and fly like they were always going to be a Navy RAG. Because that's all they're good for.
10. All F-117's are removed from inventory by 2001.

Today's inventory would then look like:

450 of 550 F-22 delivered
750 of 900 F/A-18EF delivered
80 of 200 F-16E coming online
150 F-16C cascading to replace Guard F-16s
30-50 B-52 standing watch as cruise systems.
20 B-2 standing watch as SIOP penetrators

Probably for under half a trillion dollars (JSF is a quarter trillion with half the capability mix).

Meanwhile, the advent of Small Diameter Bombs and glide kits would probably rewrite the spec for a not-golden 'CALF' (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter) _just now beginning_ program definition. And shift back towards external carriage of heavyweight munitions 'when needed' as an alternative to a 2,500-3,000lb internal loadout of 8 SDB or 4-6 AIM-120 as a principal starting point for ONE variant to fulfill all USAF/USN/USMC mission roles as a function, not of munitions but basing mode commonality.

One wingspan (mission gross=platform cost). One landing gear/structural modality (all naval=shared inventory, and longer airframe life, even during active ops). One COST (economies of scale for a single variant).

And probably a reasonable 800 airframes total anticipated production scalars, half each for the USN and USAF, to act as mini-A-6/F-111s 'or cruise missiles with landing gear' in first-day-of-war reduction of IADS and C2 threats.

That airframe not being manned at all, but rather a UCAV.

The only remaining thing to then do would be to consolidate our tactical Air Services back towards a single representative 'command' with training and spares pipes for a mere 3 types (F-22/F-18EF/UCAV), not 10.

It was our shortsighted inability to see (or be told, by those with a vested interest in covering such 'details' up) the relative weighted sortie differences on tactical vs. strategic platform aimpoints serviced per day with high density IAM counts 'on both pylons' that doomed us to a 2,500 airframe fighter fleet that _does not_ need replacing, in kind.

Airframes/SMER racks/sorties surged per day vs. flown in from out of area.

400X8X3= 2,400 DMPI's per day. (700nm radius)
120X8X1= 960 DMPI's per day. (2,500nm radius)

Under a 1,000nm, tacair wins, every time.

And THAT, in turn, is how you tell the monster that our 'independent' (of any collective-utility oversight) air services have become to stop being such gluttons and define a warplan vs. _unified_ inventory capability for numbers of aimpoints serviced per day. Relative to the 'intensity' of expected attrition necessary to sustain attacks for X-days until the war can be ended diplomatically, or by ground forces onset.

Do not plan your defense around numbers of pilots as 'union workers worried about their 401K plan'. Do not endorse a dated warfighter paradigm on the basis of letting a few defense industries make maximum profits _off exports_ whose R&D was free on the taxpayer's hook.

Treat them like any other asset to be discarded at need in war or after their utility is no longer necessary. Do this and you can forestall the calamity that Eisenhower warned of in the late 1950s with the conspiracy between government and industry and the services becomes an almost unbreakable 'base' of corrupt power.

Interest in the F-15 as some kind of reverse-stopgap-becomes-future-solution 'nostalgia' just goes to show what happens when you FAIL to exercise proper fiscal constraint. And the reality becomes that we cannot afford any of the 'superior' solutions.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
WOW!!! You certainly put me in my place. Great post
you'd be a great secretary of defense.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Was scanning through google for info on the F-22 and found a page which is pretty old but none the less very informative. I know we've been upgrading the F-15 with a new radar but this guy claims we could also upgrade its engine give the F-15 the same perfroman as the F-22. Does that mean super-cruise? Anyways here's the article.

article


This procedure wouldn't justify the added cost but would certainly be less wasteful than buy F-22s. The best way forward is to can the F-22 scam and upgrade the systems of our F-15s and F-16s.

The increase in systems capability has been much faster than that in engines or materials and will offer the most bang for the buck. We need more government investment in science research to develop and refine new detection technologies to complement the enormous computational power we have available today.

For example, we can already buy off-the-shelf chips that are far more powerful than the systems in the F-35 and F-22.

There is a company developing image and signal processing systems for detection technologies that have never been used before and will use that data in ways that you cannot imagine. This is possible because of the computing power thats becoming available. Its all about the systems.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I can't seem to find the sight where I read this right now, but completely upgrading the F-15 fleet would cost about 90% of the cost of simply purchasing a new fleet of Raptors.

Besides, the Raptor is needed. The F-15 was the greatest air superiority fighter of its time, but it's time is over. The US needs to keep air dominance, and that means wielding the Raptor.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I can't seem to find the sight where I read this right now, but completely upgrading the F-15 fleet would cost about 90% of the cost of simply purchasing a new fleet of Raptors.

Besides, the Raptor is needed. The F-15 was the greatest air superiority fighter of its time, but it's time is over. The US needs to keep air dominance, and that means wielding the Raptor.


Upgrading the engines wont cost nearly as much as buying a new F-15, let alone buying a raptor. We do not need a "air-superiority" fighter that cannot be properly deployed due to its high cost and small number. We need a low-cost aircraft with exceptional systems. The F-15 and F-16 satisfy this need at the moment because we already have them. About the only thing the F-22 can claim to be much better than is in stealth and super-sonic fuel-economy yet in super-sonic flight, neither stealth nor economy are possible. In other words, in a super-sonic mission, the F-22 doesnt offer much advantage over an the F-15 in a one-to-one comparison, and on the whole offers a fraction of the capability relative to an F-15 with upgraded systems.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   
The big thing though is even with the upgraded engines, you're STILL using an F-15. A 30 year old design now.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
The B-52 is a fifty year old design and it will probably be in service for another 30-40yrs.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
It's also not used for what it was designed for anymore. It was designed to penetrate heavy defenses. It's now used as a secondary bomber, mostly launching cruise missiles, and only goes in over a target when the defenses are suppresed.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's also not used for what it was designed for anymore. It was designed to penetrate heavy defenses. It's now used as a secondary bomber, mostly launching cruise missiles, and only goes in over a target when the defenses are suppresed.


Exactly. Nobody talks about the BUFF going in at high altitude (As they were first designed for) or even low altitude as a penatrating bomber. Also, the airframe life of a heavy bomber is alot greater than a fighter as well. Now as a standoff jammer, or a long loiter weapons platform AFTER SAMS and A2A threats are knocked out, it still has alot of life lft in it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join