I am with you on this one

It depends on what kind of conflict the US is planning on fighting, if they want to bomb Arabs, aging F-15's and F-16's will do them for a long time yet. If they think they're going to fight a more advanced threat, the upgrades planned for those airframes are at least equal or superior to most jets out there, bar Typhoon or Rafale. And i don't think we're gonna bomb London or Paris.

I recall one US pilot in Gulf War 1 got scared of a MiG-29 Fulcrum, this is with a vast difference in training and the Eagle pilot still bolted. A superior product and he failed to prosecute his target. Am i bashing? Maybe, but when you need to buy a hydraulic press to do the job of a bench vice, you've got a problem with the people flying your jet.

This being said, the Eagle and Fighting Falcon are 30 year old designs now, and to have sustainable air superiority for the next 40 years they need a good base. That's the Raptor and F-35 program.

I have to admit I find some of these comments hilarious.

Since when was the USAF short of aircraft? It seems some folks just can't help thinking in terms of wars gone by. You'll be talking 'big wings' next! LOL.

When you say the USAF needs more F22's how do you arrive at this conclusion?

Why?

Do you really think the planners have no clue, at all?

Since when was the US public itching to pay higher taxes or see the budget deficit balloon ever higher for the totem of a (slightly?) larger US
airforce than exists now?

.....and that's before some of you start whining that you need more B2's, more JSF's, more SSBN's, a B2 replacement, a B1 replacement, a B52 replacement, more blah blah blah

- get the picture?

How many here are even old enough to pay taxes yet?!

Hey, i'm not the one who's throwing lives away in countries which a fair percentage of the country cannot spell never mind locate on a map. It's their game, so they'd better be prepared to pay to play.

Lol I guess the pilot in the F-15 might have been a French American
But to get back on topic the F-15 and F-16 are old so we need more raptors to make up for them when they leave service. I wouldn't worry about bombers like the B-2 or the B-1 we probably already have replacements for them we just don't know about em To sum it all up we really do need more than 300 raptors.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
.......But to get back on topic the F-15 and F-16 are old so we need more raptors to make up for them when they leave service.................. To sum it all up we really do need more than 300 raptors.

- No you don't.

Of course the military and manufacturers will scream need at the tax-paying public because the public's approval is required to get the go ahead and to pick up the bill.

Each new generation of aircraft is always more capable than the last - and if that isn't quite so then the designers need sacking along with the procurement staff and new people brought in!

(what was all that about secretly being 50yrs advanced? Hmmm?)

A one for one replacement is most certainly not justifiable. But hey, it's your taxes.

The first place to logically start is the age of the airframe. From what I remember the F-15 program was started in the 70's. Does anyone know what the life span is for the airframe and associated avionics??

A good gauge is to look at AMARC - how many F-15's are there now, and how many more are slated to go to the boneyard. Already a bunch of F-18 and F-16's are there now.

Currently there are approx 106 F-15a's at AMARC...

=-Rich

Each new generation of aircraft is always more capable than the last - and if that isn't quite so then the designers need sacking along with the procurement staff and new people brought in!

(what was all that about secretly being 50yrs advanced? Hmmm?)

A one for one replacement is most certainly not justifiable. But hey, it's your taxes.

Umm... no you don't need the publics opinion or agreement all you need is the pentagons decision. Also the 50 years thing are black projects that are only used in secret so we only uses those in a World War. Its worth paying taxes for such an amazing fighter jet.


[edit on 2-8-2004 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... no you don't need the publics opinion or agreement

- oh come on Westy. Lame man.

Public approval is vital to sustain the dollars.

Technically it is true that it is not needed per se and that in isolation for any given moment it isn't required but seriously, how long do you really think spending that went against the public will would be tolerated?

all you need is the pentagons decision.

- I think you'll find that a very short term 'answer' and no answer at all in the long run.

Also the 50 years thing are black projects that are only used in secret so we only uses those in a World War.

- Again, come on.

It may take a while but the improved capability has to be demonstrated........otherwise why should anyone keep pumping the dollars in on the basis of mere claims and no 'product'?

What is the F22/23 but the product of R&D that was once thought too 'black' to reveal. Hmm?

Umm did you know about the F/A-22 and F-23 projects during the 80's nope you didn't, just like the F-117 and B-2 were build in secret and shown later you don't know what is waiting for declassification now. Also the spending thing the government can spend as much as they want if its necessary no matter what the public thinks.


[edit on 2-8-2004 by WestPoint23]

While the specifics of an aircraft programme might be kept secret, the existence of the programme as a whole cannot. The ATF and ATB were the programmes which led to the B-2 and F/A-22 and YF-23 and these were well known as early as 1979 (ATB) and 1982 (ATF) also the existence of what we now know as the F-117 was reported (as Lockheed Stealth Fighter) in Flight in 1980/81. You are falling into the trap of thinking that the B-2 (and F-117?) were revealed to an unsuspecting world when in fact they were merely confirmation of what many people knew was there, only the trailing edge design of the B-2 was a surprise. Likewise if there was a secret bomber or fighter that we had not seen we would know it was there all the same, we know that the Raptor is the best heavy fighter that the US can produce at the moment, we also know that the ultimate bomber to date is the B-2.

Another point is the the ATF competion was an open project untill Northrop and Lockheed showed that it could work, then they slapped a black lable on it fast enough to make your head spin. Prior to that it was not.

Getting back to the subject at hand, the headline is embarrassing either way you look at it. Possibility #1, we really did get defeated, that just sucks, because our pilots were probably cocky to begin with they probably underestimated their opponent and their capability, when that happens you get your ass handed to you on a sliver platter.

Possibility #2 the pilots purposefully took a dive(as someone stated earlier pilots are cocky and that wouldnt happen lol) or this was set up some how to make us look bad to push the F/22 project. Horrible idea because even ppl like us on this board know that its the PILOT not the PLANE that wins dogfights...If i was flying a f-22 and Chuck Yeager was flying a f-4 he’d whup my ass to kingdom come. So that argument doesnt justify crap. Id imagine congress would respond with "what you want better equipment when you cant even handle what you have? training is more important"

or maybe its something in-between I heard the US pilots were up against unfair numbers. In that situation, its really tough, no matter how good one is, how many can one fight simultaneously?

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
Horrible idea because even ppl like us on this board know that its the PILOT not the PLANE that wins dogfights...If i was flying a f-22 and Chuck Yeager was flying a f-4 he’d whup my ass to kingdom come.
or maybe its something in-between I heard the US pilots were up against unfair numbers. In that situation, its really tough, no matter how good one is, how many can one fight simultaneously?

The pentagon is being really tight with the details. The IAF was able to lock on at a greater range than the US planes. They would have in effect shot first. Now would they have been able to down the flight of 15's? Who knows. The AA-10 is a capable A2A missile. Now had the 15's had the ESRA, they may have gotten off the first shot.

The 15's could have taken out a superior force if they had surprised them the AMRAAM is a fire and forget, so they could have volley off serveral of them.

In a H2H fight Chuck would wax you for sure, but BVR fight sitting in a plane he cannot see on his radar? Id put my money on you esp if you had AMRAAMS.

Can anything be said about the cutbacks in our pilot\'s airtime? Since the budget cutbacks, I understand most pilots are getting less time in the air. Would more time in the aircraft help with some of the problems we encountered?

=-Rich

Originally posted by rvfried
Can anything be said about the cutbacks in our pilot\'s airtime? Since the budget cutbacks, I understand most pilots are getting less time in the air. Would more time in the aircraft help with some of the problems we encountered?

The article did say that these pilots has less time in the air than the Indians who have been trining aggressivly over the last few years. Yes training would make a difference, as would having an AWACS in the air.