F-15E + AN/APG-77

Originally posted by Harlequin
Why would AUS replace there `varks with strike eagles? The eagle has much shorter legs than the `vark, and the AUS `varks do ALOT of long over water flights.


I can see this from another angle: Put better radar`s on the Eagles , big upgrade in capability , now we don`t need as many Raptors.

I would love to see the F-111 last another 30years but it aint.
A STRIKE EAGLE would out range the JSF.....

Originally posted by Jezza

Originally posted by WestPoint23
50 Raptors equal about 5 Billion at 100 Mil a pop, are you sure that Australia with a DoD budget of 17.5 Billion can afford that, even if the Raptor was offered to them?

Because the aussies havent SHAFTED the yanks like "other so called allies"

Ever since WW II the AUS-US alliance has been solid.

I hope your nothing implying Canada in that comment eh jezza


[edit on 26-9-2005 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by FredT
Hmmm I was thinking of a SSGN like the Navy was doing to some of the Ohio's. Wonder if you could dedicate a few of them to this, you may not need supersonic dash rather long loiter. Or a BUFF could also be modified. Nothing as outlandish as Dale Browns fantasies mind you. Or team the B-1 minus the radar with a new E-10???? One is the gun, the other the sight??

I like those ideas even though they do seem a lil too much like the dale brown stuff (good books by the way). I never knew those problems about the B-1 either thanks for info like that. Still like the B-1 though its a beaut. Anyone know how long the J version of the buff will last the US for?

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Canada_EH]

The last plan that I heard for the BUFF was that they would be around until about 2050.

Holy crap how many years of service would that put it at? i think i read that 2044 would be 84 years sooo 90 years then .... wow. sorry but i think im starting to fall in love with a older gal.

The first flight was around 1950, and the first operational plane was accepted in 1952. The J model will be a stand-off jamming platform to use with the Strike Eagles during missions. The USAF currently has to use EA-6Bs from the Navy for their jamming platforms, so they're in the process of rewriting the tactical jamming doctrine.

Originally posted by Jezza
Because the aussies havent SHAFTED the yanks like "other so called allies"

Ever since WW II the AUS-US alliance has been solid.

I agree that the US-UK-Australian alliance is probably the strongest in the world. However, there is no getting aruond the fact that Australia simply can not afford the Raptor, even if it was offered to Australia (which it will not be, at least for a while).

The only way they could afford it is if the US paid for a good part of it for Australia. The only way that will happen is if US-Chinese relations get hostile.

Sooooo, I'd say it's 50/50

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Originally posted by Jezza

Originally posted by WestPoint23
50 Raptors equal about 5 Billion at 100 Mil a pop, are you sure that Australia with a DoD budget of 17.5 Billion can afford that, even if the Raptor was offered to them?

Because the aussies havent SHAFTED the yanks like "other so called allies"

Ever since WW II the AUS-US alliance has been solid.

I hope your nothing implying Canada in that comment eh jezza


[edit on 26-9-2005 by Canada_EH]

Nah mate CANADA COOL !!!!!!

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Jezza
Because the aussies havent SHAFTED the yanks like "other so called allies"

Ever since WW II the AUS-US alliance has been solid.

I agree that the US-UK-Australian alliance is probably the strongest in the world. However, there is no getting aruond the fact that Australia simply can not afford the Raptor, even if it was offered to Australia (which it will not be, at least for a while).

The only way they could afford it is if the US paid for a good part of it for Australia. The only way that will happen is if US-Chinese relations get hostile.

Sooooo, I'd say it's 50/50

It would be a nice dream though RAPTORS over AUS.

lol thank u jezza for clearing that up. its funny how my country and the states bickers over all kinds of crap like softwood lumber trade but when it boils down to it like in 9/11 and katrina all that can be set aside. i hope that the relation ship for us sharing our tech and the us sharing theirs continues.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
lol thank u jezza for clearing that up. its funny how my country and the states bickers over all kinds of crap like softwood lumber trade but when it boils down to it like in 9/11 and katrina all that can be set aside. i hope that the relation ship for us sharing our tech and the us sharing theirs continues.

I think Canada and Australia have a lot more in common that most people
think.
The problem with the replacement of the hornet, and keeping it up in the
air until the JSF finally gets going if the short-legged bucket of bolts gets to
replace the F-111 and F-18.

I agree whole heartly jezza. The f-18 has served both countries well and will still be operational for a couple more years but the pressure is mounting from both militaries for more funding and new planes. personally i think we could make the transtions and that the us shoudl really think of selling slightly downgraded 22's as well. thats my wishing though. it come back to the point of the thread though, do you upgrade old machines when something better is so close and so soon in the future.

Originally posted by danwild6
I was watching a show on historys Top Ten fighters of all time and this one analyst said we shouldn't be building F/A-22 instead we should be upgrading the F-15 with better engines and avionics. My question is could we upgrade the F-15 to supercruise as well and give it thrust vectoring in addition to better avionics?

Your correct the F-15 is a far better design platform. Fitted with uprated avoincs, better radar, thrust vectoring and supercruise would outdo a -22. The F-15s design makes it a better ASF than the -22. With the way technology is going stealth soon will be obsolete and with antigravatics may make the -15 one hell of a superjet. The F-15 was and still is way over engineered and designed not just for killing Migs...
Being a non FBW airframe it can pull 'unofficially' far more G's than a -16 can.

After all the SU35 is just a souped up SU27. The F-15X was proposed once as a cut price F-22. I have a soft spot for the jet but. The F-15s true capabilities and full operation history I doubt will be known in my lifetime. The best thing is that the F-15 is far more protected in EMP and Jamming attacks than the F-22 is. So if funny things are affecting the F-22 fleet after some 'anomalous activity' F-15s are more than up to the job if not more so. Afterall they were designed as UFO killers I believe...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The first flight was around 1950, and the first operational plane was accepted in 1952.

The first flight was April 17, 1952. IOC coming in in 1955 with the B-52B( none of the 13 "A" models were used other than for testing)

It was only 3 B-52A models. They were SLATED for 13, but they only GOT 3. The other 10 were completed as B models.

I was going from my fathers memory which isn't what it used to be for the acceptance date.

[edit on 6/20/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by neverlost
Your correct the F-15 is a far better design platform. Fitted with uprated avoincs, better radar, thrust vectoring and supercruise would outdo a -22. The F-15s design makes it a better ASF than the -22. With the way technology is going stealth soon will be obsolete and with antigravatics may make the -15 one hell of a superjet. The F-15 was and still is way over engineered and designed not just for killing Migs...
Being a non FBW airframe it can pull 'unofficially' far more G's than a -16 can.

I really don't see how the F-15 is a better platform. You would think that 30 years of technology advancement would yield an airframe with better aerodynamics, radar signature, and room for expansion. The F-15 was not made to manuver at supersonic speeds and was not designed to fly in high-alpha conditions. Even with thrust vectoring I highly doubt it would beat an F-22. Just look at how big the control surfaces are on the Raptor compared to the Eagle.

If you knew how complex even the wing design of the F-22 is, you wouldn't be saying that. It's room for upgrades far outsptrips the F-15's.

Also, the F-15 wasn't made to pull 9g turns repeatedly. Being non-FBW doesn't mean that the airframe can handle those g's over 9. It would serverly stress the airframe of the F-15 unlike the F-22 which I believe has been tested to 11g.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by JFrazier]

thats strange . . .when we compared the f22 and the su37 . . the su lost bcoz of the the f22s radar . . . coz everybody started to talk about BVR of the F22. . . now when f15 gets the same radar . . you suddenly start talking about menouverability and thrust vectoring . . . ? ? ? . . does it mean that bcos su37 is better menouvering than the f22 itll kick the raptors ass . . ? ? ?

Originally posted by srsairbags
thats strange . . .when we compared the f22 and the su37 . . the su lost bcoz of the the f22s radar . . . coz everybody started to talk about BVR of the F22. . . now when f15 gets the same radar . . you suddenly start talking about menouverability and thrust vectoring . . . ? ? ? . . does it mean that bcos su37 is better menouvering than the f22 itll kick the raptors ass . . ? ? ?

the f-22 is the best air superiority fighter out there by a long way. as i said in the other thread the f-22's stealth will allow it to get close enough to the su-37 to blow it out the sky without being seen. the f-22 also has super cruise and as u just said it has a better radar. the su-37's manouverability would give it a huge advantage over the f-22 when dogfighting but i think the f-22 would give a few people a suprise in its dogfighting abillity. however manouverability is only useful at close range, the f-22 is designed for bvr engagements (please try not to bring f-14's and awacs into this thread as well). as such the su-37 would never get withing dogfighting range manouverability is of no use to it agaisnt the f-22 raptor.

please however much u like ignoring facts read this and take it to heart. the f-22 is vastly superior to the su-37 and would kick its ass almost every time.

justin

My understanding is that the U.S. has never managed to make a 3d thrust vectoring engine with enough strength to withstand afterburners, certainly the Russians found this to be challanging.

www.sci.fi...

Also while the F-15 is certainly an effective airframe I don't know that as much work has gone into it's continued development as has gone into the Su-27 series since the U.S. started with the F-22. Currently I'd say the F-15 has some catch up to do for it's airframe at least, though avionics, radar and other more transferable technologies probably lay in favor of the F-15.

The US tested 3D TVC with the F-15 ACTIVE and it was able to handle the thrust loads even on afterburner.

The F-15 ACTIVE’s first flight took place in February, 1996, and was shortly followed by the first in-flight vectoring. In April and May of ’96 the ACTIVE displayed supersonic pitch and yaw vectoring, respectively. The first ever Mach 2.0 vectoring took place in September, 1996. The aircraft was then featured as a static display at several air shows until the completion of it’s phase within the ACTIVE program in August of 1998.

Link

[edit on 26-6-2006 by WestPoint23]