USAF to scrap hundreds of F-15s

[Seasick]

The Israeli Kfir were somewhat sucessful. It was a Mirage III with a J79. Even with all the modifications that were made the planes still had problems caused by the J79 being a hotter running engine than the original French engine. The Kfir had a heat shield added for the engine as well as added cooling vents. The planes air frames wore out faster than originally planned, requiring more maintance.

[bb-56]

I know this is simplistic, but why not just build more F-15's? The tooling has to be present as they are still in production. The F-15 is a proven entity, as is the F-16.

Just make more?

Ric

YES the F-15k is current production.

[Seasick]

The USAF could probably buy new F-15 fighters but they will be obsolete long before they reach retirement age. The USAF is stuck. The F-22A cost $137 million a piece. The USAF can expect to buy 180 tops. The F-35A will replace all the F-16 , F-117 and A-10 but it can only replace the F-15E in the strike roll. The USAF might consider a F-22 model that is stripped down a bit. Other than that, the USAF will have to buy another plane in production:

1. F-16E (F-16 Block 60): This plane can be brought back into production, the USAF is reluctant because of the large number of F-16 fighters already in service and the substantial number in storage out in the desert. Its a lot of money to spend with the F-35A entering service.

2. F-15K: The recent version of the F-15 is going to be obsolete in less than ten years in US service.

3. F/A-18E/F: In production for the Navy currently. Has a fully digital archetecture. They are now being delivered with the AN/APG-79 AESA radar. The aircraft is already combat tested in Iraq in the close support and strike rolls. Once the USAF has enough new airframes to replace the F-15 jets the F/A-18E/F can be sold to the Navy.

[Werner]

...The F-22A cost $137 million a piece. The USAF can expect to buy 180 tops. ....

Oh, were that true! $137 million is the price of Lot 7 aircraft. The program acquisition unit cost was $345 million in 2005, and climbing. This cost includes all the R&D costs back to the beginning of the project amortized over the buy, and not for an incremental airframe in the middle of the production run.

You can buy an Arleigh Burke for the cost of two of these suckers.

A commentator said recently that the F-22 was stealthier than it needs to be, faster than it needs to be, and bigger than it needs to be. That has been it's problem.

[Seasick]

The F-22 is a Cold War holdover. The USN has done well with the Super-Hornet. The plane has done well so far. The maintance cost are low and she is not a hanger hog like the F-14 was. With the new AN/APG-79 AESA radar and the AIM-120D missile the capability lost when the F-14 and the Phoenix has been closed. The AIM-120D is smaller and faster than the Phoenix and has about two thirds its range. But the new system can hit smaller, faster, and more agile targets. Since Russia has scrapped its Tu-16 fleet and its smaller Tu-22M fleet has been refit as tactical bombers from the maritme roll and passed to the Air Force from the Navy not likely to go back, the missile threat from bombers to the USN greatly reduced. Threats from the next generation Exocet type missiles has greatly increased.

[Tracy White]

Whatever generation goes in now is going to be the last manned tactical combat aircraft in the US inventory. If the USAF is forced to take the super bug it'll be the last they fly. No way would congress let them trade them out once they have them.

[chuck]

A commentator said recently that the F-22 was stealthier than it needs to be, faster than it needs to be, and bigger than it needs to be. That has been it's problem.

No one will believe him in 10 years.

[chuck]

Whatever generation goes in now is going to be the last manned tactical combat aircraft in the US inventory. If the USAF is forced to take the super bug it'll be the last they fly. No way would congress let them trade them out once they have them.

That's only if the current generation of aircraft serves for 40 years. If the combat mainstay that is going into service now proves inadequate in 10 years, then what will replace them will still likely to manned.

[Tracy White]

It's my belief that the UCAVs will gain dominance during the current* generation's lifetime. If they fail, it will only hasten the introduction and reliance of the UCAVS due to costs. I would expect to switch to a C&C mothership / UCAV infrastructure where the mother ship controlled the UCAVs as long as possible, but if contact was severed, they could continue on with pre-programmed missions.

F-22 & F-35