I think this is crucial to the decision on the Stealth Eagle, which I still believe is a lost opportunity. The JSF wasn’t supposed to take this long.
I’ve heard from relatives in the FTW area that Lockheed is opening up parts of the facility that haven’t seen a light on since it was owned by General Dynamics. Lockheed is spending some serious coin to get this done, not to mention a production facility in Italy for overseas orders.
The JSF will be produced the in the numbers expected, it’s just taking a godawfully long time.
The whole production chain of the F-35 is a bit insane too, every participant in the project gets a slice of the production, I think part of the wings are produced in The Netherlands, Italy gets a final production line, England does something else and so forth.
That’s going to cost so much more then they currently predict in that article, it’s wildly optimistic even though it has a few caveat emptor statements build in.
Pay to keep the Eagles on line until the F-35A reaches full capacity.
Pay to reactivate the F-22 line.
Retire the F-15 for some variety of F-16 and willingly give up air superiority.
There is not an F-16 made that matches a contemporary F-15 in its given role. An F-16s radar is never going to be as capable as contemporary F-15 radar. An F-16 will not have the kinematics to do an F-15s job. it does not have the payload to an F-15s job. It’s a fine jet, but it isn’t an F-15, it, by virtue of being the LWF, was never meant to be.
I’d say that the F-16 plan is quite reasonable given the situation, plenty of airframes parked in the desert that are capable still, and with the F-35A being deployed into operational use in 2017 I’d doubt it would be of any grave concern as a stop gap situation. It would also be the cheapest option short of just retiring the C straight out.
besides, you can start retiring the 15 already if the wiki article is correct, two 35 squadrons should already be operating besides the 15, that means you can do a straight replacement of those(or the weakest airframes, really).
It would be nice if production could be ramped up a little though, every country that bought them is probably on their last legs when it comes down to airframe hours.
OK, I am just throwing this out there. 'Cause I quite obviously know jack about what the air force needs. (And they seem to know only slightly more than me.) But what’s wrong with the F-18?
The F-15 and F-16 are known aircraft where they have or can easily adapt a supply and logistics chain, the F-18 not so much since it’s only used by the US Navy IIRC. They would have to plunder some staff from them to get it all up and running. Besides I doubt they have mothballed airframes ready, the Navy already used those themselves.
Snark effectively covered the actual reason the F-18 won’t be adopted: logistics.
Performance wise the Hornet’s got a good radar and beau coup weapons, but it’s light on fuel and it’s relatively slow for a fighter. Hornets can’t dictate the terms of an engagement the way an F-15 or -16 can, once they’re committed they can’t disengage without being run over on the way out.
It’s reasonable from a purely fiscal perspective. Operationally it endangers our ability to achieve air superiority.
The problem with wars is they have a habit of popping up when you least expect them, and you fight them with the weapons you have, not the ones you hoped you’d have in two years.
Considering the current global political climate, I’d rather not hamstring a vital component of our air force.
I think what Snark is getting at is that engagements need to reach a certain scale before the relative advantages of the F-15 and F-16 start really differentiating themselves, and by that point it doesn’t really matter, because you can have all the fighters you want, ain’t gonna stop this from happening:
Pretty much that, besides the USA is already the biggest, largest and strongest military force in the world. I wouldn’t be too worried about a stop gap solution like the F-16.
With the proliferation of 4-4+ gen fighters (Su-30 variants, advanced fulcrum variants, F-16s the world round etc…) The F-15C is still (with a few exceptions) still an unmatched air superiority fighter, if you give it up, and replace it with F-16’s you have effectively just given up air superiority in any war that gets hotter than our current low buzz ops fighting ISIS.
Saying that all weapons are obsolete or unnecessary because of nukes leads you down the same road the UK went in the 60’s that crippled their interceptor development and military capabilities until they realized nearly 15 years later that they had fallen behind.
There are plenty of ways for wars to happen on a conventional scale and in such a way that the F-15’s capabilities would be needed and where an F-16 just cannot fill the role.
Hell as an A/A platform (Stealth/Sensor fusion aside) the F-15C will still be kinematically and probably fuel and ordnance wise superior to the F-35.
As someone on the pointy end of that spear, and having been in 2 red flags with both C model’s E model’s JASDF Eagles, Raptors, and every flavor of F-16 from agressor old block 15’s up to the UAE’s uber gucci block 60’s, and also with Marine F-18C’s. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that as an air superiority platform the C model is worth its weight in gold and the only thing that is superior or worth retiring them for is Raptors.
I will say that between the C model and the A-10C if you are talking about jets that need to retire, I would retire the A-10 over the C model. In any symmetrical conflict or as a tool of US policy the A-10 has very little impact, it will either die or has no effect on what is happening on the political level.
A Squadron of C models going to a country to fly in cooperation or across the border from another nation state is a distinct message that we own the skies, and you do not. No other aircraft has the record or reputation to back that up. Raptors say the same thing, and for what its worth they are superior in every measurable aspect to the C model, but the reputation is not there.
Right, but any conflict warranting the 15C will see the raptor deployed these days. Take the Korean deployment for example. Nobody hears about US F-15’ being deployed abroad because they do not have the same impact(from a public POV that is).
I highly doubt the US is manoeuvring itself into a conflict that would require that much raptors, so it’s likely that they made the decision based on that.
Indeed, but the gist of my argument is, is that the US is not under some sort of existential threat and thus it’s sensible path to work towards a proper replacement.
