F-15C/D Approaching the Chopping Block Soon?

[frixon28]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/are-the-f-15-eagles-days-numbered

 

Who knows if it is something just to appease the taxpayers...but it sure is interesting.

[SkateZilla]

Aging Airframes,

 

F-15C was supposed to be replaced by the F-22A, but there arent nearly enough of those.

[frixon28]

Aging Airframes,

 

F-15C was supposed to be replaced by the F-22A, but there arent nearly enough of those.

 

Of course if the US ordered 2/3 of the original planned F-22's we wouldn't be in this situation...but the past is the past. I am very surprised that their is even talks of retiring the F-15C/D in the next decade instead of the 2040's like the majority of the USAF current fighters will be (of course the 15C/D's have the oldest air frames). Interesting still

[Wizard_03]

I don't agree with the idea of using F-16s to supplement/replace the F-15C/Ds

 

F-16s are at the end of their development cycle, and are in the same ballpark age as the F-15s. Also the idea that 5th gen and 4th+ gen fighters are gonna be more and more common in the next few decades...I can see the F-16 becoming very outdated, very quickly, and I don't see how updates could make them more relevant for future threats.

 

My thought would be; too replace the many F-15Cs/Ds with few factory fresh F-15Es. From what I've seen the F-15E could stay competitive with current threats for a long time with upgrades such as a new EW suite, Talon HATE DL pod, and increased weapons carriage in both payload and variety. Growth opportunities that the F-16 just doesn't have.

 

But It could be a strategy decision as well, USAF likes a High/Low mix of capabilities.

[Sweep]

I don't agree with the idea of using F-16s to supplement/replace the F-15C/Ds

 

F-16s are at the end of their development cycle, and are in the same ballpark age as the F-15s. Also the idea that 5th gen and 4th+ gen fighters are gonna be more and more common in the next few decades...I can see the F-16 becoming very outdated, very quickly, and I don't see how updates could make them more relevant for future threats.

 

My thought would be; too replace the many F-15Cs/Ds with few factory fresh F-15Es. From what I've seen the F-15E could stay competitive with current threats for a long time with upgrades such as a new EW suite, Talon HATE DL pod, and increased weapons carriage in both payload and variety. Growth opportunities that the F-16 just doesn't have.

 

But It could be a strategy decision as well, USAF likes a High/Low mix of capabilities.

 

Why F-15Es when you could have new F-15Cs?

 

Though if you insist on replacing fighters with strikers...Why not F-35As?

Edited March 23, 2017 by Sweep
wording

[Wizard_03]

Why F-15Es when you could have new F-15Cs?

 

Though if you insist on replacing fighters with strikers...Why not F-35As?

 

I guess you could do either new Cs or Es but one of their selling points on the viper is that its multi-role. So is the strike, and I do believe in this day and age were passed dedicated platforms, you need flexibility, specialized systems are fine, but with single mission platforms you have limited basing options, you'll need logistics for specific types which can be costly.

 

Also if you were to reduce the fleet too save money all the more reason to have more mission potential from one aircraft. And the strikes could be just as good in the A2A role as the C/Ds all you would really need to do is remove the CFTs which is totally possible just not commonly done.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Wizard_03

[hughlb]

It's hard to imagine anything other than a multi-role platform going forward. A dedicated Air Superiority fighter like the Raptor or Eagle, means a second multi-role or attack platform - Look at the Lightning II, not only is it multi-role, but it's multi-airframe. The British, French, Swiss, all push for a single aircraft to do it all. I don't think the Viper is the answer though.

[Kev2go]

I don't agree with the idea of using F-16s to supplement/replace the F-15C/Ds

 

F-16s are at the end of their development cycle, and are in the same ballpark age as the F-15s. Also the idea that 5th gen and 4th+ gen fighters are gonna be more and more common in the next few decades...I can see the F-16 becoming very outdated, very quickly, and I don't see how updates could make them more relevant for future threats.

 

My thought would be; too replace the many F-15Cs/Ds with few factory fresh F-15Es. From what I've seen the F-15E could stay competitive with current threats for a long time with upgrades such as a new EW suite, Talon HATE DL pod, and increased weapons carriage in both payload and variety. Growth opportunities that the F-16 just doesn't have.

 

But It could be a strategy decision as well, USAF likes a High/Low mix of capabilities.

 

 

Its funny because a article from a year ago said the exact opposite, AF was thinking of retiring F16s instead. and keeping upgraded F15s into 2040s.

 

Seems like thye just cant make up thier mind :D

 

 

 

OK kidding aside i think while replacing F15C with F16s isnt really best idea, F16s on the other hand are easier to maintain, And unlike an F15 Lockheed still has the necessary tooling and production lines to make more of them as evidenced by their attempts to win a contract to allow license building of brand new F16 air frames within India for thier Airforce. ATM the more advanced F16's are not the BLock 50/52s operated by USAF but export model such as Block50/52+ already have some more modern electronics and then i beleive the most advaced variation is the Saudi operated F-16E/F block 60 which have AESA radars.

 

 

On the other hand i dont see the issue instead of having the F-15E take over some of the F-15C's a2a role. WHilst F15E is primarily used for strike its still very much a multi-role bird. It has a2a modes and can make use of both Aim9s and Aim120's. South Korea uses thier F15E's to fill a portion of A2a Role For EG. After all the ANG/APG70 on the strike eagle (in a nutshell) just a AN/APG65 ( which was in use on the AIr superiority F15) but with additional modes for Air to ground.

 

Thing is even the F35 whilst being cheaper than the F22, is still an expensive aircraft. Think in the long run itl make sense to keep a inexpensive air frame like the F16 for Smaller scale wars and Lower tech opponents. NOt all operations will require usage of stealth Aircraft considering thier higher maitence time required per hour flight and costs associated.

 

 

However on the other arguements its also hard to disagree, I have to agree emphasis on multi role isnt stupid. the advance of electronics and software since the 80s has allowed single type of aircraft to conduct a multitude of roles Like the F16 or FA18, or F15E. and Multrole is more than just having many capabilities in 1 aircraft, it is also a cost saving measure, the age of having to relied on dedicated aircraft for specific roles is over. ITs simply cost effective to have 1 Air frame do All, vs the expensive of having a large enough a2a fleet and then having various aircraft for various specific Subcategories of ground or sea attack. While i am generalizing a bit There really isnt that much of a need for dedicated air frames these days, especially given the rising cost of modern aircraft.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Kev2go

[Sweep]

EDIT: Aaaand spent too long typing that to see that Kev2go posted, oops.

 

I guess you could do either new Cs or Es but one of their selling points on the viper is that its multi-role. So is the strike, and I do believe in this day and age were passed dedicated platforms, you need flexibility, specialized systems are fine, but with single mission platforms you have limited basing options, you'll need logistics for specific types which can be costly.

 

Also if you were to reduce the fleet too save money all the more reason to have more mission potential from one aircraft. And the strikes could be just as good in the A2A role as the C/Ds all you would really need to do is remove the CFTs which is totally possible just not commonly done.

 

The Strike is dual seat, 3k heavier, and very expensive. New-build F-15Cs would be much better for that. Cs would probably be slightly cheaper as well. F-16s, which I *think* would be pullouts from the boneyard, are going to be very expensive too...It's not just a new radar they'd need.

 

As for this emphasis on multirole...That's hilariously stupid. That's how you destroy your A/A fighter force. It's one thing to do what the Cali ANG did with their F-16s (A/A only in a multirole fighter - They just transitioned to the Eagle, btw), but when you're asking for your air superiority squadrons to do serious A/G, you will either pay more or degrade their primary capabilities.

 

I don't think this is a serious proposal. I think it shows where they're (USAF, ANG, etc.) at, budget/funding wise. I think they'll get extra cash and keep the Cs.

[Emu]

Of course if the US ordered 2/3 of the original planned F-22's we wouldn't be in this situation...but the past is the past. I am very surprised that their is even talks of retiring the F-15C/D in the next decade instead of the 2040's like the majority of the USAF current fighters will be (of course the 15C/D's have the oldest air frames). Interesting still

As in 2/3rds of 381 or 2/3rds of 740?

 

What's required is an F-22 using F-35 materials and avionics, simple as that in my book.

[RyboPops]

EDIT: Aaaand spent too long typing that to see that Kev2go posted, oops.

 

 

 

The Strike is dual seat, 3k heavier, and very expensive. New-build F-15Cs would be much better for that. Cs would probably be slightly cheaper as well. F-16s, which I *think* would be pullouts from the boneyard, are going to be very expensive too...It's not just a new radar they'd need.

 

As for this emphasis on multirole...That's hilariously stupid. That's how you destroy your A/A fighter force. It's one thing to do what the Cali ANG did with their F-16s (A/A only in a multirole fighter - They just transitioned to the Eagle, btw), but when you're asking for your air superiority squadrons to do serious A/G, you will either pay more or degrade their primary capabilities.

 

I don't think this is a serious proposal. I think it shows where they're (USAF, ANG, etc.) at, budget/funding wise. I think they'll get extra cash and keep the Cs.

 

This. The "jack of all trades, master of none" route isn't a recipe for success in a war with a technologically advanced opponent. You can't win a war without air superiority, and you can't obtain air superiority without airplanes and aircrews trained specifically for that role.

[Wizard_03]

This. The "jack of all trades, master of none" route isn't a recipe for success in a war with a technologically advanced opponent. You can't win a war without air superiority, and you can't obtain air superiority without airplanes and aircrews trained specifically for that role.

 

You also need to consider force deployment. If you only have dedicated platforms for specific jobs, a war with a technologically advanced opponent will force you to deploy many platforms to take on many different roles. Which is both costly and complicated. Since your forced to redeploy units based on changing conditions and requirements

 

An example is the USN during the Vietnam war. A typical carrier air wing included but was not limited too F-4s, F-8s, A-4s, A-1s A-6s, A-3s, and A-5s also it would require both EW and Photo recon versions of some of those aircraft.

 

Now a modern Carrier air wing has F/A-18s... All be it in several different flavors such as F/A-18 Cs Ds Es Fs and EA-18Gs but the point is that it is better to have a single aircraft with the capabilities to perform more then one dedicated function, this saves space, simplifies logistics, training and maintenance. Which directly translates to higher mission execution and success rates.

 

Now too my point with the F-15, given the Es tremendous success as a strike fighter, and the Cs strength as an air superiority fighter. You would deny future F-15s even the ability to perform A2G missions out of principle that they weren't initially built for that. Even though history shows they perform that role exceptionally well. No I disagree...we're simply at a point where we have the technology to build a fighter that is amazing at both roles without compromises.

[Sweep]

You also need to consider force deployment. If you only have dedicated platforms for specific jobs, a war with a technologically advanced opponent will force you to deploy many platforms to take on many different roles. Which is both costly and complicated. Since your forced to redeploy units based on changing conditions and requirements

 

An example is the USN during the Vietnam war. A typical carrier air wing included but was not limited too F-4s, F-8s, A-4s, A-1s A-6s, A-3s, and A-5s also it would require both EW and Photo recon versions of some of those aircraft.

 

Now a modern Carrier air wing has F/A-18s... All be it in several different flavors such as F/A-18 Cs Ds Es Fs and EA-18Gs but the point is that it is better to have a single aircraft with the capabilities to perform more then one dedicated function, this saves space, simplifies logistics, training and maintenance. Which directly translates to higher mission execution and success rates.

 

Now too my point with the F-15, given the Es tremendous success as a strike fighter, and the Cs strength as an air superiority fighter. You would deny future F-15s even the ability to perform A2G missions out of principle that they weren't initially built for that. Even though history shows they perform that role exceptionally well. No I disagree...we're simply at a point where we have the technology to build a fighter that is amazing at both roles without compromises.

 

Your technical capabilities are irrelevant if your pilots can't train for them.

 

F-15C and to a large extent F-22A guys train for all things air to air. F-15E guys train for defensive stuff only (AFAIK DCA and possibly intercept...don't hold me to the latter). F-15E guys also split A/G prioritization in their squadrons, from what I've heard - You may have 8 pilots that know CAS inside and out, 12 for strike, a few more with CSAR support, etc.

 

F-22 pilots do A/G now...And a lot of it, operationally. In the course of OIR they've actually done CAS. Training for CAS and other A/G missions (DEAD maybe? Strike?) will reduce the amount of training those pilots get for air to air. That's active duty, mainly...What about a cash bingo ANG? How much training are *they* going to get for their main role if they had Strikes?

 

And besides that, there are other reasons why the F-15E isn't a great idea to replace the F-15C. They start with the budget and end in...9k perch setups?:megalol: But really, remember, they're trying to save money and use something that works, not waste money on something that is not optimal for the task.

 

As for the Hornet comparison...Ever hear what some Hornet guys have to say about the F-15C as an airframe and as a community? :)

 

P.S. (T)F-15As were in fact built with A/G capability. It was tested, it was in the software until somebody needed yet another WEZ built in. Israel is off proving this very capability today with their current F-15C/Ds. Pretty sure the US has had all A/G software removed perhaps with the exception of the A/G gun modes.

 

P.P.S. You'd be fine just ignoring the technical and practical reasons why new Strikes are a bad idea and just look at the budget. It isn't there, period. :smilewink:

[Kev2go]

As for the Hornet comparison...Ever hear what some Hornet guys have to say about the F-15C as an airframe and as a community? :)

 

P.S. (T)F-15As were in fact built with A/G capability. It was tested, it was in the software until somebody needed yet another WEZ built in. Israel is off proving this very capability today with their current F-15C/Ds. Pretty sure the US has had all A/G software removed perhaps with the exception of the A/G gun modes.

 

:

 

yea thier jelly of the F15C because the dont have any comparable ( or better) airframe anymore for dedicated a2a. Seems the navy is just still sour that thier tomcats got scrapped now thier just mad they dont having that super long range capable airframe :megalol:

 

 

 

 

Oh whilst for a breif period F15A did have A/G capability but it was still something of a secondary capability. and at that only Unguided munitions anyhow. Similarly according to tests and manuals the F14A tomcat was rated to carry and capable of dropping conventional bombs like the Mk80 series but never in actuality used them. Its not till the late F14B bombercats and F14D's super cats were properly capable of Strike and using PGM's.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Kev2go

[Sweep]

Well I was thinking more like the F-18 guys respect the F-15C as a platform and they respect what the pilots can do. I've heard that from a few guys now, former and current. Jealousy is a funny one, though!

 

And yeah, the F-15A, in US service at least, never used the A/G stuff...Wasn't sure if he was aware if they had the capability or not. :)

[Kirk66]

If you are thinking of new build "F-15Cs" vs new build F-15Es, realize that the current tooling is actively building the latest F-15SA's for the Saudi's, and after then come more for Qatar and UAE, I think.

 

These have bigger engines, digital FBW, newer radar, newer cockpit displays, better EW than the current USAF C's.

 

So you can either gut the best low time C's and bring them up to the latest spec, or build brand new single seat (F-15F?) Eagles with all the expensive development paid for by the Saudis, etc. And while you are at it, add some new replacements for the Es (F-15Gs?) with all the fancy gizmos' for A/G and someone in the pit who can actually do something useful.

 

Difference in price would not be that great, and by the way, if you drop the CFTs on a 229-powered, APG-82 equipped E it will take on any C built (better radar, better engines, better flight control system, and an extra set of eyeballs)!

 

Vulture

[Wizard_03]

 

Looks fine for the A2A Role, 16 stations vs 8, IRST. What you can't see is the full FBW, new engines, and stronger air frames, and new Radar and DL. I don't see why someone would opt to loose the A2G capability just...cause. That's Pierre Sprey talking. :)

 

As for training. Are you saying that it's impossible to train a pilot to be both proficient in the A2A and A2G roles? yeah also gonna go ahead and disagree with that. One, no it's not, look at the F-16 and again the F/A-18. Also Israel is a great example with their F-15C and Ds. Two, even if that were true to some extent who says you can't have different crews for different missions. Still far cheaper then multiple aircraft AND multiple crews.

 

So what I'm saying is on paper the few new F-15s would simply replace the F-15Cs role. Same mission, same bases, same pretty much everything except fewer aircraft. But now they will have gained an added A2G capability should it ever been needed. I don't see any good reason for them not too. The more Versatility you can squeeze out of a weapon the better.

 

**Edit was typing when the above post was made thank you Kirk66**

Edited March 27, 2017 by Wizard_03

[Sweep]

Step back and look at why your idea is not great - You want to replace a bought and paid for fighter that is costing too much to sustain with a more modern version of said fighter that is surely going to cost even more in the timeframe we're looking at. Procurement, sustainment, you just don't have money available.

 

The training and technical points are basically irrelevant (and somewhat inaccurate IMO) when you realize that there's no budget for the Strike proposal.

[Saltat_cum_mortem]

I'm confused. Why would the attack mission require so much specialization? Most if not all of the ordnance being deployed today is guided. Also, if you're concerned about airframe specialization, then that has mostly been dealt with thus far. What hasn't been said is that the development of computers and the targeting pod have made airframe requirements mostly a nonissue for attackers.

 

Theoretically, an excellent fighter pilot with an equally excellent fighter plane can take on an attack mission with relatively little training in comparison to, say, the 1940's. Even in the 40's, it was common for fighter pilots to take on attack missions when it was arguably more difficult to perform both types of missions. So why is it so necessary for either aircraft or pilots to be so specialized?

[frixon28]

As in 2/3rds of 381 or 2/3rds of 740

 

Etheir one would do, but if we just got 2/3 of the 740 (488) we would not be in this dilema today. Then again if China or Russia where building up in the mid 2000's like they are today now. I am positive we would have built at least 500 Raptors.

 

"My thought would be; too replace the many F-15Cs/Ds with few factory fresh F-15Es"

That would cost a ridiculous amount for the capabilities we would get. Probably be more expensive than the F-35's

 

"It's hard to imagine anything other than a multi-role platform going forward" I read something about a Raptor replacement, and certainly an F-15C replacement in around 2030, that Trump just boosted with heavy funding.

 

"On the other hand i dont see the issue instead of having the F-15E take over some of the F-15C's a2a role." So where do we get these -15E's from? Do we take them from existing base's and convert their training to all A-A?

 

"New-build F-15Cs would be much better for that. Cs would probably be slightly cheaper as well" I do not think it would be much cheaper because I don't think an F-15C has been produced in decades (I think, certainly not recently). The F-15C is still inferior to the F-35A in pretty much aspects, even if you load it with external loads.

 

Guy/Gal's, I personally don't think building a new F-15 of any sorts is a good idea at all, not just for tactical reasons but for cost reasons. There would have to new production lines open, that costs a lot. I think perhaps if we could do what we did with some of the ANG F-16's would be a good idea with the F-35A, just make them do A-A, and make them amazing at it. Just like with the A-10 Pilots almost 100% of the time just doing CAS and Ground Attack, the F-15C pilots even more so do nothing but sharpen their claws and fight each other. I think it really is a question of training and mission rather than platform. Just my opinion.

 

Edit: This is all responses that I got from the first page, sorry if these things have already been covered

[Sweep]

Yeah I think long term the F-35A will be just fine as an Eagle replacement. It has legs, it has a decent payload (you put the externals on and it's amazing) that is only going to get better with mid Block 4 and the rise of smaller missiles, it has loads of sensor capabilities, etc.

 

I think a few people lost sight of the fact that there's no budget for anything right now other than sustaining the ANG Eagles or *maybe* doing the F-16 thing...That one will cost loads of money to refit F-16s for the mission and retrain everybody and so on.

[frixon28]

That one will cost loads of money to refit F-16s for the mission and retrain everybody and so on.

 

Bingo, like usual money and logistics decides everything. Now if only if it was possible to convince all the journalists spewing lies about this truth. A Fighter Jet is just a fighter jet, logistics wins in the big picture

[GGTharos]

I guess you could do either new Cs or Es but one of their selling points on the viper is that its multi-role.

 

The viper is an air to air fighter with some (Admittedly good) A2G stuff that can be stuck on it.

 

Also if you were to reduce the fleet too save money all the more reason to have more mission potential from one aircraft. And the strikes could be just as good in the A2A role as the C/Ds all you would really need to do is remove the CFTs which is totally possible just not commonly done.

 

They strikes won't be removing the CFT's, nor will they be as good as the C's in any case even if they do. Why? C pilots train for A2A only. And yes, it makes a huge difference.

[Boagrius]

Yeah I think long term the F-35A will be just fine as an Eagle replacement. It has legs, it has a decent payload (you put the externals on and it's amazing) that is only going to get better with mid Block 4 and the rise of smaller missiles, it has loads of sensor capabilities, etc.

 

Yeah - I would have thought going down the F35A route would make a lot of sense from a capability standpoint. By the time it hits Block ~IV-V it will have really matured as an A2A platform, with 6 AMRAAMs internally or perhaps 4 x SACM + 4 x AMRAAM down the track (analogous to the 4 x 'winder + 4 x AMRAAM/Sparrow loadout on the Eagle).

 

That said, I have no idea how costs would compare. I imagine the bean counters will have a big say in this one.

[Wizard_03]

The viper is an air to air fighter with some (Admittedly good) A2G stuff that can be stuck on it.

 

The Viper is an A2A fighter, not an Air Superiority fighter, So my point was that if you were to replace the F-15Cs with F-16s you'd loose capability. The F-16 won't ever be as good as the F-15 in the A2A role.

 

They strikes won't be removing the CFT's, nor will they be as good as the C's in any case even if they do. Why? C pilots train for A2A only. And yes, it makes a huge difference.

 

They could, they just don't because right now we have two versions of the F-15 When I mentioned F-15E everyone got hung up. I should have said something like an advanced future two seat version of the F-15 closer to the F-15SA, or SK then the E. Because obviously given a more pure A2A mission you could configure them accordingly. As for training, many air forces train their pilots too do both, its just not done in the US because the current F-15Cs are dedicated A2A platforms therefore there's no need.

 

Now cost is a different discussion all together, one that is high subjective though IMHO.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Wizard_03