Should There Be A War

[Avio]

Okay, so this is all hypothetical. Should there be a shooting war (better not !!), what's the real odds that the F15E would get the job done and prevail?

It's at its best as a bomb truck, but the battle field is rarely cooperative, with thick air defenses everywhere that even SEADs cannot clear up enough. Will the eagles have to jettison often and turn tail and RTB empty handed?

Are most assigned missions pre-assigned targets already? And if mission is to hunt for targets of opportunity, I could envision the eagles would have to loiter and hold somewhere while looking for the needles in the haystack via the radar and TPOD, like some 15 or 20 nm away in order to see well enough. That's only an arm's length from some harm, all the while lugging bags of heavy stuff. Or it just have to hang around and wait for some FAC feeds to come through, preferably with precise coordinates served up?

Opinions, anyone?

 

 

[BigBorner]

They were in a shooting war. It worked. They’re not flying alone. There are EW and SEAD planes, lobbing harms. 
 

For example:

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by BigBorner

[Yoda967]

7 hours ago, Avio said:

Okay, so this is all hypothetical. Should there be a shooting war (better not !!), what's the real odds that the F15E would get the job done and prevail?

It's at its best as a bomb truck, but the battle field is rarely cooperative, with thick air defenses everywhere that even SEADs cannot clear up enough. Will the eagles have to jettison often and turn tail and RTB empty handed?

Are most assigned missions pre-assigned targets already? And if mission is to hunt for targets of opportunity, I could envision the eagles would have to loiter and hold somewhere while looking for the needles in the haystack via the radar and TPOD, like some 15 or 20 nm away in order to see well enough. That's only an arm's length from some harm, all the while lugging bags of heavy stuff. Or it just have to hang around and wait for some FAC feeds to come through, preferably with precise coordinates served up?

Opinions, anyone?

 

 

Major General Jeannie Leavitt, the USAF's first lady fighter pilot, retired recently after a career spent flying the Strike Eagle. She left the service with 3,000 total hours, including 300 combat hours in the F-15E, flying in Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch, the war in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. As a 1st Lieutenant in Southern Watch, she once took out a Roland battery threatening an RAF Tornado. (Who says an F-15E can't do SEAD?) That's just one pilot...ten percent of her flying was in combat, and she did all of it in Strike Eagles. 

Your post indicates what seems like a common misperception that combat aviators will only execute their mission when there's little risk. ("...the battlefield is rarely cooperative...Will the eagles have to jettison often...and RTB empty handed?") 

What you're describing is what fighter pilots I've known and worked with would call, "risk averse." To most fighter pilots, the key to success is to accept that one cannot eliminate all risk, so the only way to complete a given mission is to MINIMIZE risk...to accept that one might have to grit one's teeth and fly through the AAA barrage or into a short-range SAM envelope in order to put warheads on foreheads. 

Risk Management is an art. There are certainly very few hard-and-fast, if this then do that rules for setting an acceptable level of risk. There are risks you absolutely wouldn't take until you get in their air and you're the only one who can help a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy fire.

I strongly recommend William L. Smallwood's book, "Strike Eagle: Flying the F-15E in the Gulf War", which is available on Amazon and was written shortly after the end of the first Gulf War. At the time they arrived in theatre, the Strike Eagles were barely certified, and did not yet have LANTIRN. The first-hand accounts of combat are genuinely harrowing. 

 

[Avio]

I read the whole of Smallwood, and all was good and inspiring. But the hypo case here refers more to the “what if” of a modern armed conflict, perhaps against a nearly worthy foe, not a battle from decades ago against lesser armed and trained combatants. How would the scene unfold? Thought it would make for an interesting discussion among us armchair military aviators, certainly not about macho bravado.

Brings to mind too, about the debate over the expenditure over the new EX eagles.

 

[BigBorner]

So, in a hypothetical peer / near peer conflict? 

I don’t know if to much will change to general approach as we’ve seen in, for example, in desert storm etc. 

Sensors got more capable, weapons either. There are new players in the game, like F-35 and the Raider, refining F-117 like capabilities. 
Most SAMs and CC will be cleaned up by a combination of stealth, sead and long range missile strikes, I assume. F-15E/EX usage will then be ramped up for more dirty work, escorted and supported by other aircraft depending on individual threat level. Maybe even by AI wingman and drones, which are the hot stuff atm. 

[av8orDave]

11 hours ago, Avio said:

Okay, so this is all hypothetical. Should there be a shooting war (better not !!), what's the real odds that the F15E would get the job done and prevail?

It's at its best as a bomb truck, but the battle field is rarely cooperative, with thick air defenses everywhere that even SEADs cannot clear up enough. Will the eagles have to jettison often and turn tail and RTB empty handed?

Are most assigned missions pre-assigned targets already? And if mission is to hunt for targets of opportunity, I could envision the eagles would have to loiter and hold somewhere while looking for the needles in the haystack via the radar and TPOD, like some 15 or 20 nm away in order to see well enough. That's only an arm's length from some harm, all the while lugging bags of heavy stuff. Or it just have to hang around and wait for some FAC feeds to come through, preferably with precise coordinates served up?

Opinions, anyone?

 

 

It's hard to say what a peer / near-peer conflict would look like for the US, but my guess is that you're point that the F-15E is at its best as a bomb truck isn't that far off from reality. As others have mentioned, and I'm sure additional perspectives will come, the only pieces you're missing are the following:

- The most dangerous surface-to-air defenses in a modern conflict would likely be cleaned-up by cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles. This would be one of the first tasks, along with hitting command/control centers.

- Remaining surface-to-air defenses would be handled by stealth or stealthy aircraft like the F-35 and F-16, supported by advanced electronic warfare platforms.

- Air bases would likely come next, along with shelters housing enemy aircraft. At this point the air defenses would be largely sanitized outside of AAA and shorter range SAMs, and it may even look like prior conflicts. This is where more traditional 4th gen aircraft would come into play, like the F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18E/F, etc. 

- Any support from enemy air forces would likely be laughable due to a number of factors: first, aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 possess capabilities that are simply unmatched by other systems. Second, they are rigorously maintained, and the maintenance of the aircraft is well supported both financially and through the training of the maintainers. Third, the supply chain to keep the aircraft functioning is well designed, supported, and executed. Last, and maybe most importantly, the pilots of the USAF, Navy, and Marines actually fly their aircraft on a regular basis and train for combat. 

All of the above to say I'd suggest the F-15E fleet would likely continue to be used as a precision bomb truck, and would be quite effective in the role when supported by other assets.

 

[Lace]

The style of recent wars has been low threat SAM/ADA and essentially zero threat A2A.  Loitering looking for targets of opportunity is not something you would do in a contested environment.  CAS and BAI would be a tough fight without air supremacy or superiority.  The F-15E was developed as a replacement for the F-111, i.e. low and fast striking against pre-planned targets.  This was the how it would have worked against a near-peer threat in the 80s, and it would probably perform a similar role in a near-peer war today.  Once the 5th gen doorkickers have done their thing.

 

[throAU]

Against the russians:  based on the outcome of ukraine - 100%  I’d wager that a whole heap of the supposed russian military capability is in actuality tied up in holiday homes in the south of france, private yachts, cryptocurrency speculation, etc. (due to corruption within the government).

Against china? I think the usa has more/better supporting infrastructure and associated armed forces.

 

Against anyone else - they’d do it in their sleep.

Edited September 29, 2023 by throAU

[doedkoett]

I can´t see that the F-15E would fare much worse than say an F-16 or a Hornet. If for example the ukrainians would be given Strike Eagles with the ability to carry a weapon like the Storm Shadow and AMRAAM missiles it would definitively be a step up from the Su-24 and Mig-29s they are using today. But on the other hand, they would still be vulnerable to SAMs and thus as limited as the ukrainian aircraft already are. But as we can see in Ukraine, with good intel, SAM sites can be knocked out by pre planned HARM-attacks or good old commando raids. So while the F-15E might be old today, I would not consider it completely outdated.
As for loitering, looking for targets of opportunity. I might be wrong, but I don't think that is a mission that exists in a conflict with a peer or near peer, if ever. When this have been tried, like when hunting scuds in ODS, this was quite unsuccessful until boots on the ground could lead the aircraft in on the targets. But if that is done, and only on-board sensors are to be used, then the SE with the Dragons Eye pod should be one of the better aircraft for the task. 

[Avio]

In these scenarios, how really useful is the onboard A2G radar? Fix structures locations would have been known ahead, but random mobile threats would be too small to be spotted unless from way near, or with copious help from FAC. Has the AG radar outlived its heydays?

The TPOD on the other hand is almost always helpful, for final refinement in aiming.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, throAU said:

Against anyone else - they’d do it in their sleep.

Like they did against the Afghans or the Vietnamese? As good as the Mudhen is, it's not a panaceum, it's a bomb truck. If the problem can be solved with bombs, it can do it, but in a low threat environment you could drop them from an A-10, and in a modern high threat environment, it's too unstealthy to last for long.

A peer conflict today would not hinge on things like the Strike Eagle. The battle would be fought mainly by F-35s and maybe Vipers (they're still pretty good at SEAD), with Mudhens sent in afterwards, when the threat is low enough to allow them to operate. It would be preferable to send in much less vulnerable F-35s if the enemy radars are still good. 

22 hours ago, davidrbarnette said:

- Any support from enemy air forces would likely be laughable due to a number of factors: first, aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 possess capabilities that are simply unmatched by other systems.[...]

You might be in for a rude awakening if the Chinese make a move for Taiwan. The J-20 is not only a pretty solid design in itself, the Chinese are improving it, including a two seater and a possible dedicated EW version. Meanwhile, the US has fewer than 200 Raptors in total and the F-35, while a solid enough plane, is slower and has a higher wing loading. China had not reached parity yet, but they really want to, and US will have to step up their game and maybe consider some contingencies on what to do if they simply can't get total air superiority.

[doedkoett]

57 minutes ago, Avio said:

In these scenarios, how really useful is the onboard A2G radar? Fix structures locations would have been known ahead, but random mobile threats would be too small to be spotted unless from way near, or with copious help from FAC. Has the AG radar outlived its heydays?

The TPOD on the other hand is almost always helpful, for final refinement in aiming.

The Dragons Eye is not the onboard radar, it´s an AESA-radar carried as a pod, and given the imagery from other fighter size AESA-radars I have seen, the image will be more like a black and white photo rather than the grainy imagery we´ve used to in DCS. Vehicles will most certainly be visible. 
Ground radar has the advantage of not being hindered by clouds, something that can be a problem when relying on optronic sensors.

[throAU]

21 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Like they did against the Afghans or the Vietnamese? As good as the Mudhen is, it's not a panaceum, it's a bomb truck. If the problem can be solved with bombs, it can do it, but in a low threat environment you could drop them from an A-10, and in a modern high threat environment, it's too unstealthy to last for long.

Vietnam was limited by ROE severely.

And I figured we were talking about airforce vs. airforce.  Not the total war objective as that's entirely dependent on non-aircraft related things, which are outside the context of this as far as I'm concerned.

[Dragon1-1]

It's a very rare conflict when you've got a truly clean air war, and in those cases, it's usually USN doing the heavy lifting, anyway. The only peer conflict of that nature that could happen is with China, and well, see above, they've got some tricks up their sleeves. Besides, it wasn't only ROE that was holding the US back in Vietnam, although they did stop them from bombing the airbases. SAM cover and the MiGs did account for a lot of jettisoned bombs, not to mention downed Thuds and Phantoms.

The Mudhen is a perfectly fine bomb truck, however low level infiltration is no longer as good as in its heyday due to modern SAMs expanding their envelope, and SHORAD getting better. It carries a lot of JDAMs and a lot of gas, which is a plus, but it would need to survive to deliver them, and that might be a tall order. SEAD only works if the Weasels aren't busy being shot down by enemy fighters. Quite frankly, I'm skeptical of the US being able to establish air superiority in a peer conflict with China. Over Taiwan, sure, but China is big and notably far from big NATO infrastructure, meaning either long legs with AAR in both directions, or very crowded bases in Japan and Korea (which, in such case, could be needed for aircraft fighting the North Korea, such conflicts rarely stay confined).

Edited September 30, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[AG-51_Sabot]

I initially thought this was a thread on which club to use on the 7th hole at Pebble Beach.....

[Hazardpro]

Theorycrafting aside, the fact the USAF is currently buying new F-15EX should be a good indication they still consider the strike eagle a useful platform.

[Avio]

11 hours ago, Hazardpro said:

Theorycrafting aside, the fact the USAF is currently buying new F-15EX should be a good indication they still consider the strike eagle a useful platform.

That is correct, but only after much intense internal debate, as I understand.

[draconus]

15 hours ago, Hazardpro said:

Theorycrafting aside, the fact the USAF is currently buying new F-15EX should be a good indication they still consider the strike eagle a useful platform.

It's always a mix of decisive people, politics, needs and budget.

[Weasel]

That is correct, but only after much intense internal debate, as I understand.

Iirc, as of today they want to procure 144 F-15EX (compared with the 1700 F-35). But yes, I am also glad to see that the Strike Eagle remains as a useful platform

[jeventy26]

An absolute crap ton of GBU 39/53's says it will be just fine....

Edited October 5, 2023 by jeventy26

[Iron Sights]

I think also, if a conflict broke out we may see NGAD come into to play. It’s possible that it is already out there we just don’t know about. Remember that war generally brings advancements in technology. Only concern I might have would if America could get its war machine on track, by that I mean war production. That is the million dollar question, since much of that has been passed on to other countries in favor of a quick buck.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Iron Sights