You certainly have that right about the Russians and the Chinese copies. One important criteria that people seem to overlook when they compare the F-35, etc... is the ability to perform the mission, again and again with an economy that may be hurt in a major war.

Just from my minglings with older Yaks and Nanchangs... the systems, while crude, are pretty remarkable in their simple nature.. the pnuematic (air) system is really interesting no need for hydraulic fluid, etc. The remote field is where those Eastern aircraft are designed to be used.

I'm probably the least knowledgeable person in this thread... but the thing that concerns me about the F-35 is so many moving parts all working perfectly together... can it keep it up when the rubber meets the road?

As far as the Russians developing this new fighter into something marketable... I wouldn't ever count them out of the game.

 

The Eagle was a phenomenal aircraft in it's day, and has been a dominant fighter aircraft over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, it's just old. There's no amount of new avionics or modifications to the airframe that you can perform to make it really a dominant fighter now given what is currently fielded.

It can hold it's own currently, but it's certainly not the best in the world because of the airframe design. It's the training and tactics of the people that fly it that make it so.

 

He has Microsoft Flight Simulator at home.

No serioiusly, he is a CFII.

 

I believe knowing someone who has experience in an aircraft can equate to something. It is certainly not the same as having that experience yourself, but that is how people learn. You talk to someone that is more knowledgeable than you in an area and over time, you get some insight. That combined with the fact that there is a ton of information available about the F-15 allows me to have an opinion that the F-15 kicks butt. Many pilots are interested and learn about aircraft that they have not flown. Everyone on here has been talking about the F-35, F-22, and T-50, but most probably have not flown them.

Why hasn’t anyone jumped down LivingInMem’s post about being in favor of an upgraded F-15? It may because I am stating it more, but that is because this is a big interest to me. I don’t really think that my opinion of having only a few raptors and spending the money on more cost effective (and less advanced) aircraft is that controversial. I may just be a military enthusiast for now, but there are a good amount of people in the military who share similar viewpoints.

All aircraft have limitations (even the F-22 and F-35 probably), and the challenge is to develop strategies that hide weaknesses and accentuate positives. So even if the F-15 is holding its own due to superior tactics, a new version could be designed with its current weaknesses in mind. I guess that I am not arguing for a new F-15, but a new 4th generation or 4.5 generation fighter. Really, you believe that money is better spent on a large fleet of 5th generation fighters, and I believe that a larger fleet of 4th generation with a tactical fleet of 5th generation is better. It is an age old balancing act of numbers verse performance.

 

Hey, I worked hard for the multi add-on, so don’t sell me short.

And, FWIW, I do have a lot of experience with Microsoft Flight Sim, and if you have seen my setup, I bet you would want to try it out. It’s been known to bring some to tears. Also, all the F-15 models (or any military aircraft) for MFS are pretty inaccurate, so I don’t use them. I am a big flying nerd, and it is not unusual for me to log 6 hours of flight and then come home and fly for 2 hours in my sim. Currently I have an FTD approved 737 with an instructor station. In about 2 months, I will have finished my T-6 setup. Laugh if you want, but MFS is an effective training aid if you use it like one.

 

Because I have credibility and can articulate my position better than you. And I don't say that "they know as little as me because they haven't flown the F-22 or F-35 just like I haven't" when in reality, they have: studied enough about air-to-air to qualify for an equivalent of a PhD from any institution, they have spent thousands of hours putting their theories to the test in a practical real-world environment, they have fought against some of those aircraft they talk about if they haven't flown them, etc, etc, etc. I don't mind you defending your right to have an opinion, but do yourself a favor and don't try to bring those who have "been there, done that" to your level (or you to their level). Just like you have the right to tell a doctor what's wrong with your bloodwork, or you have the right to tell an auto mechanic what is wrong with your car - they have the right to scoff you when you act as if you know as much as they do.

The rationale for the reduced F-22 buy was the F-35. Unfortunately, the F-35 won't be fielded for quite a while. The good news is, neither will aircraft like this. Aircraft like the Su-35; however, will be fielded much sooner - so will advanced mobile SAM systems.

Looking at the most likely threat over the next X years, an aircraft with the capabilities of the F-22 was certainly needed. We needed a capability to defeat the SA-20 and Su-35 tomorrow. What was not needed was for us to put our entire air superiority capability into just 189 of aircraft. An integrated fleet would have been better.

The F-15 does have its limitations, but at this time the majority of the air-air threat is still comprised of MiG-21's / MiG-29's / early-generation Su-27's / etc. With that in mind, an upgraded F-15 would have done well as a limited-life interim missile truck to span the gap from now until the F-35 comes on line. The F-22 is capable, but its MR rate is only so good, only so many can deploy at a time, and it can only carry so many missiles to the fight. An upgraded F-15 with a SLEP and an ESA radar, Aim-9x, HMS, and advanced IRCM could have provided a very capable defense-in-depth to the adversaries who are likely to fight quality with quantity. Not a popular concept, but airframe hours could have been protected by transitioning the majority of CT to the simulator - not the best answer, but better than not having them at all. It's not perfect, but it's better than the reduced fleet of F-22s alone.

Unfortunately, it was obvious to everyone except for the USAF leadership that the F-22 buy was going to be cut - they continued to put all of our eggs into the F-22 basket until the very end by slashing the rest of the fleet. Maybe they thought they could improve the likelihood of the F-22 buy if they could argue that we didn't have any other airplanes with which to fight a war.

Your reply advocates the full development of a new F-15 like aircraft instead of the F-22, I advocate a stop-gap as an answer to the F-22 planned fleet reduction. Your plan would have us rolling out the new F-15 about the same time the F-35 is rolling out. My plan had the ability to have immediate returns. Your plan involved spending A LOT of money for a long-term stop gap measure. My plan involved spending not as much for a shorter-term measure. I could go on, but you and I are not really on the same page.

 

Similar to putting all our eggs into one basket with the F-22, investing the future fleet in two brand new aircraft is also a little risky. Not only are these new aircraft, but a new generation of aircraft. Any bugs in initial deployment could be disastrous. Also, it would be a real pain if the stealth capability gets defeated by a new aircraft detection system. It would be like investing in a top of the line battleship in the 1930s and then everyone else buying an aircraft carrier to sink it. Although, the chances of this happening are not high enough to stop investing in new technology and cancel the orders.

 

The ORM of aircraft design minimizes the threat of that occurring long before the first aircraft ever takes to the sky. When was the last time an aircraft development project was canceled for other than political or fiscal reasons?

FWIW, the new stealth aircraft WILL be detectable by some new technology at some point - that is how this game works. You keep making incremental advances in capability that stay ahead of their incremental advances in their capability. KNOWING that they will make those advances, the long-term stop gap measures that you advocate are doomed to guaranteed failure much sooner than the full development program of the F-22 or F-35.

 

Sorry if I stepped on your toes. I wasn’t trying to say that your knowledge base is the same as mine. I know many have more actual experience than me. I took attacks on my basis for my opinions as attack on my opinions. I was merely trying to point out that I am not the only one who believes the F-22/F-35 combination is the only answer.

 

....and actual knowledge vs mere opinion. Reference the rest of my post that you didn't quote. I don't claim that doctors know more than me only because they have more actual experience - they also have years of med school and continuing education as well as experience. So, not only can the doctor do a gallbladder surgery better than I can, his opinion on the subject is more likely better informed than mine is (more like a guess vs an educated opinion).

It doesn't keep me from espousing my opinion, but mine and theirs aren't equated even if we agree every once in a while. Keep expressing your opinion and conversing, that's how you gain knowledge. But, keep the relative positions in perspective - don't attack the expert, you'll lose every time.