F-15 to stay in service until at least 2025.

[F-15 Eagle]

The U.S. Air Force said it will keep 178 F-15C and 224 F-15E in service until 2025 because the F-22 Raptor program was cut to just 183 aircraft even though the air force says it needs 381 F-22s. F-15s that the air force will keep is called the Golden Eagles and they will get upgrades to there radar, aveonics and structural improvements.:ar15

 

[rjmaz1]

Big mistake in my opinion.

The USAF worked out that it is getting nearly 200 fewer F-22 than it requires and that it would need a total of 400 F-15's to perform that role. The USAF originally worked out that it needed 4 F-15's to do the role of a single F-15.

So really 800 F-15's would be required, though the debate of quality versus quantity is popular as one aircraft can only be at one spot at once. So 4 to 1 may be a little too high.

The "anti-F22" party then revised this to require only 2 F-15's per F-22. This then made the F-15 a more attractive option as 200 F-22's would cost too much and only 400 F-15's would be required. This effectively capped the F-22 at only 183 aircraft.

The USAF knows that 400 F-15's will not be as superior as 200 F-22's. In fact as few as 100 F-22's may well do the job better. The USAF needs to play nicely and admit that it is willing to exchange the 400 F-15's for only 100 F-22's. This would then make the F-22 the more attractive option. 100 F-22's would mean atleast 300 fewer pilots would be required compared to the F-15 option. Thats a massive dollar saving in operational costs. Within 10 years the F-22 option would have paid for itself.

Of course you'd all of a sudden have heaps of spare pilots.. You'd transfer them to the F-16 and F-35 and reduce the intake for new pilots to let the total number of pilots naturally fall due to pilots retiring etc.

If it was me i would exchange all 400 F-15's for any amount of F-22's. If they would only give me 50 more F-22's i'd still take that option! The money saved every year in operational costs would free up so much money that if all else fails you could buy F-35's instead which is also better than the F-15 option.

I dont see any advantage of operating the F-15's the only argument is to keep the quantity of aircraft up.. Quanity is the role of the F-16 and F-35 as they are cheap to buy and operate. In the case of the F35 its also far superior as well.

The idea of "radar, aveonics and structural improvements" to the current eagle fleet is just throwing more money down the drain. If anything you'd not spend a cent on the eagle fleet and just use them for daily patrolling duties. But again thats what the F-16's are for!!!!!

From what i've seen most people on here agree with retiring the F-15's. As we are a smart bunch.

Die Eagle Die

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Big mistake in my opinion.

The USAF worked out that it is getting nearly 200 fewer F-22 than it requires and that it would need a total of 400 F-15's to perform that role. The USAF originally worked out that it needed 4 F-15's to do the role of a single F-15.

So really 800 F-15's would be required, though the debate of quality versus quantity is popular as one aircraft can only be at one spot at once. So 4 to 1 may be a little too high.

The "anti-F22" party then revised this to require only 2 F-15's per F-22. This then made the F-15 a more attractive option as 200 F-22's would cost too much and only 400 F-15's would be required. This effectively capped the F-22 at only 183 aircraft.

The USAF knows that 400 F-15's will not be as superior as 200 F-22's. In fact as few as 100 F-22's may well do the job better. The USAF needs to play nicely and admit that it is willing to exchange the 400 F-15's for only 100 F-22's. This would then make the F-22 the more attractive option. 100 F-22's would mean atleast 300 fewer pilots would be required compared to the F-15 option. Thats a massive dollar saving in operational costs. Within 10 years the F-22 option would have paid for itself.

Of course you'd all of a sudden have heaps of spare pilots.. You'd transfer them to the F-16 and F-35 and reduce the intake for new pilots to let the total number of pilots naturally fall due to pilots retiring etc.

If it was me i would exchange all 400 F-15's for any amount of F-22's. If they would only give me 50 more F-22's i'd still take that option! The money saved every year in operational costs would free up so much money that if all else fails you could buy F-35's instead which is also better than the F-15 option.

I dont see any advantage of operating the F-15's the only argument is to keep the quantity of aircraft up.. Quanity is the role of the F-16 and F-35 as they are cheap to buy and operate. In the case of the F35 its also far superior as well.

The idea of "radar, aveonics and structural improvements" to the current eagle fleet is just throwing more money down the drain. If anything you'd not spend a cent on the eagle fleet and just use them for daily patrolling duties. But again thats what the F-16's are for!!!!!

From what i've seen most people on here agree with retiring the F-15's. As we are a smart bunch.

Die Eagle Die

Yeah but since there only allowed to get 183 F-22s that means the Air Force has to keep around 400 F-15 to meet all the services obligations. And I don't think your are a smart bunch, no offense.

 

[icelord]

Lets be serious bout this, would the USAF want to deploy the F-22 to go up against SU27 or F-15? You'd want the one that has the best chance of beating the opposition, so F22 obviously.
Do they not realise that by not ordering now or proposing future purchase, they risk the same problem of the C17 line, transport aircraft becoming obsolete and the only capable aircraft's production line closing.
I think its beyond stupid to even hold these back, do they jack up the prices, seeing how these F22s will be rare aircraft in the world, with only 180 available anywhere much like you would with a Ferrari.
Can someone explain why you would really build so few, refuse sale overseas to allied countries and then extend the life of an aircraft to be obsolete 5-10 years before you retire it.

 

[rjmaz1]

Yeah but since there only allowed to get 183 F-22s that means the Air Force has to keep around 400 F-15 to meet all the services obligations. And I don't think your are a smart bunch, no offense.

No offence taken, i didn't expect you to understand.

Yes if only 183 F-22's were ordered then yes 400 F-15's are required to meet all the service obligations. You are correct in stating that. That does not mean a total of 583 aircraft is required.. If 250 F-22's were ordered then for instance only 200 F-15's may be required to meet all service obligations. If 300 F-22's were ordered the F-15's may not be required at all as 300 F-22 can meet all perceived and current threats.

The F-22 can elimate more enemy aircraft compared to the F-15.
Less F-22's are needed to eliminate a given number of enemy aircraft.
The F-22 can cover a larger area due to its speed.
It requires less support assets due to stealth and speed.
Less support assets require less escorts for those assets.

The service obligation has no set quanitity or quality for that matter. This is directly related to the capability of the fighter. If the enemy has four SU-30's and an AWAC then the USAF may need eight F-15's to eliminate the enemy. Where as with the F-22 only two aircraft would be needed to elimate the enemy with similar level of risk.

The 183 F-22's ordered is not set in stone. For all we know the F-35 may turn out so good that the USAF may not require more F-22's. Or the 400 F-15's may end up getting retired early not to be replaced by additional F-22's but F-35's.

The F-35's are stated to replace the second tier F-16's first up the F-15's second up and the A-10's towards the end of the production line. However if the F-35 turns out so good that it is much better than the F-15 first tier aircraft then the USAF may well replace the F-15's first and the F-16's second. Considering the F-16's are much cheaper to operate and have more life left this would be a good option.

Again nothing is set in stone.

If budgets are cut then you cant just reduce the number of aircraft purchased as it dramatcally increases the purchase price. You have to operate or purchase fewer aircraft types. The F-22 has gone ahead and teh F-35 cant be stopped. If the F-35 requires additional funding the F-15 will be the first on the chopping block.

Just look how quickly the F-117 was axed. As soon as they worked out the F-22 could do the job it was shelved. The USAF stated it was going to keep the F-117's for a long time just like this articles states about the F-15's.

If the F-35 can perform air to air duties better than the F-15.
If the F-35 can perform strike missions better than the F-15E.
If the F-35 can travel further with more endurance than the F-15.
If the F-35 is significantly cheaper to operate than the F-35.

If these are true (which they should be) the F-15 will start being retired as soon as the F-35 becomes operational. Or even sooner if additional F-22 gets ordered.

 

[FiredForEffect]

"If the F-35 can perform air to air duties better than the F-15."

Is that just speculation or have there been competititons?

 

[f-22fan12]

The U.S. Air Force said it will keep 178 F-15C and 224 F-15E in service until 2025 because the F-22 Raptor program was cut to just 183 aircraft even though the air force says it needs 381 F-22s. F-15s that the air force will keep is called the Golden Eagles and they will get upgrades to there radar, aveonics and structural improvements.:ar15

I think it is a good thing for the USAF. I do think however that the Eagles will need upgrades. (as mentioned) They should receive new engines,avionics, and new maintenence. (like the F-15K) Congress should okay funding for at least 100 more F-22s to bring the total to around 280. The F-22s are needed to perform all kinds of missions that are vital to our ability to wage and win war. It is the F-22 that will maintain U.S. air superiority for decades to come. NOT the F-15. I do not think the air force should get 381 F-22s. That would be faaaaar to expensive to fund. 280 is a reasonable and more affordable number. The Cold War is over, they don't need 381 F-22A Raptors.

The F-22A rules the sky.

 

[Scorpion82]

I have some doubts that the F-35 will be such a capable fighter. I don't think it would be bad, but its payload capability is very limited when full LO is required and its flight performance is not going to be incredible. I'm sure the F-35 will provide a robust and capable AA platform, but I have some serious doubts that it is fully suited to the requirements to fill the gap of the F-15. Reducing the number of types in service would save a lot of money, which could be used for further F-22 purchases. The F-35's price is still uncertain and the USAF has already cut the total number making it increasingly more difficult to replace all F-16s and A-10s, if the F-35 should be required to replace the F-15 as well the situation won't be bettered.

 

[shimmy]

Probability?

Although am a big fan of the f-22, lets consider some possibilities:What is the real likelihood that ASAF fighters would be attacked by Su-24,25,27,30 ?Dosn't that low probability say that we can get alonng with fewer f-22's that originally were asked for?
I believe that the chance of an attack by Russia, Belarus, Ukraine , etc is extremely low for the next five-seven years.
The same would be true, i feel for any other nation except for possibly North Korea and/or Iran. For either of these nations we could send in multiple fighters ,be they f-15's,f-16's,f-18's; for each attacking plane.
The f-22 is a great(probably the best) fighter/intc but it is expensive. Bush/Cheney spent so much on Iraq that we have a short fall for several years.
The f-15 still is a great plane and, I believe , has never been downed.I am sure that sending 2 X F-15's or 2XF-16's or 2Xf-18s ,with American pilots can easily down any Sukhoi or Mig manned by North Koreans or Persian pilots. I feel that that statement is true even if the pilots were trained in either PRC or any of the Russias.

 

[Scorpion82]

Although am a big fan of the f-22, lets consider some possibilities:What is the real likelihood that ASAF fighters would be attacked by Su-24,25,27,30 ?Dosn't that low probability say that we can get alonng with fewer f-22's that originally were asked for?
I believe that the chance of an attack by Russia, Belarus, Ukraine , etc is extremely low for the next five-seven years.
The same would be true, i feel for any other nation except for possibly North Korea and/or Iran. For either of these nations we could send in multiple fighters ,be they f-15's,f-16's,f-18's; for each attacking plane.
The f-22 is a great(probably the best) fighter/intc but it is expensive. Bush/Cheney spent so much on Iraq that we have a short fall for several years.
The f-15 still is a great plane and, I believe , has never been downed.I am sure that sending 2 X F-15's or 2XF-16's or 2Xf-18s ,with American pilots can easily down any Sukhoi or Mig manned by North Koreans or Persian pilots. I feel that that statement is true even if the pilots were trained in either PRC or any of the Russias.

Next 5-7 years? You know that this isn't much time. The F-22 is designed to fullfil the USAFs needs for the next 30-40 years or more. Therefore a larger number is desirable. Thinking that the well trained US pilots will down everything with their legacy jets is quite optimistic and unrealistic. Advanced fighters such as new Su-30MK, MiG-29SMT/M/35 are sold abroad and an increasing number of airforces acquires these advanced fighters. Having a superior fighter like the F-22 is a must to ensure you have something to counter the enemies best planes. And you have to take into account that a smaller number of Raptors is quickly used up and needs replace. Assuming the Raptor will be as heavily tasked as the USAFs current fleet they are not going to serve as long as intended. This means you need a replacement earlier what increases costs. Now procuring a larger number of Raptors would safe money in the long terms and assure the required capabilities for a given period of time.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I have some doubts that the F-35 will be such a capable fighter. I don't think it would be bad, but its payload capability is very limited when full LO is required and its flight performance is not going to be incredible. I'm sure the F-35 will provide a robust and capable AA platform, but I have some serious doubts that it is fully suited to the requirements to fill the gap of the F-15. Reducing the number of types in service would save a lot of money, which could be used for further F-22 purchases. The F-35's price is still uncertain and the USAF has already cut the total number making it increasingly more difficult to replace all F-16s and A-10s, if the F-35 should be required to replace the F-15 as well the situation won't be bettered.

The F-35's payload is not limited, using both internal and external weapons it can carry 10 air to air missiles or 4 air to air missiles and 6 2000lbs bombs. Thats 2 more missiles than the F-15, though it can't carry as much bombs as the F-15E.

 

[Scorpion82]

The F-35's payload is not limited, using both internal and external weapons it can carry 10 air to air missiles or 4 air to air missiles and 6 2000lbs bombs. Thats 2 more missiles than the F-15, though it can't carry as much bombs as the F-15E.

Using weapons externally would compromise the aircraft's stealth capabilities. With reduced stealth the aircraft would more rely on traditional countermeasures and good flight performance. Though I wouldn't say that there will be no ECM, I have never heared about it and I have some doubts that the aircraft will receive a comprehensive suite including TRDs. Some might argue that the APG-81 provides an electronic attack/jamming capability, but that is limited to the flight direction. Flight performance will get even worth either, if AAMs are carried externally. These are the limitations. The F-35 is no real adequate replacement for any F-15 in m opinion. Of course it is possible to replace a type with a new less optimised type as long as the aircraft is able to perform the role, but if it suits the requirements is another question.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Using weapons externally would compromise the aircraft's stealth capabilities. With reduced stealth the aircraft would more rely on traditional countermeasures and good flight performance. Though I wouldn't say that there will be no ECM, I have never heared about it and I have some doubts that the aircraft will receive a comprehensive suite including TRDs. Some might argue that the APG-81 provides an electronic attack/jamming capability, but that is limited to the flight direction. Flight performance will get even worth either, if AAMs are carried externally. These are the limitations. The F-35 is no real adequate replacement for any F-15 in m opinion. Of course it is possible to replace a type with a new less optimised type as long as the aircraft is able to perform the role, but if it suits the requirements is another question.

Even using external weapons, the F-35 is still a lot stealthier than any other fighter jet out there with the exception of the F-22.

 

[Scorpion82]

Even using external weapons, the F-35 is still a lot stealthier than any other fighter jet out there with the exception of the F-22.

That's right, but the question is, will the F-35 still be effective enough.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

That's right, but the question is, will the F-35 still be effective enough.

It performed well in flight testing.

 

[Scorpion82]

It performed well in flight testing.

In some 2 or 3 dozen flights? Lol sorry but performing well in early test flights doesn't say much about the final product. I don't doubt that the F-35 will be a capable aircraft with sufficient, but not ground breaking performance.

 

[shimmy]

MOney for the Raptors

I still do not understand why" a large number" of raptors are needed NOW. I think the USAF is quite well prepared for the next 5 years at least.By adding "smallish" numbers of F-22's each year we will be able to develop a strong force and stay within the boundaries of the next military budgets-ones that must be smaller each year because of the useless spending in Iraq.(buying Suburbans by the hundreds does not protect the USA.)
Of course everyone here would love to have an air force of 500 f-22's and 500 F-35's but the money for that force can now be found in Cayman Island accounts of Iraqi bigwigs and in American accounts of Cheney and Republican supporters.
As an American ,I feel safe with a comparatively small number of Raptors now to supplement the 16's,15's and 18's . As the bill for Iraq lessens , more Raptors can be purchased.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

In some 2 or 3 dozen flights? Lol sorry but performing well in early test flights doesn't say much about the final product. I don't doubt that the F-35 will be a capable aircraft with sufficient, but not ground breaking performance.

You don't know that, you will just have to wait and see.

 

[Scorpion82]

You don't know that, you will just have to wait and see.

I know because the important steps were reported. But F-35 isn't certified for max g, aoa etc.. The aircraft hasn't even been flown very high or with supersonic speed. The avionics are still very much under development and comprehensive tests for validate its stealthiness hasn't been conducted. All this will take time and we can only wait and see what will happen.

 

[tphuang]

Big mistake in my opinion.

The USAF worked out that it is getting nearly 200 fewer F-22 than it requires and that it would need a total of 400 F-15's to perform that role. The USAF originally worked out that it needed 4 F-15's to do the role of a single F-15.

So really 800 F-15's would be required, though the debate of quality versus quantity is popular as one aircraft can only be at one spot at once. So 4 to 1 may be a little too high.

The "anti-F22" party then revised this to require only 2 F-15's per F-22. This then made the F-15 a more attractive option as 200 F-22's would cost too much and only 400 F-15's would be required. This effectively capped the F-22 at only 183 aircraft.

The USAF knows that 400 F-15's will not be as superior as 200 F-22's. In fact as few as 100 F-22's may well do the job better. The USAF needs to play nicely and admit that it is willing to exchange the 400 F-15's for only 100 F-22's. This would then make the F-22 the more attractive option. 100 F-22's would mean atleast 300 fewer pilots would be required compared to the F-15 option. Thats a massive dollar saving in operational costs. Within 10 years the F-22 option would have paid for itself.

Of course you'd all of a sudden have heaps of spare pilots.. You'd transfer them to the F-16 and F-35 and reduce the intake for new pilots to let the total number of pilots naturally fall due to pilots retiring etc.

If it was me i would exchange all 400 F-15's for any amount of F-22's. If they would only give me 50 more F-22's i'd still take that option! The money saved every year in operational costs would free up so much money that if all else fails you could buy F-35's instead which is also better than the F-15 option.

I dont see any advantage of operating the F-15's the only argument is to keep the quantity of aircraft up.. Quanity is the role of the F-16 and F-35 as they are cheap to buy and operate. In the case of the F35 its also far superior as well.

The idea of "radar, aveonics and structural improvements" to the current eagle fleet is just throwing more money down the drain. If anything you'd not spend a cent on the eagle fleet and just use them for daily patrolling duties. But again thats what the F-16's are for!!!!!

From what i've seen most people on here agree with retiring the F-15's. As we are a smart bunch.

Die Eagle Die

don't think about this singularly. They are operating in a system. F-15E with updated avionics is probably still the best fighter out there for the strike role.

In terms of A2A with all the supporting USAF assets, F-15C still has superiority against everything else.