Will the F-35 replace the F-15 in the USAF?

[F-15 Eagle]

The current 2010 QDR calls for 6 air superiority wings. My assumption is that will includes 2 wings of F-22s with 144 out of 187 aircraft and 4 wings of F-35s to replace the F-15 C/D, each wing of 72 aircraft a peace.

Supposedly just 1 F-35 has the air to air capability of 6 F-15s.

So what do you think, will the F-35 actually replace the F-15? If so then the 1763 number will be justified.

 

[localhost127]

Supposedly just 1 F-35 has the air to air capability of 6 F-15s.

how can this be? the lone f-35 (for sake of argument, even though it would rarely if-ever happen) - can only be in one location at a time ... where as six f-15s (depending on flight pattern/formation, could cover a larger geographical area and react to threats in it's sector quicker

 

[Marc 1]

how can this be? the lone f-35 (for sake of argument, even though it would rarely if-ever happen) - can only be in one location at a time ... where as six f-15s (depending on flight pattern/formation, could cover a larger geographical area and react to threats in it's sector quicker

Why do they need to cover a much larger area? A battlespace will be covered by AWACS and or ground or sea radar, the co-ordinates of any potential adversaries can be sent in a secure data stream to aircraft flying in that area so they can intercept. The 6 to 1 ratio then comes into effect where the F-35 is more effective against current threats.

We have come a long way from flying around the skies looking for adversaries using the Mk1 eyeball (hell even at the start of WWII the poms were using radar and radio vectoring), and with LO airframes, you'd normally not have them spread out announcing their locations to the world by using their radars (that's very 1960's).

 

[Kilo 2-3]

The F-35's a capable platform, and it can get the job done. I wonder if the ex-F-15 wings which end up getting the F-35 will train multi-role or if they will focus more heavily on air superiority?

 

[Feanor]

Why do they need to cover a much larger area? A battlespace will be covered by AWACS and or ground or sea radar, the co-ordinates of any potential adversaries can be sent in a secure data stream to aircraft flying in that area so they can intercept. The 6 to 1 ratio then comes into effect where the F-35 is more effective against current threats.

We have come a long way from flying around the skies looking for adversaries using the Mk1 eyeball (hell even at the start of WWII the poms were using radar and radio vectoring), and with LO airframes, you'd normally not have them spread out announcing their locations to the world by using their radars (that's very 1960's).

That comes into play when instead of 6 squadrons deployed to 6 airbases you have one. And lets imagine those airbases are in different countries around the globe. Maintaining a presence still matters. Maybe not as much on the tactical level but certainly on the strategic.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

That comes into play when instead of 6 squadrons deployed to 6 airbases you have one. And lets imagine those airbases are in different countries around the globe. Maintaining a presence still matters. Maybe not as much on the tactical level but certainly on the strategic.

"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that
the first question that comes to everyone's lips is:
'Where's the nearest carrier?'"

President Bill Clinton
March 12, 1993

My guess is that the reducing numbers of Air Force tactical aircraft is going to place a growing amount of extra responsibility on the Navy's carrier battle groups. With overseas bases being closed and the aircraft numbers in given potential trouble spots decreasing, mobile airfields are going to mean more than ever. Ideally the Navy's going to have the F-35C and the Super Hornet to help bridge the gap somewhat. Still, it's not an ideal situation at all, especially if any cuts are made to the purchase of the Ford Class or SLEPs for the Nimitezs.

It's also going to place more and more demands on the USAF to hone and expand its expeditionary capabilities. Of course this capability is heavily influenced by the tanker situation and the need for more airlifters,both of which will hopefully be sorted out by the time the JSF enters service.

 

[localhost127]

Why do they need to cover a much larger area? A battlespace will be covered by AWACS and or ground or sea radar, the co-ordinates of any potential adversaries can be sent in a secure data stream to aircraft flying in that area so they can intercept. The 6 to 1 ratio then comes into effect where the F-35 is more effective against current threats.

We have come a long way from flying around the skies looking for adversaries using the Mk1 eyeball (hell even at the start of WWII the poms were using radar and radio vectoring), and with LO airframes, you'd normally not have them spread out announcing their locations to the world by using their radars (that's very 1960's).

i didnt mean to give the impression that the fighters would be flying dumb flight-paths looking for adversaries ... but it still takes time and fuel to make an interception - much along the lines that Feanor responded.

 

[zukster]

I say, procure 5,000 AT-6B prop strike aircraft and arm them with new short, medium, and long range air to air missiles. Let's see an enemy take out 5,000 fighters coming at them. Are the aircraft really as important as the missiles?

 

[Bonza]

I say, procure 5,000 AT-6B prop strike aircraft and arm them with new short, medium, and long range air to air missiles. Let's see an enemy take out 5,000 fighters coming at them. Are the aircraft really as important as the missiles?

What you're proposing would be, by virtue of the platform's lack of survivability and the massed deployment required to be effective, attritional warfare. In an increasingly casualty-averse political climate (to say nothing of the immense cost of training combat pilots) I doubt such a model would ever be adopted.

Additionally these aircraft would be found lacking not only in terms of avionics and electronic systems, but would also suffer from inferior range, response time, service ceiling, payload, etc.

On the other hand, if a simple "spear thrower" type platform is what you're after, something to carry missiles and direct launches with data handed off from a sensor platform (as would most likely be the case with the AT-6), then I think you're rapidly headed into UCAV territory...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The F-35's a capable platform, and it can get the job done. I wonder if the ex-F-15 wings which end up getting the F-35 will train multi-role or if they will focus more heavily on air superiority?

I think the F-15 pilots will stick to air to air only in their shinny new F-35s.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

how can this be? the lone f-35 (for sake of argument, even though it would rarely if-ever happen) - can only be in one location at a time ... where as six f-15s (depending on flight pattern/formation, could cover a larger geographical area and react to threats in it's sector quicker

LM says the F-35 can, AWACS will cover the large geographical area.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

My guess is that the reducing numbers of Air Force tactical aircraft is going to place a growing amount of extra responsibility on the Navy's carrier battle groups.

Not sure they are really reducing, 187 F-22s and 1763 F-35s plus large numbers of unmanned combat drones that will fill the gap of manned fighters, so by 2020 and now the only difference will be 40 aircraft.

 

[localhost127]

LM says the F-35 can,

i dont understand what you mean by this statement?

 

[JP Vieira]

Keeping up basically the same structure, F-15 units will re-equip with the F-35.
Perhaps some joint missions flown by small numbers of F-22 and larger number of F-35 will achieve the same missions objectives as current F-15 missions

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Keeping up basically the same structure, F-15 units will re-equip with the F-35.
Perhaps some joint missions flown by small numbers of F-22 and larger number of F-35 will achieve the same missions objectives as current F-15 missions

Doctrine's going to change a bit with the advent of more and more LO aircraft in the US order of battle. Add to this the growing focus on BVR combat and I think there's a very good chance of many nations, especially, the USAF switching to smaller two-ship CAPs.

In my opinion, the currently (relatively) low numbers of F-22s would favor these smaller tactical formations.

Any thoughts on these points from those with fighter background?

 

[Feanor]

I say, procure 5,000 AT-6B prop strike aircraft and arm them with new short, medium, and long range air to air missiles. Let's see an enemy take out 5,000 fighters coming at them. Are the aircraft really as important as the missiles?

Lets say this force is flying air superiority over a dense, and networked IADS that involves S-300 class systems, connected with dozens of division-level SAMs, tac-SAMs, and even SPAAG/SAM hybrids. The casualties you would be taking would lead to serious issues with pilot training, morale, unit coherency, etc. Not to say anything of enemy fighters.

Additionally don't forget for a powerful modern radar you need a large fighter, with a large powerplant. For IR sensors you also need more power. And without advanced sensors your missiles are blind. Without datalink you can't coordinate the actions of this armada in a modern battlespace. And given the logistical hurdles of keeping this armada supplied, a single successful air raid by high-altitude bombers on a central supply facility like a large fuel dump, could leave much of your airforce grounded.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Keeping up basically the same structure, F-15 units will re-equip with the F-35.
Perhaps some joint missions flown by small numbers of F-22 and larger number of F-35 will achieve the same missions objectives as current F-15 missions

I believe so yes.

Doctrine's going to change a bit with the advent of more and more LO aircraft in the US order of battle. Add to this the growing focus on BVR combat and I think there's a very good chance of many nations, especially, the USAF switching to smaller two-ship CAPs.

In my opinion, the currently (relatively) low numbers of F-22s would favor these smaller tactical formations.

Any thoughts on these points from those with fighter background?

I think they will still do flights of 4 F-22s or 4 F-35s. I have not seen anything to suggest they are reducing formations on CAP missions, nor is there any good reason to.

 

[OPSSG]

Kilo your posts are looking very promising so I'm motivated to provide a response to your post. Please don't take my questions the wrong way. I'm asking you questions because I'm interested to hear your opinion.

Any thoughts on these points from those with fighter background?

By way of introduction, I'm Singaporean and only served in our conscript army, so I'm by no means an expert on air warfare matters.

Doctrine's going to change a bit with the advent of more and more LO aircraft in the US order of battle. Add to this the growing focus on BVR combat and I think there's a very good chance of many nations, especially, the USAF switching to smaller two-ship CAPs.

Let's start with my sources for USAF doctrine. Here's a link to a list of USAF Doctrine Documents and the latest revision of Air Force Basic Doctrine that I have read was published in 2003 (here's a link to prior 1997 edition). Where is your source that states that the USAF is switching to smaller two-ship CAPs? I would like to know the page number of the USAF doctrine documents referenced above that makes such a reference.

Any illumination you can bring to the issue is greatly appreciated.

In my opinion, the currently (relatively) low numbers of F-22s would favor these smaller tactical formations.

Why? F-22s are going to operate as part of an air wing, and given their capabilities, IMO, they would the excellent for OCA in penetration of enemy air space. Why would they want to operate in greater geographical dispersion? IMHO, it can't just be a small numbers argument given that the current USAF air wings are 72 aircraft, which are comprised of 3x 24 squadrons (I note that F-22 squadrons are smaller than the usual 24 but they are not that small).

I'm interested to hear what you say.

 

[OPSSG]

The current 2010 QDR calls for 6 air superiority wings. My assumption is that will includes 2 wings of F-22s with 144 out of 187 aircraft and 4 wings of F-35s to replace the F-15 C/D, each wing of 72 aircraft a peace.

Supposedly just 1 F-35 has the air to air capability of 6 F-15s.

So what do you think, will the F-35 actually replace the F-15? If so then the 1763 number will be justified.

Have you seen Lockheed Martin Vice President Steve O'Bryan's response to a media query and published below by Stephen Trimble?

I assume all the strike wings are F-35. This would mean replacement of all F-16s, A-10s and F-15Es with F-35. As of now, it is reasonable to assume all the A-10s and F-15Es would reach their life during the USAF buy of F-35s (~ 2035) with no other tactical strike platform to replace their full capability other than F-35.

For air superiority, I'm assuming 2 wings of F-22s and the remaining 4 are F-35s. (In reality, there are only 1 2/3 wing equivalents F-22s.)

This leads to 14-15 wings of F-35s. The table below uses historic USAF bottoms-up approach for force structure requirements. As you can see, with 15 wings, the requirement is over 1,700 F-35s. This is certainly in the noise of 1,763 when we are talking about aircraft procured 25 years from now.

I believe that's relevant info to your question.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Kilo your posts are looking very promising so I'm motivated to provide a response to your post. Please don't take my questions the wrong way. I'm asking you questions because I'm interested to hear your opinion.



By way of introduction, I'm Singaporean and only served in our conscript army, so I'm by no means an expert on air warfare matters.



Let's start with my sources for USAF doctrine. Here's a link to a list of USAF Doctrine Documents and the latest revision of Air Force Basic Doctrine that I have read was published in 2003 (here's a link to prior 1997 edition). Where is your source that states that the USAF is switching to smaller two-ship CAPs? I would like to know the page number of the USAF doctrine documents referenced above that makes such a reference.

Any illumination you can bring to the issue is greatly appreciated.



Why? F-22s are going to operate as part of an air wing, and given their capabilities, IMO, they would the excellent for OCA in penetration of enemy air space. Why would they want to operate in greater geographical dispersion? IMHO, it can't just be a small numbers argument given that the current USAF air wings are 72 aircraft, which are comprised of 3x 24 squadrons (I note that F-22 squadrons are smaller than the usual 24 but they are not that small).

I'm interested to hear what you say.

The trouble is, I can't remember where I heard it...I know for sure it wasn't a doctrinal document, and now I have the sinking feeling it was some punter on another forum and somehow I ended up remembering the conversation wrong...

I should have fact-checked more carefully before posting.

The only reference I can ever remember to USAF aircraft flying a 2-ship was at one point in Bosnia (Scott O'Grady was flying in a two-ship when he was shot down). But CAP and no-fly zone enforcement are slightly different missions and so might merit different flight structures.

Thanks for the post in response.