Jump to content

F-15X on the Air Force's Budget Request


VMFA187

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

Eagle II? It’s just another Eagle. If we bought Block 69 vipers to meet 4+ needs, are they going to seriously call it the FF II?

Yeah, how is it not just the next letter in the series? Like F-15F?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another Eagle? Then why name the E Strike Eagle? Are you aware of the Eagle’s capabilities verses the EX? F was already spoken for. It was supposed to be the two seat and the E was a single seat originally. Also they jumped around with the others. S, I, J, SE, DJ, N, K, SG, and now EX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another Eagle? Then why name the E Strike Eagle? Are you aware of the Eagle’s capabilities verses the EX? F was already spoken for. It was supposed to be the two seat and the E was a single seat originally. Also they jumped around with the others. S, I, J, SE, DJ, N, K, SG, and now EX.

Sadly they didn’t consult me in the late 80s wrt naming the strike pig, but you’ve got light grey, dark grey, and now nouveau medium grey. Done.

The S, I, J, K, and SG all make a bunch of sense given the buyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Guardian said:

Just another Eagle? Then why name the E Strike Eagle? Are you aware of the Eagle’s capabilities verses the EX? F was already spoken for. It was supposed to be the two seat and the E was a single seat originally. Also they jumped around with the others. S, I, J, SE, DJ, N, K, SG, and now EX.

Got it, and I assumed so which is why I said like F-15F, but it’s not a new airframe, it’s just the next iteration of an old airframe. Hence give it a new letter. Or call it the Eagle II and pretend like you developed it from scratch.

 

Edit to add, I don’t really care, it was just more of an eye roll when I saw it.

Edited by MCO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2021 at 5:18 AM, Lawman said:

... Tornado, a plane which literally did nothing as well as any of its peers except fly fat slow and stupid down a runway and get shot down in spectacular fashion.

Hmm.

Only one Tornado was lost on a JP233 mission and that was actually on the egress and several miles from the runway. IIRC, only two others were lost at low level - neither of which flew down any runway. 

A balanced view of the performance of the Tornado in ODS is that it did well. It certainly held its own against other strikers in theater, including F-15E, F-111, F-16, Jaguar, A-6, A-7 etc. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.
Only one Tornado was lost on a JP233 mission and that was actually on the egress and several miles from the runway. IIRC, only two others were lost at low level - neither of which flew down any runway. 
A balanced view of the performance of the Tornado in ODS is that it did well. It certainly held its own against other strikers in theater, including F-15E, F-111, F-16, Jaguar, A-6, A-7 etc. 

For the opening salvo of the Air Campaign the Fin was flying an extremely low number of sorties (2%) while experiencing roughly 25% of the Allied air losses. This was entirely a combination or tactics vs threat driven both by the limitation of the platform (optimization to low level Euro campaign entirely) with no organic PGM capability in the GR1 and the requirement of those tactics/capes to put the airplane right into the most dangerous regime as far as threat.

And there is absolutely no comparison between Tornado GR1 and the IS fielded 111s at the time. GR4 developed into something similar, but that wouldn’t come until later. 111s didn’t have to go find another Vietnam era plane to truck around 1 of 2 experimentally developed pods to designate for it so it could get back into the Air Campaign effectively.

That’s the problem the Tornado always suffered and what as others have said Typhoon suffers now. The RAF will be in a conflict with a sturdy enough airframe but what always seems to lack is a 5-10 year gap in capabilities that it’s peers on the Coalition Ramp already enjoy. I get that there is something to be said for unified euro political alignments in military procurements but honestly they keen going into fighter programs with the Germans and Italians like we haven’t seen this not work out before. Shoulda/woulda/coulda if anybody had a chance to get on something like Raptor it was England.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lawman said:


For the opening salvo of the Air Campaign the Fin was flying an extremely low number of sorties (2%) while experiencing roughly 25% of the Allied air losses. This was entirely a combination or tactics vs threat driven both by the limitation of the platform (optimization to low level Euro campaign entirely) with no organic PGM capability in the GR1 and the requirement of those tactics/capes to put the airplane right into the most dangerous regime as far as threat.

And there is absolutely no comparison between Tornado GR1 and the IS fielded 111s at the time. GR4 developed into something similar, but that wouldn’t come until later. 111s didn’t have to go find another Vietnam era plane to truck around 1 of 2 experimentally developed pods to designate for it so it could get back into the Air Campaign effectively.

That’s the problem the Tornado always suffered and what as others have said Typhoon suffers now. The RAF will be in a conflict with a sturdy enough airframe but what always seems to lack is a 5-10 year gap in capabilities that it’s peers on the Coalition Ramp already enjoy. I get that there is something to be said for unified euro political alignments in military procurements but honestly they keen going into fighter programs with the Germans and Italians like we haven’t seen this not work out before. Shoulda/woulda/coulda if anybody had a chance to get on something like Raptor it was England.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the considered post. 

I don't agree with the assessment that a 5-10 year capability gap existed between the F-111 and the Tornado. 

The Tornado IDS was on par with the F-111E (operating in Northern Iraq out of Incirlik) in terms of capabilities. These 1-11s dropped at night from medium altitude, alone and without ever seeing many of their targets (and they weren't running against Saddam's airfields, either). I am not sure how effective they were, but as one of the guys who there recently told me, "no one really cared about what we were doing". 

As for the F-111F with its PGM capability, they still went in low against airfields and other targets in the opening nights. So, they chose the exact same tactics. Sure, they didn't overfly the runways, but I think I have already established was not the cause of the initial Tornado losses. In fact, the F-models were extremely lucky not to eclipse the Tornado force's losses - three of them were badly damaged by AAA on night one.

The F-15E, which had a PGM capability, went in low for the first couple of nights. One was downed by AAA on night one. At the time, it was the newest MDS in the Air Force inventory and was, in the same way as you characterise the IDS, optimised for a European conflict. But the capability gap didn't stop the same tactics being chosen...

The F-16 had no PGM capability (some squadrons with LANTIRN did, but they were in the monitory), and they went in at medium altitude and dropped dumb bombs without any idea whether they were going to hit the target. 

So, no, not convinced that capabilities explain the disparity between sortie numbers and loss rates. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the considered post. 
I don't agree with the assessment that a 5-10 year capability gap existed between the F-111 and the Tornado. 
The Tornado IDS was on par with the F-111E (operating in Northern Iraq out of Incirlik) in terms of capabilities. These 1-11s dropped at night from medium altitude, alone and without ever seeing many of their targets (and they weren't running against Saddam's airfields, either). I am not sure how effective they were, but as one of the guys who there recently told me, "no one really cared about what we were doing". 
As for the F-111F with its PGM capability, they still went in low against airfields and other targets in the opening nights. So, they chose the exact same tactics. Sure, they didn't overfly the runways, but I think I have already established was not the cause of the initial Tornado losses. In fact, the F-models were extremely lucky not to eclipse the Tornado force's losses - three of them were badly damaged by AAA on night one.
The F-15E, which had a PGM capability, went in low for the first couple of nights. One was downed by AAA on night one. At the time, it was the newest MDS in the Air Force inventory and was, in the same way as you characterise the IDS, optimised for a European conflict. But the capability gap didn't stop the same tactics being chosen...
The F-16 had no PGM capability (some squadrons with LANTIRN did, but they were in the monitory), and they went in at medium altitude and dropped dumb bombs without any idea whether they were going to hit the target. 
So, no, not convinced that capabilities explain the disparity between sortie numbers and loss rates. 
 
 
 

-That ability to incorporate some form of stand off day/night sensor both for navigation and targeting.

-Organic designation capability (or even just as a section having a buddy/shooter capability).

-Employment and fielding of any form of standoff ground attack capability.


You can dismiss it but half the airplanes in your list of contemporaries the Tornado was on the ramp with in desert storm enjoyed that ability. Even the A-7 which was supposed to be retired and literally held on to so it could go on the Midway class carriers that couldn’t handle A-6 had enjoyed a stand-off land attack capability since the Vietnam war.

The Intruder, Hornet, Strike, 111, all of them had those capes during night 1 of DS. Every the F-14 which in no way was ever considered by the Navy as a ground attack plane would enjoy them before Tornado, having Demo’d a PGM night attack capability in 1995. GR4 wouldn’t meet that standard until 1997.

As I said, it was a sturdy airframe but it was woefully behind its NATO peers in development of what are now standard systems critical to the use of air power in any modern conflict. And that continues to be a trend with Typhoon.

At least it’s not a CF-18 though...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...