ST. LOUIS, March 18 (UPI) -- U.S. company Boeing unveiled Tuesday its new F-15 fighter aircraft configuration, designed specifically for the international defense market.
Boeing unveiled its new F-15 Silent Eagle in a move to meet the evolving air defense requirements of air force agencies around the world.
Officials said the F-15 Silent Eagle is designed to carry various weapons payloads and will have an option for an internal weapons carriage through redesigned conformal fuel tanks, among other design improvements for international customers.
"The F-15 Silent Eagle is designed to meet our international customers' anticipated need for cost-effective stealth technologies, as well as for large and diverse weapons payloads," Mark Bass, Boeing F-15 program vice president, said in a statement.
"The innovative Silent Eagle is a balanced, affordable approach designed to meet future survivability needs."
None, yet Japan and Saudi Arabia have had them for decades. S. Korea already has them, but bought them direct, they don't need to go through Japan. Japan, Saudi Arabia, and even Israel won't re-sell combat aircraft for they will never be allowed to purchase them from the US again.
16. Studies done 30 years ago said in such dogfights BOTH jets are shoot down
In a test in the 1970s F-5s WITHOUT radar went against F-15s. The pilots of the F-5s (Acting as Soviet Fighters) purchased Fuzz-busters radar detectors and installed them in their cockpits and developed a policy of firing on detection i.e. Fired their own Missiles upon the Fuzz busters indication that their had been locked on by the F-15s. The results were hated by the Air Force, while the F-15s shoot down every F-5s, the F-5s also were able to shoot down every F-15s even through the F-5s NEVER detected the F-15s. Fire on being locked on by the F-15s was shown to be an effective tactic, one the Air Force hates and tries to downplay.
Now some of the Missiles today have longer range then the Missiles of the 1970s, but the real difference remains the electronics in the Jet not the Jet itself. Furthermore unless the Air Force have figure out a way out of the Fire on contact system, you still have a situation where one to one jet lost is the most likely outcome.
As to the more recent aerial victories of the F-15s over Iraqi and Serbian Jets, both countries accepted the fact that they lost Air Superiority before the battle even began, thus most Aerial missions of both sides were short, quick missions (The big exceptions was in the First Gulf War, but most of the Jets Iraq put into the air appear to have been flown by inexperience pilots with orders to get them to Iran to avoid capture by the Americans. These ended up being easy targets).
It was reported at that time that Saddam had been using French and other Western Pilots as mercenaries for the duration of the war with Iran, and these pilots all left just before the Air War started with the US. Without the experience pilots the Iraqi planes were easy targets. This is similar to the Koran War situation between the MIG-15 and the F-86, one US pilot that had a chance to fly both after a Chinese MIG-15 pilot defected to the US when later asked what Plane he wanted to fly against MIG-15s, said a MIG-15, it was the best fighter at that time, in Korea it was flown by terrible pilots, thus the US 15-1 kill ratio. This has been the problem since WWII, Good pilots vs Good Pilots the plane may make the difference, but Good pilots vs bad pilots, the plane will NOT overcome the problem of Badly or non trained pilots).
Thus how good the YF-22 is better then the F-15 is NOT that important, the key is first the internal electronics and second the training of the Pilots. With the cost of F-22 over the F-15s, the ability to have two F-15 instead of one F-22 may be more then worth the cost to upgrade the F-15s (How much someone is willing to spend on planes is a factor in how many planes an Air Defense gets). Given that most situations today, as it has been for over 30 years, if the electronics of two planes are roughly close in terms of technology (one can be a few generations behind and still be effective) the real key is how well trained are the Pilots? If the pilots are well trained, you will probably see one to one losses in almost any combat situation. In most of the World the Air Force and Navy will NOT send in its planes unless they have clear superiority, in most of the world that is NOT hard to achieve. In those parts that it may be hard, the US will try NOT to fight (i.e China and its 1950s era Jets including updated versions of the Mig-17, the early 1950s replacement for the Mig-15, it did well in Vietnam against planes designed over a decade later, this had more to do with the skill and training of the pilots then the plane itself which is the point I am trying to make).
35. But if the choice is one F-22 and a dozen F-15s which will you opt for?
Edited on Thu Mar-19-09 03:04 AM by happyslug
And that looks like that is the choice, not one F-22 for every F-15 but one F-22 for every Squadron of F-15s, do to budget constraints. We can NOT afford the F-22 program, you can NOT spend over a trillion Dollars on the bank disaster (and the cost is increasing NOT decreasing) and still NOT cut back on other expenses. Something has to give. Given the loses on Wall Street, cutting back Social Programs can NOT be done and that leaves the Military. Given a choice between the F-22 and Afghanistan which will Congress choose? Congress will delay making the choice as long as possible, but sooner or later Congress will have to choose, and I would NOT bet on the F-22s (and between Social Programs and Afghanistan I would NOT choose Afghanistan).
I suspect within four years, a withdrawn from Afghanistan, Iraq and massive cuts in Defense Spending do to the social problems being caused by the Wall Street Collapse. The world can NOT lose 45% of the World Wealth and NOT hit you in the face and that is what Congress is facing right now. Congress will avoid making any hard decisions for as long as possible but when Congress fells it has to act, they will do so, as Congress did in 1973 when they forbade US Troops to operate in South Vietnam. That decision by Congress lead to the Fall of Vietnam, but it was forced on Congress by the recession the US was going through at that time, the prospect of Riots in Urban areas if Social Programs where cut back AND the first oil embargo as while as Watergate (And Watergate was front page news at the time, but the real concerns, was how to handle the massive unemployment caused by the Recession AND the huge inflation rate caused by the War in Vietnam). In 1973 something had to give and that was Vietnam, and I see the same situation occurring again, but this time I suspect not only will Iraq and Afghanistan be sacrificed but so will most of the Defense Budget do to the massive losses during the present wall street crisis.
34. Yes, and that improvement is a huge factor is Iraq and Afghanistan
Edited on Thu Mar-19-09 02:46 AM by happyslug
Yes, the F-22 is a very good plane, but it may be the wrong plane designed to fight the wrong war. What is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is the face of combat in the 21st century, and the A-10 is a bigger factor then even the F-15. The F-22 is like designing the best sports-car even made, and then sending it through the swamps (Or the reverse, designing the best Amphibious vehicle ever built and entering it into the Indy 500). It is the wrong plane for the wars we will be facing during its expected life-time of the next 20 years.
AS to the F-22, who are we going to use it against where its supercity over the F-15 would be decisive? And the answer is no where. War with China is at least 10 years away (China has no present ability to defeat our Carrier Force, we have no ability to MAINTAIN a ground force in China, in affect stalemate). Russia is even worse (Why else do you think we embraced A-bombs during the Cold War, it was the only weapon we had that could destroy the Soviet Union, conquest of the Soviet Union was and the Conquest of Russia is today, beyond our capability). Air Superiority without near by air bases making control of Russia hard, if not impossible. Once those two countries are out of the way as possible enemies, then who will we face that we need the F-22 to defeat them? Iran, forget it, out F-15s will clean the sky of most opposition within days. Losses would be the same if we fly F-22s or F-18s. No advantages to the US to upgrade to the F-22s in any war with Iran or any other country who is NOT Russia, China, Japan or a member of NATO.
As to 20 years down the pike, the F-22s will probably be obsolete by then. Even today, the ability to hit a target is getting harder and harder in areas where they is effective anti aircraft defense (and in areas where no such defenses exist, the f-16 is good enough let alone the F-15). As time goes on such air defenses will improve. To defeat these efforts, longer range missiles are becoming the weapons of choice, pretty soon these missiles will out-range the planes carrying them and with that what is being done by manned fighters today will be done by unmanned Jets in the Future. Unmanned Jets have several advantages over manned fighters, first they can maneuver more then a manned fighter, you do NOT have to restrict Maneuver so that the G-forces causes a black out of the non-existent pilot. You do NOT have to carry fuel to get to the target and back, all you need to carry is fuel one way. You do NOT need protection for the pilot not on the unmanned jet, nor the oxygen and other life support systems for that pilot NOT on the unmanned Jets. These unmanned fighters, being smaller can be made cheaper then the F-22 but do about the same level of mission (in 20 or so years not right now, but we are getting close).
Now we are NOT to that level right now, but it looks more and more likely we will be sooner then most people think. If WWII had occurred in the mid 1930s instead of the 1940s, the Battleship would still have been the queen of the Fleet, do to the fact on how small and slow the biplanes of the time period were. Even during WWII, planes could NOT operate from carriers at night (I.e. they could take off pre-dawn, but without modern electronic NOT operable at night). Till the late 1950s the Battleships would have still be needed for such night time operations but by the late 1950s improved radar and electronics had permitted even night time operations so battleships were only kept after 1960s as shore bombardment vessels (What the Battleships did doing Vietnam) or as missile launchers (What the Iowa class battleships were re-built as under Reagan).
Thus from 1935 to 1960, just 25 years, Battleships went from the Queen of the Fleet to obsolete weapons. I foresee the same for the F-22, within 20 years becoming obsolete do to an inability to penetrate hostile air space do to the improvements in Anti-Aircraft defenses to a degree that they become useless and unlike the Battleship, whose armor protection and huge engines permitted them to be used as something they were NOT designed to do, I can NOT see the F-22s being redesigned as an Attack plane like the A-10. The Bombs it would need to carry would defeat the Stealth characteristics of the F-22, the engines will NOT provided it more power to carry more bombs, they will be functionally obsolete without any ability to be re-built into something that could be used.
I am sorry, the F-22 is superior to the F-15s, but by the time that Superiority is needed (i.e. in any future conflict with Russia, China, Japan or out NATO Allies) neither plane will have any useful military life in them. Right now, against who we may fight in the next 5-10 years, the F-15 is good enough and a better deal for the price given the above. We have to spend money to fight the wars we will fight, mostly inside urban ares as in Iraq, or in Rural Areas as in Afghanistan where the advantages of the F-22 over the F-15 does NOT compensate for its increase costs. We can NOT afford to waste money on a plane that provides us NO improvement in our fighting ability against our most likely enemies and in the areas where we will be fighting. Iran and Afghanistan will become the norm in future conflicts, full scale maneuver warfare, as planed for decades in Europe during the Cold war, will NOT occur in the next 20 years, why pay an expensive weapon for a war that will never occur? That is my chief objection to the F-22s, it is to expensive a weapon to buy just because someone wants it. The need for it has to be clear and at present that is NOT the case.
17. Pure bullshit....we DONT need more aircraft that kill people.
Most experts say (strawman apologies) that there is NO need for anymore more jets to carry bombs. Besides, we spend MORE than all the other countries of the world combined. Its time to stop the fucking madness.
And I absolutely HATE people who think like you do in your response. Yup, Hate.
29. someone who knows that we wouldn't dare nuke them in retaliation?
but i agree- we already have plenty of planes.(and bombs and missiles and tanks and warships and etc...) it's amazing to drive around the tuscon area, and see miles and miles of vietnam era fighters(or at least it was- i haven't been in awhile, so they may be chopping some of them up by now)
30. We have plenty of planes yes, but most of them are aging aircraft
that will need to be replaced by something much better performing. I dont know whats coming out for other aircraft types, but the f-22 and f-15's are air superiority aircraft not for attacking ground targets. The current flying f-15's are 30 to 40 year old airframes and as of lately their has been numerous structural problems with these planes due to age. With the F-22 now operational I say bring it on! The f-15 is due for a replacement and the Raptor is leaps and bounds superior in every way to the f-15.
Its pricey as hell but in a sense a smaller squadron of f-22's can do the job that a bigger squadron of f-15's can do.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.